Grizzly bears were listed in the of endangered species in 1975, because biologists were concerned that they were gradually approaching extinction. Ever since then, their count has increased from 200 to 600-1200 . This recovery of their numbers prompted the U.S Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) to take the decision of temporarily eliminating their name from the list. However, in 2009, a federal district court in Montana reversed the delisting, bringing the bears back to their protected status. The judge mentioned apprehensions that the USFWS had failed to consider the reduction in white bark pine nuts .
Despite the existence of ESA, only 27 species have been removed from the list of endangered species. Some delistings have been simply flaws in the original listings . In actuality, only 8 species may be regarded as recovered. Why is the validity of ESA challenged with law suits? The problem with ESA lies in the fact that it disregards the issue of scarcity of resources for protecting species. Two environmental agencies Center for food Safety and Center for Biological Diversity filed a lawsuit against USFWS under ESA in 2014, urging it to protect the monarch butterfly, following a nearly 80 % reduction in its population over the past two decades. This lawsuit compelled the ESA to finalize on a final date for announcing its final decision on the monarch butterfly’s protection .
The efforts of ESA in protecting endangered species have been diluted owing to the various lawsuits surrounding the decisions of listing and delisting of species as endangered . Rather than concentrating on recovery of endangered species, some groups take advantage of ESA as a way of enforcing legal actions against the government and impede job-generating activities. These long and expensive lawsuits challenge the functioning of ESA and redirect the time away from productive actions for recovery species. There is plenty of room for enhancements in the ESA, such that is no longer tormented through litigation and it can focus on its original objectives. This may include more effective supervision by Congress and actions to prevent loss of public resources and appropriate review of decisions, so that prompt actions are undertaken with lack of any delay, depending on relevant scientific literature. The public sector cannot handle the decisions made by ESA on land usage for its utilization for the endangered species. The major shortcoming of the ESA is that in lieu of focusing on protection and recovery of rare species, the Act has rendered these species as undesirable, encouraging their extermination. This is the major source of legal actions involved .
The ESA justifies it action of delisting the Yellowstone grizzly bears from the list of endangered species, stating that it has satisfied all the criteria established for the recovery plan . Considering that bears are omnivores and opportunistic animals and can eat variety of foods like horse feed, bird seed, orchards and other foods related to humans, it would make sense to humans to delist it. However, it has to be taken into consideration that Yellowstone grizzlies have been bereaved of their genetic variability by about 15-20 % in the last many years, which implies that this could cause inbreeding and exacerbate issues arising from their loss of habitat and food and increasing clashes with public. Hence, it would not be a good idea to delist grizzly bears from the list of endangered species under ESA.
Works Cited
Curry, T. Biologicaldiversity.org. 5 January 2016. 20 April 2016.
Natural Resources. n.d. http://naturalresources.house.gov/newsroom/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=271408. April 201419.
Stroup, R. Property and Environment Research Center (PERC). n.d. http://www.perc.org/articles/endangered-species-act-1. 20 April 2016.
yellowstonepark.com. 17 April 2008. http://www.yellowstonepark.com/grizzly-bears-endangered/. 20 April 2016.
