Endangered Species Act Pros And Cons
The Endangered Species Act: Facing Extinction It is found that “ninety-nine percent of currently threatened species are at risk from human activities, primarily those driving habitat loss, introduction of exotic species, and global warming” (“The Extinction Crisis”). The Endangered Species Act was put into place in 1973 as citizens of the United States began to realize the harsh effects of their everyday living on the living species around them. Plants and animals began to disappear, causing discord in the overall health of the surrounding environment. Members of Congress ascertained that as ecosystems unravel from the loss of these endangered species, not only are even more plants and animals put at risk, but humans as well. The controversy
…show more content…
This would make landowners more willing to protect the species on their land, thus making the act more effective. Due to the Endangered Species Act, private landowners face restrictions and struggle when it comes to carrying out their duty in protecting the many endangered species that live on private land, but they do not have the sufficient assistance to protect the species. For example, farmers with herds of sheep would not be able to kill the endangered wolves that hunt them, and would require financial assistance to replenish their herd and continue to make money. Another reason some politicians oppose the Endangered Species Act is because they believe it to be ineffective. Research shows that “the recovery status of sixty percent of listed species is either ‘uncertain’ or ‘declining,’ while thirty percent are classified as stable, six percent as improving and three percent as possibly extinct. The most damaging information discovered by the committee...was how a wealth of erroneous data reporting on some species has led to millions of wasted taxpayer dollars” (DeBose). In addition to this, “at least fifteen of the thirty-three species de-listed in the act’s history” were only removed because of an error in the
This would make landowners more willing to protect the species on their land, thus making the act more effective. Due to the Endangered Species Act, private landowners face restrictions and struggle when it comes to carrying out their duty in protecting the many endangered species that live on private land, but they do not have the sufficient assistance to protect the species. For example, farmers with herds of sheep would not be able to kill the endangered wolves that hunt them, and would require financial assistance to replenish their herd and continue to make money. Another reason some politicians oppose the Endangered Species Act is because they believe it to be ineffective. Research shows that “the recovery status of sixty percent of listed species is either ‘uncertain’ or ‘declining,’ while thirty percent are classified as stable, six percent as improving and three percent as possibly extinct. The most damaging information discovered by the committee...was how a wealth of erroneous data reporting on some species has led to millions of wasted taxpayer dollars” (DeBose). In addition to this, “at least fifteen of the thirty-three species de-listed in the act’s history” were only removed because of an error in the