Endangered Species Act: Animal Rights vs. Human Costs
This paper critically examines the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and argues that blanket animal rights protections can produce unintended consequences for human communities and competing species. Drawing on case studies including the Klamath Basin irrigation crisis, the recovery and expansion of western mountain lion (cougar) populations, and the conflict between protected cougars and endangered Sierra Nevada bighorn sheep, the paper demonstrates that wildlife protection policy often pits one protected interest against another. The author proposes developing a "means testing" framework to evaluate the economic and social impact of endangered species designations before implementation, suggesting that truly balanced wildlife policy must weigh human welfare and ecological complexity alongside conservation goals.
- Introduction to the ESA: ESA definitions, scope, and policy problems
- The Klamath Basin Crisis: Farmers lose irrigation water to protect fish
- The Cougar's Plight: Cougar habitat loss and human encroachment risks
- The Problem of Protection: Rising cougar attacks as populations recover
- Protected Species vs. Protected Species: Cougars threaten endangered Sierra bighorn sheep
- Conclusion and Research Proposal: Call for ESA reform and means testing framework
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- Uses concrete, real-world case studies — the Klamath Basin irrigation dispute, cougar population dynamics, and the Sierra bighorn conflict — to ground abstract policy arguments in tangible human and ecological consequences.
- Incorporates direct quotations from affected stakeholders (farmers, wildlife researchers, policy advocates) that add credibility and emotional weight to the argument.
- Acknowledges competing perspectives, including conservation groups and legislative opponents, giving the argument nuance rather than one-sidedness.
- Connects individual case studies to a broader policy thesis — the need for an economic and social "means testing" framework for ESA listings — creating a coherent argumentative arc.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper demonstrates effective use of the case study method to build a policy argument. Rather than relying solely on abstract claims, the author selects three distinct, well-documented cases — agricultural water rights, cougar-human encounters, and interspecies conflict — each of which illuminates a different dimension of the central problem. This layering of evidence allows the argument to accumulate persuasive force across sections before arriving at a concrete policy recommendation.
Structure breakdown
The paper opens with a legal and definitional overview of the ESA, then moves into the Klamath Basin case to establish the human cost of wildlife protection. The cougar sections shift focus to predator population dynamics and human safety risks, and the bighorn section introduces the further complication of protected species threatening other protected species. The conclusion synthesizes these threads into a call for legislative reform and a means testing research proposal, providing a practical endpoint for the argument.
Introduction to the ESA
According to Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law (1996), the Endangered Species Act (ESA) obligates the government to protect all animal and plant life threatened with extinction. Included in this category are endangered species, defined as any species "which is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range." Also protected are threatened species, defined as any species "which is likely to become endangered in the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range." The broad scope of this act is creating problems for those who are responsible for granting rights to animals. Unlike humans, who have been granted certain unalienable rights by their creator (U.S. Bill of Rights), animals receive the rights they enjoy from the highest species on earth: man.
By treating the subject of animal rights as a holy grail, activist groups are creating measurable harm for citizen groups and communities across the nation. Because the actions of the federal government are significantly impacting the lives and safety of other animals and humans alike, the subject of animal rights policy must be reexamined. The term "means testing," as well as the concept of "economic impact," has come to be applied to government actions that could significantly affect the rights and well-being of American citizens. As a measure of self-regulation, the government is increasingly requiring that new legislation be studied before implementation to ensure that the desired outcome will have no unforeseen consequences. As the "rights" of endangered animals begin to impede the activities and, in some cases, the economic well-being of U.S. citizens, this paper recommends studying the subject and determining a framework upon which a means testing structure could be assembled to measure the economic impact of proposed animal rights declarations.
Seldom does the government, or the activist groups behind government legislation, act purely on the basis of altruistic motives. For reasons that are sometimes easily discernible, and at other times obscured beneath momentary political crises, those who influence government legislative behavior often carry a political or cultural agenda of their own. Such is the case with the ESA. By protecting the "rights" of individual animals, entire communities are being negatively affected. In some cases, community development is put on hold at the risk of disrupting a community's economic stability due to the presence of an endangered species.
The Klamath Basin Crisis
A striking example occurred in Klamath Falls, Oregon, where farmers were prohibited from irrigating their fields because of the presence of a protected fish in the local water supply. The irrigation would not have consumed all the water, nor would the annual irrigation schedule have destroyed the fish's habitat. The ESA was invoked nonetheless under its second clause, which is sufficiently broad to include "threatened" species — those likely to become endangered in the foreseeable future.
"April 6, 2001 is a day which will live in infamy, a day when those in the Klamath basin project and their descendants were stripped of all irrigation water," said third-generation farmer Marshall Staunton. "They became part of history as the first Bureau [of Reclamation] irrigators to completely lose an entire irrigation water supply. How they lost the water our nation promised can be summed up in three letters: 'E.S.A.'" (Souza, 2001)
Many war veterans were originally invited to the Klamath Basin as homesteaders to raise families and farm, and their descendants remain on family property today. The Reclamation Act of 1902, which encouraged America's veterans to participate in a lottery drawing for land in the West, brought them to their own piece of the American dream. Lands and water were made available to homesteaders, who in turn financed the construction and operation of the water works. However, these landowners now hold the federal government in contempt for reneging on that agreement in 2001, when the U.S. Department of the Interior announced that Klamath Basin growers would receive no water that year due to drought conditions and the protection of endangered species. Federal officials chose to increase lake levels to benefit the endangered Lost River sucker and the threatened Coho salmon.
"Folks are starting to cry out. We are so angry and disgusted," Staunton said. "We are in complete despair and it is probable we are all going down. There are 1,400 martyrs here who are without water" as a result of the Coho salmon and a sucker fish's "rights." (Souza, 2001)
Those who live along the California-Oregon border fear that a lack of water will be devastating to agriculture, schools, supermarkets, hardware stores, and the entire community. "This is the first time in our nation's history that the Endangered Species Act has totally decimated thousands of jobs, businesses, and the heritage of such a widespread area. An expected economic loss of $300 to $400 million will make it almost impossible for this area to survive," Staunton said (Souza, 2001).
Bibliography
Bogo, J., and Motavalli, J. "The Last of Their Kind." E Magazine, Vol. 10, May 1999.
Crowder, Carla, and Vaughan, Kevin. "Hiker Attacked by Cougar Must Have Rabies Vaccine; Rangers Unable to Find Lion in Roxborough; Search Continues Today." Rocky Mountain News (Denver, CO), May 2, 1998.
Endangered Cats of North America: Cougars and Lynx Missing from Western Wilderness. National Wildlife Federation Species Gallery, 2003. Accessed February 26, 2004. Website:
"Endangered Species Act." Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law. Merriam-Webster, Incorporated, 1996.
Forstenzer, Martin. "Clawing Its Way to the Top." National Wildlife, February–March 2000.
Hansen, Kevin. "Return of the Cougar." American Forests, January 1, 1995.
Lyons, Stephen. "Living with Predators: Mountain Lions Are Thriving in the West, and That Means Close Encounters with Humans." Vol. 7, May–June 1996.
"Preserving Florida's Endangered Species." Natural History, Vol. 108, December 1999.
Rauber, Paul. "The Lion and the Lamb." Sierra, Vol. 86, March 2001.
Souza, C. "Klamath Basin Growers Fight for Irrigation Water." Farm Bureau Federation Ag Alert, April 18, 2001. California Farm Bureau Association. Accessed February 26, 2004. Website:
The Mountain Lion Foundation. (2002) mountainlion.org. Accessed February 26, 2004. Website:
Create your account
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.