Endangered Species Act

On December 28, 1973 President Nixon signed into law the Endangered Species Act which was designed to protect and recover vulnerable species and the ecosystems they depend upon for survival. It is administered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services and the Commerce Department’s National Marine Fisheries Service. Under this Act species can be listed several different ways: endangered meaning a species is in danger of extinction, threatened meaning a species is likely to become endangered in the future or as a candidate meaning the species is under consideration for listing. The main goal is to prevent extinction and there are many ways this is covered in the Act including designating a critical habitat, not allowing exports, creating a recovery

In 30 years there have been eight species removals, twenty-five species approaching recovery, and 40% of the listed species are stable; these are not numbers that can be ignored (Scully). Even at the 20 year anniversary there were many successes including, the American alligator and gray whale being taken off the list, and another 3 species have been reintroduced into the wild after only being bred in captivity (Bean). Matt Kettmann, professor of environmental history at University of California-Santa Barbara, makes the take home message of his interview that the Act has done a really good job at preventing extinctions and for species that took centuries to decline 40 years in not long enough to recover (Kettmann). With the will and desire America can become a world leader in biological diversity

The law has sadly encouraged landowners to get rid of endangered species or to destroy the habitat that might harbor them to avoid restrictions on the way they can use their land (Scully). In 1999 the Safe Harbor agreement came into effect stating that if landowners conduct survival activities for a specific period of time they will not face additional restrictions in the future (“Endangered Species”). A reform bill proposed by Representative Billy Tauzin (LA) required compensation when the value of the land was affected by the Act, even though the Constitution does not require compensation for action taken by the government that affects the value of land (Bean). Many landowners are more than willing to help with species recovery but there needs to be a way to create better arrangements so the landowners can enroll in the recovery programs (Kettmann). Without the help of landowners the government can only do so much by themselves, but no matter the answer there will always be criticism from both