by Valerie Wong (’24) | March 1, 2024
In 1973, President Richard Nixon signed what might be the most comprehensive piece of environmental legislation of the 20th century. The Endangered Species Act (ESA) revolutionized both environmental management and the United States’ approach to conservation. Now, fifty years later, it’s time to reflect on the past and evaluate new conservation threats as we move forward.
The ESA was born during an era of unprecedented environmental legislation, including the Clean Water Act, Clean Air Act, Wilderness Act, and National Wild Scenic Rivers Act. It aimed to both protect biodiversity and strengthen previous conservation laws. The proposed act had a revolutionary basis—the idea that species should be protected and conserved on moral grounds, regardless of the cost.
Ironically, before the 1960s, the role of the government was to control and kill rather than conserve wildlife under the premise that the death of predators like coyotes would protect people and property. But in 1964, the US Fish and Wildlife Service found that the cost of predator killings had actually exceeded the cost it would take to protect livestock otherwise. It was clear that practices had to change.
Threatened species are placed on the Endangered Species List, offering them specific protections and spurring recovery efforts. The ESA makes it illegal to harm, trap, capture, or kill threatened species. The act operates under an ideal financial model: species receive funding to recover their populations and are then delisted, making room for other species to receive the help they need.
In many ways, the ESA has been a resounding success. According to the U.S. Department of the Interior, 99% of species listed on the act have been saved from extinction. The whooping crane population has risen from 15 in 1941 to almost five hundred individuals today. The black-footed ferret, which was thought to be functionally extinct until 1981, now has a population of three hundred. The humpback whale, Mexican gray wolf, American alligator, and countless others have made astounding recoveries as well.
But half a century after its inception, the ESA still has numerous issues. Even though 99% of species have been saved from extinction, only 3% have actually recovered. Over 80% of species remain conservation-reliant—that is, they rely on human intervention to maintain their populations. This is largely because the threats to the species remain, no matter what efforts are made to restore species. With the exacerbation of climate change, these menaces will only continue to worsen.
Logistically, the ESA itself also has several flaws. First, while the ESA gives the government the power to restore habitats and prevent harmful practices like logging on public lands, their hands are essentially tied when it comes to private property. Second, rules set by the ESA are often circumvented or ignored. The northern spotted owl in the Pacific Northwest, for example, has had its habitat largely destroyed despite its status on the list, with loggers leaving only sparse patches of forest the owls are known to inhabit. Third, while animals are relatively well protected under the ESA, plants are not. A Kentucky glade cress habitat, for example, will be destroyed for a gas pipeline, despite its status on the list. Lastly, well-known species are far more likely to receive funding. Millions of dollars have been poured into efforts to save those like the bald eagle and California condor, while some species on the list receive less than $1000 per year, to the detriment of important ecosystems.
A further, more significant threat is the increasing opposition that the ESA has faced, largely over the last ten years. In 1973, the ESA received overwhelming bipartisan support with a 390-12 vote in the House and Senate. Now, Republicans are almost fully against further measures to support the ESA. Interestingly, right-wing voters still show overwhelming support for the ESA, but their legislators have acted otherwise.
The cause of this phenomenon is obvious if one follows the money. The ESA has been opposed at every step by logging, mining, oil, coal, and gas conglomerates. Although it has not been directly opposed in its premise, these groups prevent important conservation efforts from being implemented. In 2015, a northern long-eared bat habitat was permitted to be destroyed in favor of the fracking, mining, and forest industries. During the Trump administration, levels of protection were dropped for species classified as threatened. Opposition has led to the delay of funding and action for many species that urgently require protection, including the manatee, lesser prairie chicken, and monarch butterfly. The ESA only receives about 40% of the funds it needs to carry out its premise, which is only 3.5% of what is needed for the total recovery of species.
Perhaps this is unsurprising. After all, the act fundamentally pits the age-old idea of American private property rights against the conservation of species. The ESA has never experienced the same staggering support it received when it was enacted. Both political parties have since expressed a desire for deregulation instead of additional conservation efforts. However, the truth is that many species can’t afford this deliberation.
The world’s biodiversity crisis is only getting worse. Since 1970, plant and animal populations have declined by over 70%. Over a million species face extinction: 41% of ecosystems, 40% of animals, and 34% of plant species are currently at risk of collapse.
What can we do to alleviate this issue? It starts with legislation. We must elect public officials who share our goals of conserving important species. We must educate people on the importance of environmental stewardship and the protection of ecosystems. We need to curb the climate crisis to halt yet another imminent threat to plant and animal species. Success is possible, but only if we all pitch in. In the end, the ESA provides an important glimpse into what we can achieve if we prioritize the environment—and a dire warning of what can happen if we don’t.
