db Environmental Science
The Endangered Species Act (ESA) is thought to be a powerful legal tool to conserve biodiversity and recover endangered species from extinction. But, the law has several implementation flaws and seriously affects land management decisions (Rohlf, 1991). ESA mostly concentrates on protecting the individual species at risk rather than the whole biodiversity in the region. Further, the classification of endangered, threatened and recovered species is not very clear (Rohlf, 1991) i.e. sometimes a viable number of the organism might be recovered, but sufficient number of breeding pairs must be established to ensure complete recovery and delisting from ESA. Public participation is a key parameter in any species recovery plan. But, there are instances when the local community did not like the reintroduction of a native species in to its natural habitat. In case of Yellowstone National Park’s gray wolf reintroduction, soon after the wolf population attained a sufficient number, local people complained of loss of livestock and wanted the wolf to be removed (Larsen, 2011). Though the region was a natural home to gray wolves, the species had to be enlisted under ESA and delisted several times (Larsen, 2011).
Another case in which the species recovery plan was completely detrimental to the immediate area is that of red-cockaded woodpeckers in North Carolina. In the 1930’s several land areas in southeastern North Carolina were in a poor condition due to clear-cutting for timber harvest (Seasholes, 2007). But, after a few decades planting of native pine trees by landowners helped in reviving the area, and transforming it into a healthy forest (Seasholes, 2007). Occasional timber cutting helped landowners meet tax requirements and maintain the area. But, in 1991, once red-cockaded woodpeckers were sited in the area, the regulatory agencies prohibited any disturbing activity to the endangered species. This led to loss of revenue generated from timber, and also devaluation of the property (Seasholes, 2007). So, landowners resorted to more timber cutting in rest of the areas they held, and ensured woodpeckers did not inhabit their lands anymore (Seasholes, 2007). Landowners were not compensated for the loss of revenue. One of the recovery goals was to establish 700 breeding pairs of woodpeckers in Sandhills of North Carolina, but the landowner’s decision made this goal unattainable. Even, if woodpeckers were not listed under ESA, there could have been a better recovery of the species (Seasholes, 2007). In this case there was double damage to the endangered woodpecker species as well as the pine trees. Thus mismanaged species recovery programs could be detrimental to the immediate area.
References
Larsen, K. (2011). The Endangered Species Act and Its Impacts on Gray Wolf Recovery in Yellowstone National Park. UW-L Journal of Undergraduate Research, XIV, 1-12. Retrieved March 17, 2016, from https://www.uwlax.edu/urc/JUR-online/PDF/2011/larsen.katelyn.POL.pdf
Rohlf, D. J. (1991). Six Biological Reasons Why the Endangered Species Act Doesn't Work-And What to Do About It. Conservation Biology, 5(3), 273-282. Retrieved March 17, 2016, from http://ww2.coastal.edu/jjhutche/BIO484/pdfs/Rohlf 1991 Cons Bio 6 bio reasons why the ESA does not work and what to do about it.pdf
Seasholes, B. (2007, September). Bad for Species, Bad for People: What’s Wrong with the Retrieved March 17, 2016, from http://www.ncpa.org/pdfs/st303.pdf
