This paper examines the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, tracing its origins from the Endangered Species Preservation Act of 1966 and outlining the five criteria required for a species to receive federal protection. The paper reviews key legislative amendments, including the 1978 addition of cost considerations and executive-level changes under the Bush and Obama administrations. It also analyzes the economic debate surrounding the ESA, addressing the burden placed on private landowners, the difficulty of quantifying environmental benefits, and the broader societal question of how to weigh ecosystem health against immediate economic interests.
The Endangered Species Act (ESA), passed in 1973, was designed to help species in danger of becoming extinct as a result of "economic growth and development untempered by adequate concern and conservation" (ESA, 1973, Cornell). The Act protects only endangered and threatened species, not all wildlife. A species is considered endangered when it is "in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range," while "threatened" means "a species is likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future. All species of plants and animals, except pest insects, are eligible for listing as endangered or threatened" (ESA, 2013, FWS).
One or more of the following five criteria must be met for a species to receive protection under the ESA: the species faces present or threatened destruction of its habitat; there is overuse of its habitat or of the species for "commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes;" the species has declined due to disease or predation; existing regulations are inadequate to protect the species; and/or other natural factors affect its survival (ESA, 1973, Cornell).
The 1973 ESA is a reformation of the Endangered Species Preservation Act of 1966. It arose from the growing environmental and conservation movement of the era and has remained virtually unchanged since, with only very minor amendments (History, 2013, FWS). The most significant change regarding the law has been in relation to costs: "Originally the ESA wasn't supposed to consider financial concerns, something even the Supreme Court agreed," but the law changed in 1978 when Congress demanded to know the costs of protecting specific species (Vinzant, 2009).
Before leaving office, President George W. Bush issued an order stating that "federal officials didn't have to bother to consult with scientists when they decided whether logging or mining would impact a species on the brink of extinction," but this provision was quickly overturned by President Obama upon taking office (Vinzant, 2009).
By 1988, "Congress was requiring the Fish and Wildlife Service to complete recovery plans for each species, including recovery times and costs," although a 2006 study "found only 20 of 107 plans they looked at had cost estimates" (Vinzant, 2009). Costs are difficult to determine, given the long-term nature of recovery projections and the fact that it is very difficult to quantify the benefits to the environment and humanity of saving a particular animal or plant species. Some species, such as the bald eagle, carry additional emotional and symbolic importance, but that is a relatively rare case.
"The biggest costs, opponents argue, are really all the logging, mining and polluting we can't do because of the pesky ESA," and efforts to tighten restrictions on the ESA have been routinely opposed by a largely Republican faction of senators who argue that environmental mindfulness cannot be afforded during an economic recession (Vinzant, 2009).
"Market undervaluation and private land burden"
This dynamic underlines the need for environmental legislation rather than serving as an argument against the ESA's existence. The question of endangerment forces a deeper reconsideration of what "beneficial" means at a societal level: do we prioritize the health of the ecosystem as a whole, or merely the health and economic interests of our own species? The ESA, whatever its costs, represents a legislative commitment to the former.
Endangered Species Act (ESA). (1973). Cornell University Law School. Retrieved from
Endangered Species Act: Overview. (2013). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Retrieved from http://www.fws.gov/endangered/laws-policies/
History of the Endangered Species Act. (2013). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Retrieved from http://www.fws.gov/endangered/laws-policies/esa-history.html
Shogren, J. (1997). Economics and the Endangered Species Act. University of Michigan. Retrieved from
Vinzant, C. (2009). How much does the Endangered Species Act cost? Daily Finance. Retrieved from http://www.dailyfinance.com/2009/03/09/animals-and-money-how-much-does-the-endangered-species-act-cost/
You’re 82% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 1 section.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.