Jan. 05–After 40 years, the Endangered Species Act has evolved for good and bad, drawing criticism both from those who feel it has been an overbearing economic burden as well as from conservationists who feel it hasn’t been implemented effectively enough.
Most Montanans, we believe, are proud of having the largest population of grizzly bears in the lower 48 states. The charismatic great bear is part of our landscape, and that is still true largely because the ESA came along at a time when grizzly bears needed something to turn their future around.
They were in bad shape, with populations about a third the size of today’s numbers. There were severe sanitation problems, even in the places where they were supposedly the most protected — Yellowstone and Glacier national parks. Those conditions prevailed well beyond the parks, and grizzly bears that got into trouble were routinely killed.
Not so today. The listing of bears as threatened elevated their status, and it resulted in resources being dedicated toward research, management and recovery. Great strides have been made to reduce bear-human conflicts, and mainly for that reason, the U.S Fish and Wildlife Service now regards the Northern Continental Divide grizzly bear population as being on the road to recovery.
And that brings us to a big downside to the way the ESA actually plays out. The federal government will jump through all kinds of hoops to make delisting come about properly, but even then there is certain to be nuisance litigation aimed at blocking delisting.
That’s the way it worked with gray wolves. Recovery goals for wolves were met well over a decade ago, but there was a string of lawsuits attempting to keep them under the protection of the federal government.
Fortunately, wolf recovery was a success. We are well aware that wolves remain highly controversial and viewed with derision by many. But here in Montana, we needed wolf recovery to be a success. We needed the population to be delisted for management authority to be transferred from the feds to the state. We needed to empower ranchers with the ability to protect their own livestock if necessary. We needed to at least give Montana’s sizable population of hunters the ability to participate in wolf management through a legal hunting and trapping season.
And that’s what we got.
There was noble intent behind the ESA before it was enacted in 1973, but the most disturbing aspect of the law since then is the way it has been exploited by no shortage of environmental groups, far beyond the imagination of most Americans.
It has been used as a cudgel for perpetual litigation to protect the most obscure flora and fauna in the nation, with what appears to be little regard for costs vs. benefits.
Some listings have been incredibly costly, affecting some states more than others. California irrigators, for instance, must cope with the protection of the Delta smelt and other native aquatic species. Water diversions to farms have been reduced to protect the smelt, at great cost.
There is definitely room for improvement with the ESA, and any amendment that would compel the government to provide some justification for extreme economic hardships seems to be in order. A species should have some constituency among the public, rather than having just two or three crafty lawyers in a courtroom.
The United States has long operated as a cost-is-no-object nation, but that needs to change on many levels, including the way the Endangered Species Act is applied.
——
Editorials represent the majority opinion of the Daily Inter Lake’s editorial board.