Endangered Species Act (ESA)
This is an excerpt from the paper...
In December of 1973, the Endangered Species Act (ESA) was passed. The Act claims to provide a means to conserve endangered and threatened species and to provide a program for the conservation of such endangered species and threatened species. Appropriate steps toward these goals were provided for in the act as well (Ray 82). Although the act has generated little controversy throughout most of its history, the law is now at the center of one (Bean 22). A host of business, development, resource extraction, and ideological interests have targeted the law for radical change or extinction. Recently, the federal government implemented the National Biological Survey, a project that created still more controversy about the act among those who believe it would expand the reach of the Endangered Species Act even further (Interior 1475). Senator Mark Hatfield, one of the authors of the act, while still supporting its reauthorization, admits that there are problems with the act in the way the law is interpreted and administered. The Senator recently expressed concern that the act favors preservation over conservation, and that there was no question that the act is being applied in a manner far beyond what he and his colleagues envisioned when they wrote the act (Ray 82). The act, according to Hatfield, was intended to deal with the human side of environmentalism. Congress always considered the human element as central to the success of ESA and now the situation has gotten out of
. . .
rve to sour the public on the purposes and promise of the statute (Williamson 39). In addition, new investigations often establish the fact that endangered species may not be endangered or even threatened (Rice, 41-43).
The second problem with the act is that it does little to restore or protect habitat on which potential threatened and endangered species depend. Currently, the Endangered Species Act spends all of its funds on listing species, developing recovery plans, and dedicating critical habitat. It has no focus on preventing species from becoming threatened or endangered. It correlates with agencies focusing on game species and ignoring non-game species. For example, of the 668 domestic species listed as endangered or threatened, according to the Fish and Wildlife Service, 43 percent are dependent on wetlands for habitat. In addition, the Service estimates that the nation is losing about 300,000 acres of wetlands annually. That is about 35 acres per hour of endangered species habitat disappearing without a significant uproar from the Endangered Species Act (Williamson 39).
The act is also too encompassing to ever be implemented fully. There is no rationale for loading the endangered species program with insects an
. . .
Some common words found in the essay are:
Species Act, Act Environmentalists, Act Williamson, Act ESA, Mark Hatfield, Act Congress, Summit Rio, Wildlife Service, Los Angeles, Office Inspector, endangered species, species act, endangered species act, critical habitat, williamson 39, private property, threatened endangered, plant animal, threatened endangered species, recovery plans, national forest, fish wildlife, fish wildlife service, act ray 82, ray 82 act,
Approximate Word count = 2690
Approximate Pages = 11 (250 words per page)
More Essays on Endangered Species Act (ESA)
|
Customer Service
to Over
32,000 Professionally Written Papers!!!
