Crowdog
09-10-2001, 08:53 PM
Co-opting species law
Environmentalists bend Endangered Species Act to their no-growth agenda
ALLAN HARRIS
Mr. Harris, who lives in Las Flores, is a marketing manager at Beckman Coulter.
I am a self-confessed environmentalist wacko. So, I was elated to read that the Department of the Interior had struck a deal last week to protect 29 endangered species. But as I read on, I realized that we are no longer saving bison and bald eagles. I discovered two cases that point to the dangers of the current Endangered Species Act deployment by my fellow environmentalists. The cases of the Channel Island fox and the Mississippi gopher frog point to the misapplication of the Endangered Species Act as a means of land management and controlled growth, rather than as protection for unique wildlife habitat against man's encroachment.
The lone Southern California animal on the list is the Channel Island fox; it is described as needing protection because of a bout with distemper and predation by golden eagles. Now wait a minute, all ye Sierra Club faithful.
Isn't the purpose of this act to slow the rapid acceleration of extinction due to man's heavy-handed presence in the ecosystem? The Channel Islands, as a National Park and Biosphere Reserve, are free of strip malls and high-rise condos; aside from kayak tours and limited camping, a species' survival is pretty much in nature's hands.
The argument for federal intervention goes that golden eagles only entered the Channel Islands because bald eagles were nearly driven to extinction by DDT and we should protect the Channel Island fox from this human-introduced threat. But this argument did not blunt my growing suspicion.
The EPA banned DDT in 1972 and the bald eagle was declared an endangered species in 1973. By 1999, the bald eagle population had been restored to pre-DDT levels, so it seems odd that the decline in the Island fox population would have begun in 1995. Golden eagles may not be native to the Channel Islands, but the argument that this migratory bird having found a new hunting ground is man's doing seems suspicious.
Commenting on the value of the fox to the ecosystem, Kieran Suckling, executive director of the Center for Biological Diversity, said the island fox was the top predator on the islands, influencing the distribution of smaller mammals, the dispersion of seeds and, accordingly, the course of wildfires.
This may be, but if it is a land management issue, then we should be talking about the options for limiting the fire hazard, not rescuing an animal that with little help from man finds itself on the brink of extinction.
A similarly troubling case is that of the Mississippi gopher frog. This colorful little creature was once found throughout the South, but now numbers 50 and exists in only one pond, on U.S. forest lands. Placing the frog on the endangered species list is a means of blocking construction of a tract of homes, when the animal could clearly be protected without violating anyone's property rights.
How does this sound for creative public policy? After the Jackson Little League wraps up business on a Saturday in June, we gather up 30 eight-year-olds, drop them in the pond and offer a $2 bounty for every live gopher frog. Following collection of the heretofore endangered amphibians, we drop them off in some other pond in the great state of Mississippi.
I am all for protecting wildlife from the encroachment of humans (although I believe the humans are entitled to compensation for their diminished property rights). But this seems to be a misapplication of the endangered species act that is inconsistent with conservationist principles.
Both of these animals live exclusively on protected government lands. Such cases undermine the cause of wildlife deserving of habitat protection and bolster pro-development claims that the Endangered Species Act has become a cynical means of controlling growth.
-----------------------------------------
Crowdog
Environmentalists bend Endangered Species Act to their no-growth agenda
ALLAN HARRIS
Mr. Harris, who lives in Las Flores, is a marketing manager at Beckman Coulter.
I am a self-confessed environmentalist wacko. So, I was elated to read that the Department of the Interior had struck a deal last week to protect 29 endangered species. But as I read on, I realized that we are no longer saving bison and bald eagles. I discovered two cases that point to the dangers of the current Endangered Species Act deployment by my fellow environmentalists. The cases of the Channel Island fox and the Mississippi gopher frog point to the misapplication of the Endangered Species Act as a means of land management and controlled growth, rather than as protection for unique wildlife habitat against man's encroachment.
The lone Southern California animal on the list is the Channel Island fox; it is described as needing protection because of a bout with distemper and predation by golden eagles. Now wait a minute, all ye Sierra Club faithful.
Isn't the purpose of this act to slow the rapid acceleration of extinction due to man's heavy-handed presence in the ecosystem? The Channel Islands, as a National Park and Biosphere Reserve, are free of strip malls and high-rise condos; aside from kayak tours and limited camping, a species' survival is pretty much in nature's hands.
The argument for federal intervention goes that golden eagles only entered the Channel Islands because bald eagles were nearly driven to extinction by DDT and we should protect the Channel Island fox from this human-introduced threat. But this argument did not blunt my growing suspicion.
The EPA banned DDT in 1972 and the bald eagle was declared an endangered species in 1973. By 1999, the bald eagle population had been restored to pre-DDT levels, so it seems odd that the decline in the Island fox population would have begun in 1995. Golden eagles may not be native to the Channel Islands, but the argument that this migratory bird having found a new hunting ground is man's doing seems suspicious.
Commenting on the value of the fox to the ecosystem, Kieran Suckling, executive director of the Center for Biological Diversity, said the island fox was the top predator on the islands, influencing the distribution of smaller mammals, the dispersion of seeds and, accordingly, the course of wildfires.
This may be, but if it is a land management issue, then we should be talking about the options for limiting the fire hazard, not rescuing an animal that with little help from man finds itself on the brink of extinction.
A similarly troubling case is that of the Mississippi gopher frog. This colorful little creature was once found throughout the South, but now numbers 50 and exists in only one pond, on U.S. forest lands. Placing the frog on the endangered species list is a means of blocking construction of a tract of homes, when the animal could clearly be protected without violating anyone's property rights.
How does this sound for creative public policy? After the Jackson Little League wraps up business on a Saturday in June, we gather up 30 eight-year-olds, drop them in the pond and offer a $2 bounty for every live gopher frog. Following collection of the heretofore endangered amphibians, we drop them off in some other pond in the great state of Mississippi.
I am all for protecting wildlife from the encroachment of humans (although I believe the humans are entitled to compensation for their diminished property rights). But this seems to be a misapplication of the endangered species act that is inconsistent with conservationist principles.
Both of these animals live exclusively on protected government lands. Such cases undermine the cause of wildlife deserving of habitat protection and bolster pro-development claims that the Endangered Species Act has become a cynical means of controlling growth.
-----------------------------------------
Crowdog