In 1973, the American bald eagle population had drastically declined.
Populations of American alligators, humpback whales and other landmark species
were also diminishing, and America needed to act. In response, Congress passed
the Endangered Species Act of 1973.
The law was supposed to protect imperiled species on the brink of extinction.
However, more than three decades later, the Endangered Species Act has failed
to live up to its noble expectations. Today, nearly 1,300 species have been
afforded the law's protections, yet, just 10 species have been taken off the
list due to recovery.
The truth be known, not one single species has actually recovered as a result
of the Endangered Species Act alone. The bottom line: After 30 years, the
Endangered Species Act has a less than 1 percent rate of success.
Sadly, that is the history of the Endangered Species Act. Born of the best
intentions, it has failed to live up to its promise, and species are more
threatened today because of its serious limitations. Thirty years of the same
practices has failed and despite the evidence, some maintain that we should
not consider changes to the law -- changes that would ultimately encourage
species recovery.
The lynchpin of the Endangered Species Act, the process of listing species and
designating critical habitat under the law is ambiguous, open to arbitrary
personal judgment, and does not rely on sound science or peer-reviewed
research. These are the key elements within the act responsible for
identifying species on the brink of extinction and subsequently recovering
them.
Even outspoken environmentalist Rep. George Miller, DCalif., has said:
"There is a recognition that the current criticalhabitat arrangement
doesn't work, for a whole host of reasons. . . . There are some in the
environmental community who think the answer is just no to any change, and I
think that's a problem."
Yet, inaccurate data and flawed science has led to the listing of numerous
species with healthy populations. And critical-habitat designations often
include arbitrarily drawn boundaries on a federal map that often fails to
include truly "critical" habitat to the species.
Furthermore, according to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, approximately 77
percent of listed species have failed to achieve more than a quarter of their
recovery goals. In Florida, 53 percent of our endangered and threatened
species are of "unknown" or "declining" status. Plainly
put, we're failing to recover species.
It is also clear that federal funds could be put to better use than
designating critical-habitat area. Jamie Rappaport Clark, Fish and Wildlife
Service Director under President Clinton, testified that, "In 25 years of
implementing the Endangered Species Act, we have found that designation of
official critical habitat provides little additional protection to most listed
species, while it consumes significant amounts of scarce conservation
resources."
The "hands-off" approach under the current law to recovering species
fails to recognize the amazing strides in technology, biology and medicine
that have marked that last 30 years. If when diagnosed with an ailment the
doctor told you they had prescribed the recommended treatment for 1,300
patients over the past 30 years and none of them had recovered, other, more
proven treatment options would be sought.
With my support, the House of Representatives passed a bill that would
reauthorize the Endangered Species Act for the first time in over 10 years.
The bill will refocus the Endangered Species Act on actually recovering
species. As Floridians, we can and must do better for our species.
Critics and supporters alike both agree important changes can be made.
Property owners, states and local governments, for instance, need to play
more-active roles. Incentives for them to be involved in the process of
recovering species will pay long term dividends for imperiled species.
Nearly 90 percent of listed species occur on private land across the country.
Making property owners active participants in the process is long overdue.
Forward thinking proposals are necessary to encourage property owners to
partner in actually recovering species.
It's concepts such as these that will strengthen the Endangered Species Act.
By focusing on changes rooted in science, common-sense, technology and
innovation, Congress can help recover species on the brink of extinction. Its
time to take a hard look at the Endangered Species Act, its intentions and the
facts, and make common sense changes for the better.
Rep. Ginny Brown-Waite, R-Brooksville, represents Florida's 5th
Congressional District.