Land-use restrictions on behalf of the California gnatcather will cost the California economy more than $900 million by 2025, even though the bird is not the threatened subspecies once thought.
The Endangered Species Act (ESA, 1973) was promulgated on the assumption that many and various species of plants and animals in the world are going extinct, and the Federal Government had to step in to do something about it. Many dire reports warned of mass extinctions, a loss of ‘bio-diversity,’ and the pending collapse of ecosystems world-wide. Although a lot of noise was, and still is, made about mass extinctions, the data suggest otherwise. (1)
M. David Stirling observes, “From Congress’ enactment, President Nixon’s execution and the Supreme Court’s lofty interpretation that nothing shall interfere with preserving even the most obscure species, i.e., ‘whatever the costs,’ the ESA has been interpreted by the courts, implemented and enforced by the federal government, and championed by the exclusionist community as indifferent end even hostile to human needs, human rights and human dignity,. In weighing the value, practicality and cost of preserving hundreds of plant and wildlife species and their habitat against the value of people—needs such as jobs, homes, transportation—even the national defense—the ESA bias automatically tilts against the interest of people. The use of land lies at the heart of the conflict.” (2)
One recent example: Twenty years ago, biologist Jonathan L. Atwood authored a study declaring the California gnatcatcher a distinct subspecies. Based on Atwood’s conclusion, the US Fish and Wildtlife Service in 1993 listed the small blue-gray songbird as ‘threatened,’ restricting land use on nearly 200,000 acres across six Southern California counties, much of it privately owned. In 2000, Atwood co-authored a follow-up study, published in the scientific journal Conservation Biology. He concluded that his previous findings were wrong. “California gnatcathers are not genetically distinct from populations in Baja California, which are dense and continuously distributed throughout the Mexican peninsula,” the study said. (3)
Yet, in November 2011, responding to a petition that the California gnatcatcher be delisted as ‘threatened,’ the Fish and Wildlife Service ruled that there is an inadequate scientific basis to remove the bird from the special protection it now enjoys under the federal Endangered Species Act. The federal agency’s decision is confusing to the Pacific Legal Foundation, which filed a petition on behalf of private landowners whose property was declared protected habitat for the gnatcatcher. Reed Hopper, a principal attorney with the foundation, noted that the Fish and Wildlife Service invoked Atwood’s original study in defending its decision to delist the gnatcatcher, while completely ignoring his later genetic study (plus other subsequent studies agreeing that the California gnatcatcher is not a valid subspecies), reports Joseph Perkins. How costly? The Fish and Wildlife Service has estimated that the land use restrictions it has imposed on behalf of the gnatcatcher will cost the California economy more than $900 million by 2025. Many Californians might consider that an acceptable cost to bear to save a species from extinction. But hardly anyone could possibly find that a reasonable sum to pay to protect a bird that is not the threatened subspecies once thought. (3)
In another quirk, Washington’s financial leveraging power can be found in the Endangered Species Act. As mentioned above, the act can have an enormous economic effect on property owners and developers. Scholars at Auburn University found that the implementation of the ESA has been highly political. Politics determines which species gets listed as threatened or endangered and how quickly (or slowly) a certain species gets recognized and protected. The researchers found that states with house members on the budget oversight subcommittee responsible for funding the Fish and Wildlife Service and the EPA has significantly fewer listing than other states. As the researchers put it, “Congressional representatives who sit on the interior subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee use their position to shield their constituents, at least partially, from the adverse consequences of ESA. (4)
So, exactly what biological benefits have the American people received for the billions of dollars spent or incurred as a result of the ESA? M. David Stirling reports, “Of the 1,355 plants and wildlife species listed as endangered or threatened, only five—that is 37/100ths of one percent—have been ‘recovered,’ more or less, as a result of the operation of the ESA. Even if the Fish and Wildlife Service’s more generous number of 21 recovered species was accepted without question, that still would be only a 1.5 percent recovery rate over 35 years. (5)
References
Jack Dini is author of Challenging Environmental Mythology. He has also written for American Council on Science and Health, Environment & Climate News, and Hawaii Reporter.
