Pros And Cons Of The Endangered Species Act

Many plants and animals have been dwindling in number for quite some time. According to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, some 1,135 plants and animals are on the brink of extinction. It is important to make sure that no species die out so as to not upset the environmental balance. When we protect all species, we are protecting the entire habitat. Therefore, we are maintaining the safety of our own environment as humans. To help protect threatened species, then-president, Richard Nixon, signed into law the Endangered Species Act in 1973. Yet after 34 years, some still argue that this Act has been a failure. So the question is, "Did the Endangered Species Act have more negative effects than beneficial ones to our environment, or isit still making progress?" The Endangered Species Act sought to make illegal the extinction of any species. The law protects the habitat of listed species, funded state endangered species work, and created a system that assessed the damage that proposed projects might do to the listed species. Right now the law protects 1,200 U.S. plant and animal
species and approximately 550 foreign species, some of which provide us with valuable assets. And to top itoff, the Endangered Species Act has already scored major species recoveries. Some 56 species have already been taken off the list as being recovered and no longer threatened. Some of which include the Bald Eagle and the Florida Panther. The law is obviously making progress and doing its intended job. On the other hand, some say that the Act has been nothing but a nuisance and a failure.
It has taken over 30 years just to remove a fraction of species off the endangered last. Some would say this is not progress but have to realize that a species will not re-stabilize overnight. Some would also argue that more than half of the listed species are trivial and could not even be considered valid species, such as unknown weeds and tiny fish. People would rather believe that the ban of the harmful pesticide, DDT, was the sole factor Bald eagle numbers began to increase. They also claim that the ESA does not help endangered species but harms them. The ESA restricts land owners from logging and farming in an area where an endangered species might reside. Furious land owners might be tempted to eliminate the animal themselves before any one could spot and report the protected
animal. Overall, I find this argument to be rubbish. The Endangered Species Act itself does not influence people kill the protected animal. It is corrupt people who commit inhumane and selfish acts such as that. The ESA has undoubtedly saved many important species by prohibiting hunting and protecting their environment. Industrialization isnot anywhere near as important as protecting our environment as far as society's best interest goes. The Endangered Species Act has been beneficial and I hope for its continued progress and improvement.

Silvestro, Robert D. "The Endangered Species Act is Effective." www.infotrac.com Jacoby, Jeff "The Endangered Species Act is a Failure."
www.infotrac.com