Endangered Species Act Pros And Cons

In my opinion passing the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA) was necessary to protect the extinction of wildlife. Scientists have proven that one extinction can cause a disruption in the food chain, which has a domino effect on other extinctions. These extinctions can cause harm to humans. In all the environment is related to humans, if we like it or not. My belief is that implementation this act has not only helped with the preservation of wildlife and ecosystems, but also has benefits on humans. I believe the government was correct to enact ESA. The Endangered Species Preservation Act, just didn’t cut it. The Preservation Act only listed protection for endangered domestic species, not extending the protection to foreign wildlife. The weak Preservation Act is what motivated the enabling of the Endangered Species Act of 1973. The Preservation Act did not exemplify success, species were not being recovered. This
The Endangered Species Act affects the local level of federalism and the local levels relationship with the federal government. The private property landowners have little to no incentive on complying with the Endangered Species Act. If an endangered wildlife is found on a citizen’s private property, the government implements many regulations favoring the protection the wildlife. The government enforces the land restrictions, disregarding the effect on the citizen. The government enforce restrictions without compensation. As a result, property owners don’t comply with ESA. The owners typically kill the wildlife before anyone else finds out about it. The citizens actions is the complete opposite of what the Endangered Species Act is trying to protect. This government command with no government compensation creates tension in the federalism system. The non-compliance from the people puts extra stress on the relationship with the federal