Recent wildlife news includes a number of federal moves toward de-listing wild animals from the Endangered Species list.  This appears to be happening as soon as species counts reach the minimum recommended numbers for stable ecosystems.  Taking a close look at what protected status entails may clarify the issues and concerns about de-listing.

The Endangered Species Act (ESA) is the strongest federal law in the US for wildlife.  The ESA was enacted to assist in species’ survival and assist in achieving conserving natural diversity of plants and animals.  Multiple factors influence criteria for inclusion, and candidates for the endangered or threatened species list are identified and assessed on an ongoing basis with a goal of preventing extinction and promoting balanced ecosystems.  Biological assessments may determine species qualify as endangered or threatened based on any of the following factors:

• destruction, modification, reduction, or threat to a species’  habitat or range
• over-use in commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes
• threats by disease or predation
• inadequacy of existing regulations
• other factors impacting long term survival rates

Protected status, once granted, imposes restrictions on a number of activities, including restrictions on taking, transporting, or selling a species.  “The term ‘take’ is used in the Endangered Species Act to include, ‘harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct. The law also protects against interfering in vital breeding and behavioral activities or degrading critical habitat” (NWF, 2016).

In spring 2016, when the US Fish & Wildlife proposed de-listing grizzly bears from the protections of the Endangered Species Act in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem they were met with significant public protest.  Despite meeting the numbers requirement, the outcry was likely related to the recent illegal shooting of a protected (and beloved) bear known as Scarface.

Because so many ecosystems are so fragile, some de-listing critics may question how a single target number equates to “species recovery” and how vulnerable these species may remain while so close to minimum recommendations.  Other de-listing critics may question the methods of population management that follow protected status.  For species like bears and wolves, who once faced massive public fear and hostility there are added concerns. Such species often continue to be at the forefront of human-wildlife conflicts which require thoughtful attention and responsible responses to prevent harm.  Proponents for de-listing point to the basic intent of the ESA, which is recovery, not permanent protection.

“When a man wants to murder a tiger he calls it sport; when a tiger wants to murder him he calls it ferocity” ~George Bernard Shaw

Like the quote above reveals, perspectives matter.  The disparate reactions to the de-listing debate may reveal something, on a deeper level, about the range of values at work between the hopes and practical operations of the ESA.  To some, perhaps the ESA reflects an ideal that safeguards wildlife and habitats.  These folks may favor conservation attitudes with an understanding that the natural world and its residents have inherent or intrinsic value. Though management policies and procedural issues require measurable items, the intrinsic value considerations may have implications beyond the current scope of the ESA.

Even if you believe species protections may require strengthening and expansion, the ESA itself is now at risk.  Attacked from multiple corners, 2015 witnessed more than 50 anti-ESA proposals, some species specific, some targeting the ESA itself.  Though US citizens overwhelmingly support the ESA, it remains as hunted as many of the species it was established to protect.  Despite numerous successes, there are always more species at risk, making the ESA more important than ever.

When you speak up for endangered wildlife, include a statement voicing your support for a strong ESA!