Endangered Species Act heading for endangered list?

Least Bell's vireo. Quino checkerspot butterfly. Southwestern arroyo toad. San Bernardino flying squirrel. Ashy grey Indian paintbrush. These are just a few of the thousands of unique and beautiful animals and plants found only in Southern California and nowhere else on earth. These species thrive in the diverse habitats in our region, ranging from streamside woodlands and sandy river terraces to coastal sage scrub to pine forests and pebble plains. Unfortunately, human-caused changes to these habitats, such as urban sprawl, water diversions, and pollution, are endangering the survival of these unique species that share the earth with us. And their decline is a warning to us that we are damaging the very environment that supports us, too.

In the Endangered Species Act, created in 1973, we have a powerful recourse to address this problem. However, some members of Congress, led by Republican representative Richard Pombo, are opposed to environmental protections in general, and have made the Endangered Species Act their number one target of attack.

The ESA is widely regarded as the most comprehensive legislation ever created for the protection of species. The purpose of the Act is to provide 'a means whereby the ecosystems upon which endangered species and threatened species depend may be conserved,' and it does so by creating a list of imperiled species, protecting them from direct harm, and safeguarding habitat critical to their survival and recovery.

How does the Act work? Developers may be asked to avoid killing an endangered species by setting aside some protected land during the design of their projects. Managers may be required to keep a minimum level of water in rivers to benefit endangered fish and amphibians. Timber harvesters may need to leave standing some of the trees needed for endangered owls. These efforts to help our native species to survive ensure open space, flowing rivers, and healthy environments for people, too, and have positive economic impacts.

Pombo and his ilk repeatedly assert that the act is 'broken,' yet provide little substantiation for these claims other than to say that few species have been removed from the endangered list. However, removal from the list is not a good measure of the act's effectiveness-that would be like walking into an emergency room and saying, 'Look, everyone is sick, this hospital must be a failure.' A better measure is the extent to which the act has prevented extinction and is moving species toward recovery.

The Center for Biological Diversity conducted studies to analyze how well the act has saved species from extinction and how protecting their habitat has helped them begin to recover. These studies concluded:

• Listing species under the ESA helps prevent extinction. Species that were never listed and those whose listing was delayed were over 3,200 times more likely to become extinct than protected species.
• Species with designated critical habitat are twice as likely to be recovering as those without.
• Species with dedicated recovery plans in effect for two or more years show greater rates of survival and recovery.
• Citizen involvement helped increase the rate of species listings. Of the 1,225 species listed between 1973 and 2002, 72 percent were listed following citizen petitions and/or lawsuits.
• The listing and critical habitat budget needs to be substantially increased in order to adequately prevent species from becoming extinct.

Despite (or perhaps because of) the act's effectiveness, some politicians have been pushing to eviscerate the law. Unfortunately, they are resorting to lies and distortions to bolster their efforts, like claiming it does not work or is hurting the economy. The act has put hundreds of species on the road to recovery, all without stopping development projects or damaging the economy in any way.

Unfortunately, the outlook for species and the environment under the current administration is particularly bleak. The Bush administration is the first in history to refuse to list species unless mandated by court order, and has listed fewer species than any previous administration (including George H. W. Bush and Ronald Reagan).

Congressman Pombo and other outspoken opponents of the act are seeking to team up with Democrats, including California senator Diane Feinstein, to drastically weaken the law. Bills have already been introduced to undermine critical habitat protection and to make it more difficult to list species. This fall, a comprehensive bill to dismantle the act is expected.

Americans understand that the extinction crisis is symptomatic of declining air and water quality and dwindling natural areas. The rising numbers of endangered species are clearly canaries in the coal mine for the health of humans. Our children, too, should not be deprived of the opportunity to discover southwestern willow flycatchers, mountain yellow-legged frogs, and steelhead trout.

It is up to us to let our elected officials know that we want the Endangered Species Act strengthened, not weakened. Senator Feinstein and Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger especially need to hear this message. The act is the best tool in our toolbox to stem the tide of extinction, protect environmental health and open space, and allow our children to experience the same wonders of nature that we do today.

Monica Bond, M.S., is a wildlife biologist with the Center for Biological Diversity. She can be reached at mbond-at-biologicaldiversity.org.

Take Action
Write a letter to Sen. Diane Feinstein, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, and your U.S. representative asking them to fully fund a strong ESA and reject so-called reforms being pushed by Rep. Pombo and Sen. Mike Crapo.