Page 1

The Protection of Endangered Species: A Working Effort or a Failed Attempt Leslie Thissen Summer 09 Randall Livingstone/11 a.m.


Table of Contents Preface

2

Annotation List

4

Annotations

6

Outline

79

Essay

84

Works Cited

105


Initial Question: Should the federal government rewrite new laws governing when animals can be taken off the endangered species list in order to prevent certain species of animals from becoming endangered again and possibly extinct? Final Question: Should the United States Fish and Wildlife Service propose a new amendment to the Endangered Species Act of 1973 governing when animals can be taken off the endangered species list in order to prevent certain species of animals from becoming endangered again and possibly extinct? I have to admit, this isn’t my first time taking the class. The first time taking the class I didn’t realize just how in over my head I was. But the experience from taking it before gave me, not only more motivation to not be a procrastinator and to actually finish this time, helped with the researching that went behind my question. I found it very easy to find information and annotate correctly sources that I could use within the project. I also found to be less hesitant this time around when trying to get interview sources and talking to people. One of the lows of the paper was the painful time of trying to find institutional sources. For some reason I had a really hard time with those. However a high from the project was I found the book sources and academic sources fairly easy. Originally my question started off basic. I had an inkling to what I should be researching but I wasn’t quite sure. At first my question was based off initial research, where I found out that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service would be the proper government entity in charge of proposing such a policy question. Overall my question never really changed drastically. Instead it just kept adding more information to it to clarify the issue that I wanted to address. At first I was just going to focus on the gray wolf debate but found that to be too specific to cover a full 20 page essay or obtain the 32 sources needed to do so. So I expanded on the issue deciding to cover the


Endangered Species Act which I found was the main law that conservation efforts were focused on. From there my question developed. Looking back to this time last year, when I first took the class, I must say I am way ahead of myself then last time. What really helped me was the fact that I kept several lists of how many annotations I should do a week to planning right off the bat what subissues I need to address and how to search for information regarding them rather than just one main issue. I really appreciated that this time around I was told to think about my subissues almost from the beginning of the eight week journey. This helped me greatly in finding all my annotations. Yet the biggest strategy for being able to finish on time was the fact that I didn’t let my annotations get the best of me. I cannot stress enough, do not let the annotations fall behind. I planned right from the get go to finish all the annotations from the sources used in the project as soon as I decided I was going to use a specific source. This way when week 7 rolled around, I had all parts except for up to two on each annotation completely done. To the future students of this class it is sad to see this class go. I really do feel accomplished for getting this project done and the satisfaction of being done with what I consider to be an undergraduate thesis paper feels amazing. Plus I’ll be able to showcase this in my portfolio to future employees. The best advice I can give you besides to keeping on top of the annotations is make sure you check the source thoroughly and don’t get caught up procrastinating; this being said from a procrastinator. Make sure the source you are checking is a valid one and if need be don’t hesitate to scrap annotations that don’t live up to expectations.


Annotation List Journalistic Sources [1] Robbins, Jim. “For Wolves, a Recovery May Not Be the Blessing It Seems.” New York Times. 6 February. 2007 [www.nytimes.com, accessed 29 June. 2009]. [2] Vedantam, Shankar. “U.S. May Expand Access to Endangered Species.” Washington Post. 11 October. 2003 [www.washingtonpost.com, accessed 26 June. 2009]. [3] Revkin, Andrew C. “U.S. Curbs Use of Species Act in Protecting Polar Bear.” New York Times. 8 May. 2009 [www.nytimes.com, accessed 13 Jul. 2009]. [4] Quinn, Steve. “Oil Cos. Expect Battles Over Polar Bear Listing.” USA Today 15 May. 2008 [www.usatoday.com, accessed 26 July. 2009]. [5] Washington/Politics. “House Set to Act on Overhaul of Endangered Species Act.” USA Today. 29 September. 2005 [www.usatoday.com/news, accessed 26 July. 2009]. [6] Gunderson, Dan. “Farmers Say Relisting Wolves Means Losses.” Minnesota Public Radio News. 6 November. 2008 [www. minnesota.publicradio.org, accessed 13 Jul. 2009]. [7] “It’s Up to U.S. Senate to Protect Species.” RedOrbit. 11 October. 2005 [www.redorbit.com/news/science, accessed 26 July. 2009]. [8] Cappiello, Dina. “Bush to Relax Endangered Species Regulations Before Obama Can Reverse them.” Huffington Post. 19 November. 2008 [www.huffingtonpost.com, accessed 5 August. 2009]. Academic Sources [9] Bergman, Charles. “In the absence of animals: power and impotence in our dealings with endangered animals.” Attitudes to Animals: Views in Animal Welfare. Ed. Dolins, Francine L. New York: Cambridge University Press. (1999): 244-257. [10] Cash, David W. “Beyond Cute and Fuzzy: Science and Politics in the U.S. Endangered Species Act.” Protecting Endangered Species in the United States: Biological Needs, Political Realities, Economic Choices. Ed. Shogren, Jason F., Tschirhart, John. New York: Cambridge University Press. (2001): 106-137.

[11] Shogren, Jason F, Tschirhart, John, et al. “Why economics matters for endangered species protection.” Conservation Biology. 13, 6. 17 Aug. 1998. [www3.interscience.wiley.com, accessed 11 Jul. 2009].


[12] Rohlf, Daniel J. “Six Biological Reasons Why the Endangered Species Act Doesn’t Work--And What to Do About It.” Conservation Biology. 5.3. (1991) [www.jstor.org/stable/pdfplus/2385897.pdf, accessed 15 Jul. 2009]. Books [13] Moulton, Michael P., Sanderson, James. Wildlife Issues in a Changing World. New York: Lewis Publishers, 2000. [14] Barker, Rocky. Saving All the Parts: Reconciling Economics and the Endangered Species Act. Washington, D.C.: Island Press, 1993. Government Sources [15] “Great Cats and Rare Canids Act of 2009.” (H.R.411, 9 Jan. 2009). Library of Congress THOMAS (2009): [www.thomas.loc.gov, accessed 30 June. 2009]. [16] “Endangered Species Act of 1973.” (PL 93-205, 28 Dec. 1973). 87 Stat 884 (1973): [www.epw.senate.gov/esa73.pdf, accessed 30 June. 2009]. [17] Policy Position. “NR-12. Endangered Species Act.” National Governors Association 28 Feb. 2008 [www.nga.org/portal/site/nga, accessed 19 July. 2009]. [18] Wolfe, Shane. “Secretary Kempthorne Announces Decision to Protect Polar Bears under Endangered Species Act.” U.S. Department of the Interior 14 May. 2008 [www.doi.gov/news, accessed 25 July. 2009]. [19] Smullen, Scott, Vickery, Hugh. “Salazar and Locke Restore Scientific Consultations under the Endangered Species Act to Protect Species and their Habitats.” U.S. Department of the Interior. 28 April. 2008 [www.fws.gov, accessed 26 July. 2009]. Institutional Sources [20] “Proposal Will Enhance Profitability, Not Survival, of Endangered Species.” The Humane Society of the United States 3 Oct. 2003. [www.hsus.org/wildlife, accessed 14 July. 2009]. [21] Isaac, Joanne L. “Effects of Climate Change on Life History: Implications For Extinction Risk in Mammals.” Endangered Species Research 22 May, 2008. [www.int-res.com/articles, accessed 15 July. 2009]. [22] Hoffman, M, et al. “Conservation Planning and the IUCN Red List.” Endangered Species Research 7 May 2008. [www.int-res.com/articles, accessed 15 July. 2009]. [23] “Bush Administration Moves to Gut Endangered Species Act.” Earthjustice 27 March.


2007. [www.earthjustice.org/news/press, accessed 3 August. 2009]. [24] Reauthorization and Amendment of the Endangered Species Act. “Protecting Endangered Species Habitat on Private Land: A Position Statement of the Society of American Foresters.” Society of American Foresters 8 March 2008. [www.eforester.org/fp/documents/habitat_final.pdf, accessed 23 July. 2009]. [25] Greenwald, Noah. “Politicizing Extinction: The Bush Administration’s Dangerous Approach to Endangered Wildlife.” A Center for Biological Diversity 2007. [www.biologicaldiversity.org accessed 23 July. 2009]. [26] Newsletter. “Endangered Earth.” A Center for Biological Diversity 2009. [www.biologicaldiversity.org/publications accessed 23 July. 2009]. Interviews [27] Osterman, Cindy. Phone Interview. 14 July 2009. [28] Daugherty, Jean. In-Person Interview. 29 July 2009. [29] Gervais, Jennifer. Phone Interview. 5 August 2009. Other Sources [30] “Killing of Wildlife, Pets Brings Call for Poison Ban.” Narr. Jeff Brady. All Things Considered. Natl. Public Radio. Radio. 7 Apr. 2007. [31] “Letter to Rep. Richard Pombo Re: ESA Reauthorization.” Gun Owners of America. Online. 16 Jun. 2005 [www.gunowners.org, accessed 25 July. 2009]. [32] “Are current conservation efforts enough to save many animals from going extinct?.” Weblog entry. Endangered Animals Articles. June 2009. [www.endangeredanimalsarticles.blogspot.com, accessed 26 July. 2009].


[1] Journalistic Source: Mainstream Robbins, Jim. “For Wolves, a Recovery May Not Be the Blessing It Seems.” New York Times. 6 February. 2007 [www.nytimes.com, accessed 29 June. 2009] Part 1: Source Analysis The New York Times is published by the New York Times Company, which also owns the International Herald Tribune, the Boston Globe, 16 other daily newspapers, WQXR-FM and more than 50 other websites, including About.com (www.nytco.com). The total circulation of the paper is roughly 1,039,031 readers on an average weekday (www.nytimes.whsites.net). The New York Times was founded in 1851 (www.questia.com). Jim Robbins is a freelance science writer for The New York Times. His work has been feature in the Smithsonian and Discover (www.dana.org). He has written several books, the current one being “The Open Focus Brain: Harnessing the Power of Attention to Heal Mind and Body” (www.huffingtonpost.com). Part 2: Main Assertions Robbins reports on the current situation of the grey wolf. The main assertion is because the grey wolf is making a remarkable comeback and is currently causing problems for many people, the Fish and Wildlife Service has proposed taking the wolf off the endangered species list in Idaho and Montana. However, wolves in other states such as Wyoming will still have federal protection under the Endangered Species Act. Wolves are thriving and now are becoming a problem, the overpopulation is rapidly declining elk numbers and killing off rancher’s livestock, who want to delist them and allow hunters to kill the wolves. Robbins asserts that there are people who don’t want the wolves taken off because not only do they bring money into parks, such as Yellowstone, but because they love to watch them play. Robbins uses quotes to back up his assertions made within the article.


Part 3: Strengths and Weaknesses A major weakness of Robbins’ article is there are great amount of vagueness when he writes about who says what and where he is getting his information from. He lacks to name or clarify certain facts that he uses. An example is he never says who officials are within his article. Another weakness is he writes from a one-sided perspective and barely covers the opposition to taking wolves off the endangered species list and is almost trying to convince his readers why wolves should be taken off through facts and quotes. A strength is he does use other resources to back up most of his facts and gives data to show how elk numbers have gone down in recent years. Part 4: Comparison and Contrasts Compared to Gunderson’s report on the wolves delisting possibility, Robbins along with Gunderson talks about how wolves should be taken off the endangered species list [1, 6]. Farmers want wolves to be delisted because of pest problems while many wolf lovers want to see the wolves kept on [1, 6]. Currently a bill is being looked at in the Senate giving more protection to big cats and wolves, foxes, and wild dogs [15]. This bill would be opposed by the farmers and ranchers who see wolves as a profit losing problem [6]. Part 5: Uses in the Essay I will be using this article in the History and Background section and the Information section of my essay. It will show why stricter laws should be taken for endangered animals and whether or not they should consider improving the current Endangered Species Act.


[2] Journalistic Source: Mainstream Vedantam, Shankar. “U.S. May Expand Access to Endangered Species” Washington Post 11 October. 2003 [www.washingtonpost.com, accessed 26 June. 2009] Part 1: Source Analysis The Washington Post is published by the Washington Post Co. which has been around since 1875 and is currently still in production to this day. They publish The Washington Post and also Newsweek (www.washpostco.com). The Washington Post is an award winning publication. The online version has also won several awards. The website “reaches more than 9.6 million during an average month” (www.washingtonpost.com). The circulation of the newspaper is roughly 732,872 readers (www.ulrichsweb.com). The article is written by Vedantam Shankar, the human behavior columnist for The Washington Post. He has won several journalistic awards. Shankar is currently working on a book entitled The Hidden Brain (www.constitutioncenter.org). He has a master’s degree in journalism from Stanford University and an undergraduate’s in electronics engineering (www.templeton-cambridge.org). Part 2: Main Assertions Within the article, Shankar reports on the Bush Administration’s wanting to allow hunters, circuses, and the pet industry to kill, capture, and import endangered animals in order to stimulate profit for poorer countries to pay for conservation of the remaining animals and habitats. He asserts that there are two sides to the argument, those opposed and those for it. Shankar uses quotes from an array of people, such as the Animal Welfare Advocates to the Safari Club International. The opposed claim that the price on animals will give incentive for more killing and lead to more poaching. People argue that the money spent from hunters’ trophies has funded conservation programs and isn’t permitted in the Animal Species Act.


Part 3: Strengths and Weaknesses A weakness that could be construed from the Shankar’s article is the background information on the Safari Club International giving money to the Bush Administration during elections. Some people could say that this article is no longer neutral and un-biased due especially since there is nothing about the “liberal” aspects. A strength is Shankar’s use of examples to explain and map out how, if made legal, letting endangered species open to the public will affect these animals in a negative fashion. He also uses quotes and data from organizations that counter the negative viewpoints and shows how they are going to help poorer nations.

Part 4: Comparison and Contrasts Compared to The Humane Society’s article on the Bush administration, the HSUS would disagree and contrast with the statements made in Shankar’s article dealing with people agreeing with the Bush administration’s plan on allowing hunting and exportation of endangered species in other countries [20]. Shankar deals with showing both sides to Bush’s plan while the HSUS disagrees along with Greenwald from A Center for Biological Diversity [20, 25]. Part 5: Uses in the Essay I plan on using Shankar’s article in the History and Background section of the essay in order to provide information on why my public policy issue was brought up. Also Shankar’s article will be used in the Discussion section of the essay.


[3] Journalistic Source: Mainstream Revkin, Andrew C. “U.S. Curbs Use of Species Act in Protecting Polar Bear.� New York Times. 8 May. 2009 [www.nytimes.com, accessed 13 Jul. 2009] Part 1: Source Analysis The New York Times is published by the New York Times Company and has a circulation of 1,118,565 (www.ulrichsweb.com). Mostly adults with a college education between the ages of 25 and 54 read the New York Times (www.nytimes.whsites.net). Andrew Revkin is an environmental journalist for the New York Times, has written over several publications on environmental issues, and has a biology degree from Brown University and a Masters in journalism from Columbia. Before joining the Times, he was a senior editor of Discover, a staff writer for the Los Angeles Times, and a senior writer at Science Digest (www.ct.gsfc.nasa.gov/nasw2003/revkin.html). Part 2: Main Assertions Revkin asserts that the Obama administration is continuing a previous rule that the Bush administration issued that will not invoke the Endangered Species Act to contain emissions from greenhouse gasses that threaten the polar bear and its habitat. This means that the Endangered Species Act has been deemed not appropriate to curbing the emissions that are linked to global warming. However Revkin speculates whether or not the Endangered Species Act should be in charge of helping to prevent global warming dealing with the declining populations of threatened or endangered animals. Revkin uses quotes from Interior Secretary, Ken Salazar, whom opposes the idea of the Endangered Species Act being responsible for global warming issues because the Fish and Wildlife Service or the Interior Department could not carry out the burden of trying to police emissions. Revkin also uses quotes from the National Wildlife Federation to further the viewpoints.


Part 3: Strengths and Weaknesses A strength of Revkin’s article is the use of facts and data to add to the viewpoint of the article. A weakness of Revkin is the fact that he only addresses how it isn’t possible for the Fish and Wildlife Service to be able to carry out a rule on greenhouse gas emissions in order to prevent threats to endangered animals habitats. He only touches base on the other issue stating that certain environmentalists have been pressuring the White House to drop the Bush administration’s initial rule. Revkin also assumes that because the Obama administration is also holding up to Bush’s rule, that two presidents have deemed the Endangered Species Act to be an inappropriate means of combating the emissions linked to global warming and the loss of certain animal species because of it. Part 4: Comparison and Contrasts Compared to other articles, the fact remains that climate change has been affecting endangered species and that something needs to be done in order to help combat the decline [21]. While Revkin’s article talks about how it is impossible for the Fish and Wildlife Service to take responsibility, the Endangered Species Research talks about how global warming is contributing to the decline of several endangered species [21]. Part 5: Uses in the Essay Revkin’s article will be used in the habitat responsibility subissue of the essay. Revkin’s assertion from claims made within the article will help to show that the Fish and Wildlife Services should not be responsible for the loss of habitat due to carbon emissions.


[4] Journalistic Source: Mainstream Quinn, Steve. “Oil cos. expect battles over polar bear listing.” USA Today 15 May. 2008 [www.usatoday.com, accessed 26 July. 2009] Part 1: Source Analysis USA Today started in 1982 with a circulation of 2,246,996 and is a daily print newspaper with an online website (www.ulrichsweb.com). 45% of USA Today readers are college graduates while 35% are professional or managerial (www.usatoday.com/marketing/media_kit). The website has over 10.3 million visitors a month and has four partners including USA Weekend and Sports Weekly(www.usatoday.com). USA Today is published by Gannett Company, an international news and information company. They publish roughly 934 different newspapers including operations in the United Kingdom. The company was founded by Frank E. Gannett in 1906 and went public in 1967 (www.gannett.com). Steve Quinn is an associated press writer for USA Today (www.usatoday.com). Quinn focuses on stories from Alaska, including economics and politics (www.ap-389.newsvine.com). Part 2: Main Assertions Quinn asserts that oil companies claim that the listing of the polar bear on the Endangered Species List will fuel court battles and lawsuits over future oil exploration and production. A sub-assertion Quinn makes is because 15% of the nation’s oil is from Alaska, the listing is going to drive down oil companies profits. Quinn writes about the future the oil industry faces due to the polar bear being listed as endangered while the Interior Department argues that the oil companies will still be able to operate. Some of the companies, such as Shell, don’t know how the ruling is going to affect their plans of offshore drilling. However the company’s previous plans have already been blocked for exploratory drilling. Quinn uses quotes and facts from oil companies to back up the assertions made within the article.


Part 3: Strengths and Weaknesses A strength of the article are the facts and quotes Quinn uses to back up his assertions made to leave the reader thinking more critically about future oil drilling in Alaska and how it is effecting the habitat of polar bears. The quotes provided are from substantial people in organizations that are concerned about the recent listing. Quinn covers both sides however spends more time on the concern of oil companies. More so there is a lack of sources to show where Quinn acquired his information. Part 4: Comparison and Contrasts Quinn’s article relates to the habitat loss that polar bears are being threatened by [3, 18, 21]. Polar bears are losing their habitat, sea ice, due to climate changes and human interference [4, 18, 21]. Oil drilling in Alaska is contributing to the decline of habitat and now that the polar bear is listed as endangered, oil companies will have to look for new ways of environmentalfriendly drilling [4]. However the Obama administration is not putting the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services or the Endangered Species Act to action on regulating the loss of habitat due to carbon emissions and global warming [3]. Part 5: Uses in the Essay Quinn’s article will be used in the subissue dealing with the economics of protecting endangered species. The article will contrast the benefits of protecting endangered species under the Endangered Species Act and through conservation efforts.


[5] Journalistic Source: Mainstream Associated Press. “House set to act on overhaul of Endangered Species Act.” USA Today 29 Sep. 2005. [www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-09-29-hosuespeciesact_x.htm, accessed 26 July. 2009] Part 1: Source Analysis USA Today is published by Gannett Company, an international news and information company. They publish around 934 different newspapers, including domestic and international. The company was founded by Frank E. Gannett in 1906 and went public in 1967 (www.gannett.com). USA Today, with a circulation of 2,246,996, started in 1982 and prints daily newspapers alongside an online version (www.ulrichsweb.com). USA Today readers are 45% college graduates and 35% are professional or managerial (www.usatoday.com/marketing/media_kit). The website receives over 10.3 million visitors a month and has four partner news sites including USA Weekend and Sports Weekly (www.usatoday.com). The article provides no author except for the mention of the Associated Press. The Associated Press is the backbone of the world’s information system. It is owned by 1,500 U.S. daily newspaper members and has received 49 Pulitzer Prizes (www.ap.org). Part 2: Main Assertions The article’s main assertion is the Endangered Species Act could be rewritten to limit habitat protections and give new rights to property owners. Richard Pombo proposed a bill eliminating critical habitat protection where development is limited and wants to compensate property owners whose development plans are denied due to protecting species. The article argues that it would get rid of unreasonable burdens that landowners face in protecting plants and animals. However opposition to the bill claims it would disrupt endangered species habitats too much causing them to become even more threatened. Opponents of the Endangered Species Act say that it doesn’t work while supporters say it is successfully keeping species alive.


Part 3: Strengths and Weaknesses A strength of the article is the use of quotes from creditable government organizations and representatives such as the House Resources Committee Chairman Richard Pombo and Representative Tom Udall. However the article mainly focuses on the supporters of the bill and what good it will bring about if passed. Another weakness is the lack of source to support the little information provided on the opposition of the bill. The article mentions many Democrats and some moderate Republicans opposing the bill, giving one name, Rep. Tom Udall, to voice an opposition. Part 4: Comparison and Contrasts The article would contrast the harsh claims made by RedOrbit which views the bill being addressed as a greedy way of killing off America’s endangered species because the House sees it as an inconvenience and too costly to save American’s species [7]. USA Today’s article also states that through the incentives the bill proposes, land owners are being compensated for the past and future halt on land developments that the Endangered Species Act says they can’t do due to critical habitat [16]. Even the Gun Owners of America disagree with the proposed bill but for different reasons claiming that the ESA is already too flawed of a law to try to rewrite and save [31]. Part 5: Uses in the Essay I will be using the article in the subissue questioning the economics of protecting endangered species. This article will also go into the discussion section of the essay regarding the brought up bill. It is important to discuss because of the complaints from landowners having to restrict what can be done to their property due to protection of animals.


[6] Journalistic Source: Alternative Gunderson, Dan. “Farmers Say Relisting Wolves Means Losses.� Minnesota Public Radio News. 6 November. 2008 [www. minnesota.publicradio.org, accessed 13 Jul. 2009] Part 1: Source Analysis Dan Gunderson is a reporter for the Minnesota Public Radio since 1987 (www.minnesota.publicradio.org/about/people). He covers various issues from criminal justice to environmental issues. He has won numerous awards, including the American Bar Association Silver Gavel (www.justicejournalism.org). The Minnesota Public Radio covers Minnesota, parts of Wisconsin, the Dakotas, Michigan, Iowa, and Idaho. They have roughly 850,000 listeners a week and is the largest audience of any public radio network. The American Public Media is the parent organization of MPR and has roughly 16.1 million listeners nationwide each week (www.minnesota.publicradio.org/about/). Part 2: Main Assertions Gunderson asserts that because the wolf will be re-enlisted in Minnesota, farmers and ranchers are going to be losing thousands of dollars in profit. When the wolf was taken off the endangered species list, farmers and ranchers were given free range to shoot wolves that would attack their cattle. Now that the wolves are re-enlisted they can’t do anything to protect their herds. However Gunderson reports that if cattle are killed by wolves, farmers can call in federal trappers to kill them but the response is often too late. Gunderson also asserts that there is illegal shooting going on but the Minnesota Department of Natural resources says there is no evidence to having any influence on the population of wolves. Gunderson uses quotes from farmers and ranchers in Minnesota to tell their stories, trials, and tribulations of wolves killing off their herds and livestock.


Part 3: Strengths and Weaknesses A strength of Gunderson’s is the use of quotes to give more empathy and realization to his story. This helps provide specific source information to back up claims that wolves are losing profits for farmers and ranchers. A weakness is the lack of support from the opposition who if documented within the article would give contrast to the farmers and ranchers and further their viewpoint. Part 4: Comparison and Contrasts Minnesota farmers and ranchers would agree with Robbin’s report on the situation of the gray wolf causing problems for people [1]. They would also disagree with Jay Inslee’s proposed bill giving more protection and conservation of big cats and wolves, foxes, and wild dogs [15]. With the greater protection of wolves under Inslee’s bill, the protection of cattle would be decreased against wolves [1, 15]. However farmers and ranchers would greatly disagree with the current situation of the Center for Biological Diversity’s lawsuit to reclaim northern Rockies gray wolves [26]. Part 5: Uses in the Essay Gunderson’s report will be useful in the stakeholder’s suggestions part and to back up my own recommendations within the essay. Farmers and ranchers have problems with wolves killing their livestock and because of this they want the wolves to be delisted. Gunderson’s article will help bring about suggestions to combat their problem.


[7] Journalistic Source- Alternative “It’s Up to U.S. Senate to Protect Species.” RedOrbit. 11 October. 2005 [www.redorbit.com/news/science, accessed 26 July. 2009] Part 1: Source Analysis RedOrbit, Incorporation, the owner of RedOrbit.com, was founded in November 2002 and launched its website in May 2003. The website focuses on space, science, health, and technology from around the world and has an average of over 5 million visitors per month with the audience usually between the ages of 25 to 55 (www.redoribit.com/about_us). The article chosen provides no author and sources their information from the Albuquerque Journal. The Albuquerque Journal is published by the Albuquerque Publishing Company and has a circulation of around 107,000 (www.ulrichsweb.com). The newspaper is independent and home-owned and has circulated throughout New Mexico since 1880 (www.abqpubco.com) Part 2: Main Assertions Through the passing of the “Threatened and Endangered Species Recovery Act,” RedOrbit asserts that the House has decided it is too costly and of an inconvenience to save threatened and endangered species in America. GOP Representative Richard Pombo’s bill, through RedOrbit’s assertions, would funnel large monetary amounts to private property owners which should instead go to the federal and state programs aimed at saving threatened or endangered American species. The article uses quotes to support its claim in trying to persuade readers of the faults and negative implications that Pombo’s bill would create.


Part 3: Strengths and Weaknesses A weakness of the article is the obvious fact that the article is written from one side and is very persuasive in trying to give its readers a clear understand of why they shouldn’t support Pombo’s bill. The article addresses the so called positive aspects of the bill and quickly turns against them claiming they are only a “wolf in sheep’s clothing.” A strength of the article is the use of quotes from U.S. Representatives to support the one-sided article. Part 4: Comparison and Contrasts RedOrbit’s article would agree with the Letter to Rep. Richard Pombo written by the Gun Owners of America in the claims that fixing the Endangered Species Act will only fail miserably [31]. However they would disagree with the GOA when they state that the ESA is a law that does not work and that the critical habitat for endangered species, which the Pombo’s bill would destroy, should be eliminated [31]. The bill could result in budgetary problems facing the incentives that Pombo claims and because of this RedOrbit believes that any monetary incentives should be taken and given to wildlife conservation [5]. Part 5: Uses in the Essay RedOrbit’s article will be helpful in the economic subissue of the essay. The claims they make will contrast the incentives being brought being brought within the Threatened and Endangered Species Recovery Act. The article will also be insightful on a discussion within the essay dealing about how this bill, if it was passed, would change the Endangered Species Act in both positive and negative aspects.


[8] Journalistic Source- Alternative Cappiello, Dina. “Bush to Relax Endangered Species Regulations Before Obama Can Reverse them.” Huffington Post. 19 November. 2008 [www.huffingtonpost.com, accessed 5 August. 2009].

Part 1: Source Analysis The Huffington Post is a private left-leaning internet newspaper. Founded in May of 2005 by Arianna Huffington and Kenneth Lerer, the website gets people mostly from the United States with a college education between the ages of 18 to 44 (www.alexa.com/siteinfo/huffingtonpost.com). Dina Cappiello is an environmental journalist and graduated from Georgetown with a bachelor’s degree in biology and received a master’s degree in both journalism and environmental science. She has worked for Times Union and Houston Chronicle and has received several awards, one including the Associated Press and Managing Editors’ award for best specialty reporter in Texas (www.cleanhouston.org/heros/cappiello.htm). Part 2: Main Assertions The main assertion that Cappiello makes is the Bush administration wants to eliminate the input of federal wildlife scientists in some endangered species cases. This would allow the federal government to implement highways, dams, and other projects without the consent of research from government scientists showing that there is no threat or harm to possible endangered species that might reside. Cappiello uses information from the Associated Press to back up her claims and show proof to the assertion. Cappiello explains what would happen if the rules were to be put in place. She also talks about the current situation with regulations needing


biologists to approve of the projects before they can go ahead with developments. Cappiello also uses quotes to support her assertion. Part 3: Strengths and Weaknesses A strength of the article sourced information provided to back up the information provided within the article. Also the quotes used add to the belief that what Cappiello reports on is true. A weakness of the article is the one sided debate on the issue. Cappiello write from a liberal standpoint stating that if the rule were to be passed it would be detrimental to endangered species. She doesn’t address the policy makers and the reasons why the Bush administration wants to change the Endangered Species Act to include these rules. Part 4: Comparisons and contrasts Compared to Earthjustice and Greenwald’s assertions, Cappiello’s would agree with what they say about the Bush administration doing little for species protection [23, 25]. The Bush administration wants to put restrictions on species habitat that way more development could occur [23]. Cappiello would agree with Greenwald’s assertion that the Bush administration should be more involved in species research and conservation [25]. Part 5: Uses in the essay Cappiello’s article will be useful in the discussion section of the essay. Her report on what the Bush administration wants to do to the Endangered Species Act will be helpful in showing what little and what negative things have been done for species protection.


[9] Academic Source Bergman, Charles. “In the absence of animals: power and impotence in our dealings with endangered animals.” Attitudes to Animals: Views in Animal Welfare. Ed. Dolins, Francine L. New York: Cambridge University Press. (1999): 244-257. Part 1: Source Analysis The Cambridge University Press, founded in 1584, is an international organization located in the United Kingdom and has around 1,880 on staff in 53 offices worldwide (www.cambridge.org/about/default.htm). They have published over 34,000 in-print titles including Attitudes to Animals: Views in Animal Welfare. Francine L. Dolins is a senior lecturer in psychology at the University of Winchester. She has around 30 different publications, most relating to animal behavior (www.winchester.ac.uk). Charles Bergman is an award winning writer, photographer, and speaker. He has a B.A. in economics and a B.A., M.A. and Ph.D. in English, went to school at the University of Washington and later received his M.A. and Ph.D. at the University of Minnesota. He has over 70 different publications that he has written and some of his photographs have been featured in National Geographic and Wildlife Conservation (www.staging.charlesbergman.com). Part 2: Main Assertions Bergman writes using the California condor, an endangered animal, to enforce his main assertion that the only reason why people help endangered animals is because we are trying to feel better about ourselves in the world. We view them as inferior but because we are stronger we will help. Bergman’s secondary assertion is that our, America’s, way of helping endangered animals does not work. He explains that we end up changing the natural animal, most from a behavioral aspect, and diminish the beast within them. Bergman writes from his own experiences. He has personally studied the last remaining California condors before they were brought in to be saved. He also uses other examples to back up his points like the dusky seaside


sparrow. However he does used references from Aldo Leopold, Ehrlich P. & Ehrlich, A., and Lovejoy, T. to help support his claims and assertions. Part 3: Strengths and Weaknesses A weakness of the book is the fact that most of the information provided is based off of Bergman’s viewpoint. He says that we help endangered animals for our own self pompous and smug reasons yet he never truly goes into depth on how and why, he only skims the surface. Yet the excerpt is very well written and gives very strong examples on how our “meddling” has shown to be successful with a drawback. The use of the condors is used as a symbol to back his viewpoints and this in turn is a great strength. Part 4: Comparison and Contrasts Compared to the interview with Cindy Osterman, Bergman asserts that we are only helping animals for our own selfish good. But also that the work we do is not very successful as our meddling ends up taking away the truth of the animal. However Osterman states that with her own wildlife rescuing she ended up having very successful results. The deer she raised were completely wild and she did it because she wanted to help, not because she was trying to feel good about herself [27]. However Osterman had two exceptions to her success and therefore adds fuel to Bergman’s assumption that we cannot truly help without having some sort of consequence [9, 27]. Part 5: Uses in the Essay I will use Bergman’s information in a sub-issue of my essay dealing with whether or not we should bring more animals into zoos or remove them from the wild to help endangered species make a comeback. Also I will use his information in the History and Background section and the Introduction section of my essay.


[10] Academic Source Cash, David W. “Beyond Cute and Fuzzy: Science and Politics in the U.S. Endangered Species Act.” Protecting Endangered Species in the United States: Biological Needs, Political Realities, Economic Choices. Ed. Shogren, Jason F., Tschirhart, John. New York: Cambridge University Press. (2001): 106-137. Part 1: Source Analysis David Cash is the Assistant Secretary for Policy in the Massachusetts Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs. Before being an assistant, he was a research associate and a lecturer in Environmental Science and Public Policy at John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University in Cambridge. He received a Ph.D. in Public Policy from Kennedy School at Harvard and a B.S. in biology from Yale University (www.hcs.harvard.edu). Jason Shogren is a professor in the department of economics and finance at the Univeristy of Wyoming where he has a Ph.D. and a B.A. in economics (www.uwacadweb.uwyo.edu). Part 2: Main Assertions Cash asserts that the Endangered Species Act is one of the most controversial and diverse debates within environmental protection and the regulation of natural resources. The Endangered Species Act is debated whether or not it is a successful or acceptable law to protect endangered and threatened species. Another assertion that Cash makes is the use of scientific research to show the threat and harm done to a species to grant them access to the Endangered Species List isn’t fully used and mislead. A sub-assertion of the article is the economic patterns for recovery efforts suggest that the system for helping and saving endangered species is flawed. Cash uses quotes, tables, and data to support his assertions.


Part 3: Strengths and Weaknesses A strength of Cash is the use of data and facts to back up claims and assertions made within the article. This provides a reference of truth to what Cash is asserting. A weakness of the article is the lack of detailed information to back up Cash’s assertions. He leaves out certain details that leaves the reader asking more. Part 4: Comparison and Contrasts An eleventh-hour Bush administration rule is being revoked therefore adding that more scientific research should be done to determine an animal worthy of being protected under the Endangered Species Act, such as Cash’s assertion makes [19]. Cash’s assertion would agree with Rohlf’s assertion that while it is the strongest legal action for species protection it is also flawed due to people misusing its power [12]. Part 5: Uses in the Essay Cash’s article will be used in the conservation subissue within the essay. Cash’s arguments provide information detailing the flaws of the Endangered Species Act. The article will also be used in the Stakeholder’s suggestions due to Cash’s recommendations of what should be done for endangered species conservation.


[11] Academic Source Shogren, Jason F, Tschirhart, John, et al. “Why economics matters for endangered species protection.� Conservation Biology. 13, 6. 17 Aug. 1998. [www3.interscience.wiley.com, accessed 11 Jul. 2009]. Part 1: Source Analysis Jason Shogren is a professor in the department of economics and finance at the University of Wyoming. He has a Ph.D. and a B.A. in economics and has written several publications mostly dealing with environmental economics (www.uwacadweb.uwyo.edu). Conservation Biology is published by Wiley-Blackwell Publishing, Inc. (www.ulrichsweb.com). Wiley-Blackwell has been around since 1807 and before that they were distillers (www.wiley.com). Conservation Biology is a peer-reviewed bi-monthly scholarly journal with a small circulation of 5000 and was started in 1986 (www.ulrichsweb.com). Part 2: Main Assertions The main assertion of the article is providing reasons why economics is important when dealing with animal species conservation and protection. The three main reasons are people are generally responsible for determining the risk of a species based on our behavior and economic limits. The second reason is we are dealing with scarce resources and opportunity costs that also factor into species protection. The third reason being is economic incentives shape the recovery of certain species. All three factors are the main assertion to why it is important to look at the economical aspect of species recovery. Shogren uses facts and data to support evidence and assumptions made within the article. His own viewpoint is voiced as he explains why economic matters are important and need to be addressed, rather than pointing out facts and statistics on how economics play a role. Shogren and the other authors also cite other literature within the article to further back up their main assertions.


Part 3: Strengths and Weaknesses A great strength of this article is the amount of effort put into finding the information on economic problems dealing with endangered animal protection. Shogren and the other authors use a great amount of data from other literature sources and go into great detail on certain aspects of the data so that readers have a good understanding of what they are talking about. A weakness is the use of their voice within the article. Instead of providing information on the economical aspects of endangered animal protection they use reasons why it is important to understand the economical reasons behind species protection. Part 4: Comparisons and Contrasts Economic matters are important for species conservation and apparently the House of Representatives has decided it is too costly and inconvenient through the passing of the “Threatened and Endangered Species Recovery Act” [7, 11]. Shogren’s assertion is clarified due to the bill’s passing which plays an important role on economics [7, 11]. Furthermore the addition of the polar bear to the Endangered Species List, the U.S. oil market’s profits will decrease due to future oil exploration lawsuits and court battles [4]. Compared to Shogren’s article, this complements his claims of economic importance [11]. Part 5: Uses in the Essay Shogren’s article will be useful in the economics subissue of the essay. Shogren’s approach to why economics is important for endangered species conservation will provide useful knowledge on whether or not economics is beneficial for species protection.


[12] Academic Source Rohlf, Daniel J. “Six Biological Reasons Why the Endangered Species Act Doesn’t Work---And What to Do About It.” Conservation Biology. 5.3. (1991): 273-282. Part 1: Source Analysis Daniel Rohlf is an associate professor of law at Lewis and Clark University where he specializes in wildlife law, legal ecology, and environmental science. He has a B.S. from Colorado and a J.D. from Stanford and directs the Pacific Environmental Advocacy Center (www.lclark.edu). Conservation Biology started in 1986 and is published by Wiley-Blackwell Publishing, Inc. It is a peer-reviewed bi-monthly academic journal with a circulation of 5000 (www.ulrichsweb.com). Wiley-Blackwell Publishing, Inc. was founded in 1807 by Charles Wiley where he mainly printed and published law books. The publishing company has been honored several times for its financial success due to its vast array of publishing anything from computing to physics and astronomy (www.wiley.com). Part 2: Main Assumptions Rohlf asserts that while the Endangered Species Act is the strongest legal action for conservation and protection of endangered and threatened species it is also flawed. It is flawed in the sense of it is confusing and lacks clarity to which the government has turned around and used it for their own purposes. Another assertion that Rohlf makes is the use of law playing a major role in shaping resource management, especially on public land and therefore conservation biologists must be very forceful in order to serve out their duties in conservation of animal species. Rohlf uses examples, data, and research to back up his assertions made within the article to provide a solid reason why the Endangered Species Act doesn’t work.


Part 3: Strengths and Weaknesses A weakness of the article is the fact that it only uses examples around the law and biological aspects of how and why the Endangered Species Act doesn’t work. A strength of the article is the use of data and research to back up facts that Rohlf uses. The article gives viewpoints to six reasons why the Endangered Species Act doesn’t work and goes into specific detail to explain how. Part 4: Comparison and Contrasts Rohlf’s explanations contrast the Endangered Species Act asserting that the law is flawed [16]. However Rohlf would agree with David W. Cash when he asserts that the Endangered Species List isn’t fully used and is misleading [10]. Both of these assertions contrast the overall efforts of the Endangered Species Act which has government organizations, such as the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services, protecting endangered and threatened species [10]. Part 5: Uses in the Essay Rohlf’s assertions will be used in the non-stakeholders suggestions part within the essay. His claims of the flawed law and the recommendations will be useful to show what should be done for the Endangered Species Act.


[13] Book Source Moulton, Michael P., Sanderson, James. Wildlife Issues in a Changing World. New York: Lewis Publishers, 2000. Part 1: Source Analysis Michael Moulton is an Associate Professor of Wildlife Ecology and Conservation at the University of Florida. He has a Masters in biology and a Ph.D. in Zoology. He has over 20 different publications dealing with wildlife and environmental issues. He is part of the Wildlife Society, Ecological Society of America, and Society for Conservation Biology (www.wec.ufl.edu/faculty/moultonm). James Sanderson is the director of conservation for Mountain View Farms Breeding and Conservation Centre in Vancouver Canada. (Sanderson xvii). He is greatly known to be one of the world’s experts on small wildcats and has founded Small Cat Conservation Alliance (www.wildlifeconservationnetwork.org). Part 2: Main Assertions Moulton and Sanderson’s book deals with wildlife issues in a modern time, this includes everything from laws and animal rights activists, examples of wildlife issues, and solutions to wildlife overpopulation that we have introduced. They provide several different main assertions within the novel, mostly questioning whether we are actually helping with wildlife during past and present years. Moulton and Sanderson use many different animal species as examples for different issues that concern wildlife. They also use facts and data from the Endangered Species Act and pictures and figures as examples to back up their assertions. Moulton and Sanderson write on a viewpoint that doesn’t give direction to what they are trying to say. They are only trying to convey points and educate people on wildlife issues dealing with harm to wildlife and the solutions that have been aroused because of it.


Part 3: Strengths and Weaknesses A strength of Moulton and Sanderson’s book is the amount of data used to support their assertions and theories. Another strong aspect is the use of other literature examples in the book. The authors take citations and quotes from other literature to back up facts and data that are used in the book. However, a weakness of the book is the fact that it can be quite difficult to read. It is technical in its writing and can be quite cumbersome to find the true assertion among all the facts and data that is being provided. Part 4: Comparison and Contrasts Compared to the National Governor’s Association the problems with endangered species are great and polices and laws must be established to protect species from going extinct [17]. According to Moulton and Sanderson’s assertions because of human interaction with wildlife laws have been created to help protect and conserve wildlife [13]. Due to this the Endangered Species Act, the Great Cats and Rare Canids Act, and the “Threatened and Endangered Species Recovery Act” have been introduced or passed as a law [7, 15, 16]. Part 5: Uses in the Essay I would use the book in the history and background section of my essay and in the subissue questioning the methods used for preservation of endangered and threatened species. In a deeper analysis the history and background section from the book is good for laws and other information of animals that are endangered. The assertions are also good for questioning conservation efforts which is categorized in the first sub issue of the essay.


[14] Book Source Barker, Rocky. Saving All the Parts: Reconciling Economics and the Endangered Species Act. Washington, D.C.: Island Press, 1993. Part 1: Source Analysis Rocky Barker is an environmentalist reporter for the Idaho Statesman and was previously a columnist and correspondent-at-large for the Idaho Falls Post Register. He has won several awards including the National Conservation Achievement Award and holds a bachelor’s degree in environmental studies from Northland College in Ashland, WI (www.rockybarker.com/shamless.html). Island Press is a nonprofit organization that publishes, markets, and distributes books about conservation of our natural resources. The organization was founded in 1978 and publishes and distributes under its own imprint and offers services to other nonprofit organizations (www.islandpress.com). Part 2: Main Assertions The book details the ecological and economic parts at work in the Pacific Northwest and northern Rockies of the United States. This includes everything dealing with environmental problems including endangered species conservation. Barker asserts that the Endangered Species Act can place limits on private property use. He goes on to state what can and cannot be done on private property habituated by endangered species. This is to include not only land but water as well. Barker asserts that the Endangered Species Act could clash with the Fifth Amendment. The author documents other sources to provide backed detail to his assertions and to create a counterargument which is addressed within the novel. Barker also deals with the issue of how endangered species might benefit from monetary incentives landowners could receive. However Barker does not address the negative impacts and economic issues with said incentives.


Part 3: Strengths and Weaknesses A strength of Barker’s is the vast amount of data used to support his claims and assertions. He uses past legal battles and current laws to tell what is being done for the environment, especially with the workings that deal with endangered species. However a weakness that generates from Barker’s novel is the lack of opposition to many of the assertions he makes within the book. Without the opposition the book lacks a strong argument to the assertions Barker makes. Part 4: Comparison and Contrasts Incentives should be given to private landowners for the protection and habitat that they maintain is what Barker asserts which is what Pombo’s bill would do [5, 14]. However others say that incentives couldn’t be done because it would prove to be to a budgetary problem and others believe that the Endangered Species Act is already flawed so trying to rewrite it is useless and futile [7, 31]. Part 5: Uses in the Essay Barker’s novel will be useful in a subissue of the essay dealing with the responsibility of the Fish and Wildlife Services and whether or not they should protect habitats of endangered or threatened species.


[15] Government Source “Great Cats and Rare Canids Act of 2009.” (H.R.411, 9 Jan. 2009). Library of Congress THOMAS (2009): [www.thomas.loc.gov, accessed 30 June. 2009]. Part 1: Source Analysis THOMAS is an online database that brings up the information on current and past house and senate bills. The Library of Congress runs THOMAS which started in January of 1995 (www.thomas.loc.gov/home/abt_thom.html). The Library of Congress began in 1800 in the U.S. Capitol and is located in Washington D.C. In 2008 the online website received more than 1.6 million on-line visitors. It is the world’s largest library and adds roughly 10,000 items to its library each day (www.loc.gov/about/generalinfo.html). The sponsor of the bill is U.S. representative from Washington, Jay Inslee. He has “represented Washington’s 1st congressional district since 1999” and before that he represented the 4th district (www.govtrack.us/congress/person). He mostly works on environmental policies focusing on his own state. He has a B.A. in economics from the University of Washington and earned his law degree from Willamette University (www.house.gov/inslee/bio/bio.html). He has sponsored 83 bills, two which were enacted successfully (www.govtrack.us/congress/person).

Part 2: Main Assertions The main assertion from the bill, sponsored by Jay Inslee, is to get “the Secretary of Interior to provide assistance for projects of conservation of rare felids and rare canids” (www.thomas.loc.gov). The bill wants more legal action to help conservation for big cats, like lions and tigers, and endangered canids, which means wolves, foxes, and dogs.


Part 3: Strengths and Weaknesses A weakness of the bill is the use of higher level words that many average readers would not understand. However a strength is the bill defines what it is trying to protect and goes into specifics. It talks about what is covered and how it should be. Another strength of the bill is that it is a bill from this year, meaning it is very recent, and has passed the house and moved onto the Senate. However a weakness is that it is still in consideration, it hasn’t been made into a law or denied as one. Part 4: Compare and Contrasts The bill contrasts efforts made by legislators trying to de-list the wolf from the Endangered Species List because the bill is trying to provide more protection to wolves [1]. If the bill is passed as a law this means that farmers and ranchers will have a harder time with wolf problems [6]. Part 5: Uses in the Essay I will use this bill in the History and Background section of the essay. The bill will provide usefull information to what has already been done within the government for endangered species protection. The bill will also be helpful in the subissue dealing with conservation efforts. The bill creates controversy between animal activists and farmers and ranchers due to the greater protection of wolves which cause problems for farmers and ranchers.


[16] Government Source “Endangered Species Act of 1973.” (PL 93-205, 28 Dec. 1973). 87 Stat 884 (1973): [www.epw.senate.gov/esa73.pdf, accessed 30 June. 2009]. Part 1: Source Analysis The public law, the Endangered Species Act of 1973, was enacted the 28th of December in 1973. The United States Senate has been around since March 4, 1789 when it had its first session. The Senate is currently in the Chamber in the United States Capitol since January 4th, 1859 (www.senate.gov). President Nixon signed the Act into a law in 1973 (www.caria.org/esa.html). The act has undergone three significant amendments in 1978, 1982, and 1988, since the law was passed (www.fws.gov/endangered/esasum.html). Part 2: Main Assertions The main assertion of the Endangered Species Act is to protect endangered species and threatened species in their ecosystems, to provide a program of conservation for these species, and to achieve treaties and conventions to establish a protection for the endangered and threatened species. The Endangered Species Act is under much controversy resulting in three different amendments that have been added to the Act in order to compensate for problems that have arisen. The Endangered Species Act also asserts that the federal government must take action to protect endangered and threatened species so long as it doesn’t go against current laws.


Part 3: Strengths and Weaknesses A great strength of the article is the preservation of animal species that give the government full rights to endorse and help protect those species that are either endangered or threatened. The document details exactly what is allowed and the lengthy policy gives very clear definition to what is allowed. However a weakness of the article is the lack of clear understanding on whether or not the United States government is allowed to use any methods in other countries to protect these endangered or threatened species. This lack of clear understanding could lead to potential misunderstandings later on dealing with policies in other countries. Part 4: Comparison and Contrasts The Endangered Species Act has had many arguments thrown at it, about whether it is flawed or if it really even works [10, 12, 31]. While others say that it is flawed all that needs to be done is add modifications to it in order to approve of the faults that is faces [7]. Others view the Endangered Species Act as a successful law of helping and keeping endangered and species alive [27]. Part 5: Uses in the Essay I will use this document in the history and background section of my essay. It takes up a very big portion of the history and background and will mostly be relating all my information back to this.


[17] Government Source Policy Position. “NR-12. Endangered Species Act.” National Governors Association 28 Feb. 2008 [www.nga.org/portal/site/nga, accessed 19 July. 2009]. Part 1: Source Analysis The National Governor’s Association is an organization of collective Washington D.C. members whom provide a voice to the governors of the United States of America. The organization was founded in 1908 and works directly with governors identifying issues and dealing with them on matters of public policy and governance (www.nga.org/Files/pdf). Part 2: Main Assertions The main assertion of the National Governor’s Association is they agree with the Endangered Species Act’s intentions. Due to the nature of the Endangered Species Act, the governor’s have seen what it can do and understand that species and habitat protection can be enhanced through polices and effort. The article reviews the Endangered Species Act and what should be done for it, including adding funding and a clear delisting of recovered species should be added. A sub-assertion of the article is the acknowledgement from the organization that more needs to be done to raise public awareness of the Endangered Species Act. The organization reviews different measurements that needed to be added to help improve the act, such as public participation and multispecies planning.


Part 3: Strengths and Weaknesses A strength of the article is the recommendations that are given to help improve the Endangered Species Act when the National Governor’s Association reviews the ESA and talks about what more can be done. The in-depth acknowledgement of what should be done is very helpful instead of just listing problems. A weakness of the article is the lack of source or information to back up reasons why the Endangered Species Act should have the changes made or done to it. The organization talks briefly on how the recommendations will improve the ESA but fails to say why it should do these or show a threat to the workings of the ESA. Part 4: Comparison and Contrasts The added recommendations at the end of the article gives suggestions to what could be done more for the Endangered Species Act where flawed problems could arise [10, 12]. Furthermore the efforts from the National Governor’s Association shows how the government is taking an interest not only in wildlife conservation but what should be done to give back to landowners [24]. Part 5: Uses in the Essay I will be using the National Governor’s Association’s article in the History and Background information dealing with the government addressing my public policy question in the essay. The recommendations that the article provides will show that the government understands that more needs to be done and has provided suggestions so far. I will also use this in my recommendations and stakeholder’s suggestions part of the essay.


[18] Government Source Wolfe, Shane. “Secretary Kempthorne Announces Decision to Protect Polar Bears under Endangered Species Act.” U.S. Department of the Interior 14 May. 2008 [www.doi.gov/news/08_News_Releases/080514a.html, accessed 25 July. 2009]. Part 1: Source Analysis Shane Wolfe is the press secretary of the U.S. Department of the Interior and before was the deputy press secretary since August 2004. Wolfe has worked as a broadcast journalist from 1994 to 2000 working for two NBC television affiliates. He has B.S. in broadcast news from Kent State University’s School of Journalism and Mass Communications and a law degree from the University of Akron School of Law in 2003 (www.doi.gov/news). The Department of the Interior was created in 1849 and handles domestic matters. It has the responsibility of construction of the national capital’s water system, management of hospitals and universities, management of public parks, public lands, patents, and pensions, and much more (www.doi.gov/history.html). Part 2: Main Assertions Wolfe reports on Kempthorne in which he recommends adding the polar bear to the Endangered Species List. This is based off of scientific findings which show that the loss of sea ice threatens the bear’s habitat and will continue to do so in the future. By putting the bear under the protection of the Endangered Species Act, efforts will be made by the government to protect the bear. Wolfe reports on Kempthorne’s proposal and lists the facts that Kempthorne makes to support his recommendation. Furthermore Kempthorne says that with his proposal will ensure protection of the bear while allowing the continuation to develop natural resources in the arctic region in an environmentally-friendly way. Adding to this a sub-assertion that Kempthorne makes is listing the polar bear as threatened can reduce the loss of the bear however it should not be up to the Endangered Species act to regulate greenhouse gas emissions.


Part 3: Strengths and Weaknesses A strength of Wolfe’s documentation is the use of quotes and facts listed that Kempthorne makes in his announcement. Another strength, coming from Kempthorne’s viewpoint, is the recommendations to what should be done after the bear is listed. He lists rules and clarifications that should be made in order for the Endangered Species Act to be used right and not misused. A weakness of the article is the lack of detail Kempthorne provides or that Wolfe uses. It is said that science has proven the loss of sea ice threatens the polar bear’s habitat but doesn’t tell what or how is causing the loss of ice or how it will progress in the future. Part 4: Comparison and Contrasts It is said climate change could be responsible for the loss of sea ice and this could result from global warming [3, 21]. Even the Obama administration is going to continue the rule issuing that the Endangered Species Act will not try to contain emissions from greenhouse gasses [3]. However in Issac’s article he asserts that something must be done to combat climate change threatening endangered species [21]. Part 5: Uses in the Essay I will be using Wolfe’s document within the subissue dealing with the responsibility of habitat protection in the essay. Wolfe’s report on Kempthorne’s assertions that the Endangered Species Act is and should not responsible for habitat protection due to carbon emission threats counter argues those who claim that the Endangered Speices Act should be used for such measures.


[19] Government Source Smullen, Scott, Vickery, Hugh. “Salazar and Locke Restore Scientific Consultations under the Endangered Species Act to Protect Species and their Habitats.” U.S. Department of the Interior. 28 April. 2008 [www.fws.gov, accessed 26 July. 2009]. Part 1: Source Analysis Scott Smullen is the Department Dir. NOAA Communications and External Affairs National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration in Washington D.C. He has a Master degree in Public Communications from American University and a Bachelors degree in Technical Journalism from Colorado State University (www.linkedin.com/pub/scott-smullen). Hugh Vickery is the Fish and Wildlife and Parks Public Information Officer and works at the Office of Communications, Office of the Secretary, and the United States Department of the Interior (www.leadershipprofiles.com). He was a spokesman for the Bush administration’s Sectretary of the Interior (www.oceanconserve.info). The United States Department of the Interior is responsible for the construction of the national capital’s water system, management of hospitals and universities, management of public parks, public lands, patents, and pensions, and much more (www.doi.gov/history.html). It was created in 1849 and handles all domestic matters within the United States (www.doi.gov/news). Part 2: Main Assertions Smullen and Vickery report on two departments revoking a rule that undermined Endangered Species Act protections under the Bush administration. They go on to assert that Obama will review the previous Administration’s Section 7 regulation of the ESA. Smullen and Vickery use quotes from Commerce Secretary and talk of the two departments and what will be done about the eleventh-hour rule being reviewed.


Part 3: Strengths and Weaknesses A weakness of the article is the lack of clarity on the things discussed within it. The eleventh-hour is being revoked but is failed to mention what it is. Another weakness is the suggested two departments are the Commerce and the Interior but isn’t confirmed anywhere within the article. A strength is the facts that go into what is wrong about the eleventh-hour rule. Another strength are the quotes used in the article to support claims and assertions made. Part 4: Comparison and Contrasts Science needs to prove that animal is threatened in order to place it under protection of the Endangered Species Act [16]. By revoking the eleventh-hour rule science must rule that animals are threatened, such as the polar bear and the findings of decline in sea ice [18]. Part 5: Uses in the Essay I will be using Smullen and Vickery’s article in the Stakeholder’s suggestions in the essay. This is due to the revocation of the eleventh-hour thus proving more scientific study needs to be done. I will also be using the information in the discussion section of the essay to talk about what the Bush administration has done for endangered species protection.


[20] Institutional Source “Proposal Will Enhance Profitability, Not Survival, of Endangered Species.” The Humane Society of the United States 3 Oct. 2003. [www.hsus.org/wildlife, accessed 14 July. 2009]. Part 1: Source Analysis The Humane Society of the United States was established in 1954 and is the “nation’s largest and most effective animal protection organization” (www.hsus.org/about_us/index.html). They advocate for sensible public polices within animal rights and restricting animal cruelty. They also enforce existing laws and educate people on animal issues. About one in every 28 people is a supporter of the Humane Society of the United States (www.hsus.org/about_us/index.html). The Humane Society of the United States releases several publications on animal awareness from wildlife to pets. They have been part of many expanding and refining animal welfare programs and is part of over 813,312 Environment, Conservation, and Wildlife Organizations (www.fundinguniverse.com/company-histories). Part 2: Main Assertions The HSUS asserts that if the Bush Administration is allowed to pass its proposed law stating that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service will allow trophy hunters, zoos, circuses, and leather-good merchants to import and shoot endangered species, it will end up being a devastating loss for the target endangered animal and be a complete failure and what it proposes. By using quotes from other wildlife organizations to back up their viewpoint, the HSUS asserts that by allowing this proposed law to go through, it will not only be a complete failure but a contradiction to what the Endangered Species Act is trying to set up. They also go on to explain exactly what type of possible effects might happen on a handful of species in a draft policy.


Part 3: Strengths and Weaknesses A weakness of the article is the main viewpoint of the HSUS within the article. It is clearly shown that the HSUS is against what the Bush administration wants and marks several reasons why their proposed law wouldn’t work. A strength of the article is the use of facts to back up their viewpoints. The HSUS lists several reasons why and details them within the article. Another strength is the use of quotes from organizations supporting the same cause as the HSUS giving the article more emotional appeal. Part 4: Comparison and Contrasts The Humane Society of the United States disapproves Bush’s proposal along with the New York Times featuring information on what Bush’s proposal would do and the positive and negative feedbacks [2]. The HSUS neglects to cover further detailing but only provides information on what people can do to protest and feature the negative aspect of the proposal and a lack of detailed debate is given from both sides [2]. Part 5: Uses in the Essay This article will be used in the History and Background part of the essay to help detail reasons why my public policy issue was brought up. Using it in this specific part of the essay is to help readers understand why this public policy issue is important.


[21] Institutional Source Isaac, Joanne L. “Effects of Climate Change on Life History: Implications For Extinction Risk in Mammals.� Endangered Species Research 22 May, 2009 [www.int-res.com/articles/esr2009/7/n007p115.pdf, accessed 15 July. 2009]. Part 1: Source Analysis Endangered Species Research is published by Inter Research Science Center, an organization that spends most of its profits towards endangered species research. They sponsor the International Ecology Institute, a non-profit organization, and provides its journals and many of their books free online (www.int-res.com/about-ir). Endangered Species Research publishes manuscripts and was founded 2004. They publish research articles, reviews, invited reviews and notes (www.int-res.com/journals/esr/information). Joanne L. Isaac is a postdoctoral research associate who has written several publications including journal articles and book reviews (www.jcu.edu.au). Part 2: Main Assertions Isaac asserts that climate change is one of the most significant threats to endangered animal populations. However there is little research to clarify how these changes have influenced population growths and dynamics. Isaac reviews the impact that climate change from humans has on endangered animals, mostly focusing on mammals, and looking at the areas of research that have been normally overlooked. Isaac also asserts that while human impact is a main cause there are also non-human induced causes that have led more animals losing habitat and becoming endangered or threatened. The author uses information from other sources and cites them within the review to back up his research and validate his findings. In the end Isaac reviews the studies he uses to conclude that the climate changes have changed the geographic distribution and even physical appearances of many mammals.


Part 3: Strengths and Weaknesses A weakness of the article stems from the lack of focusing on all animals instead of just mammals. While the research is important and provides very valid examples through data and figures, the lack of encompassing all animals could be argued in Isaac’s information that the climate change is only affecting mammals. A strength of the review is the research that went into finding out not only is human interaction affecting climate change, but also non-human interaction is also a cause for the climate change leading to a possibility of endangering animals through a lack of resources and habitat. Part 4: Comparison and Contrasts Isaac focuses on research leading to habitat loss as a possible reason leading to animal extinction on both a human and non-human interaction which leads to environmentalists arguing over who should be responsible for taking care of these threats [3]. The idea of who should be responsible is now argued among legislatures and the government [3]. Part 5: Uses in the Essay Due to Isaac’s assertion on climate change being the leading focus of habitat loss. Her information would be useful in the subissue dealing with habitat protection responsibility.


[22] Institutional Source Hoffman, M, et al. “Conservation Planning and the IUCN Red List.� Endangered Species Research 7 May 2008 [www.int-res.com/articles/esr2008/6/n006p113.pdf, accessed 15 July. 2009]. Part 1: Source Analysis The Endangered Species Research, founded in 2004, publishes manuscripts, research articles, reviews, invited reviews, and notes (www.int-res.com/journals/esr/information). Inter Research Science Center publishes Endangered Species Research, an organization that spends most of its profits towards endangered species research. They also sponsor the International Ecology Institute, a nonprofit organization, and provides its journals and many of their books free online (www.int-res.com/abour-ir). Hoffman is an IUCN Species Programme within the International Union for the Conservation of Nature and works for the Center for Applied Biodiversity Science within Conservation International (www.int-res.com). No other information could be found about the author. Part 2: Main Assertions The authors assert that the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) red List of Threatened Species plays an important role in conservation efforts and influences on the Endangered Species Act. Both government and non-governmental organizations rely on this list in order to perform priorities, influence legislation, and guide conservation investment. However the authors also assert that while the IUCN Red List is positive in helping endangered or threatened species, the list is also misused at times thus showing the power the list has to inform policy. The article talks about evolution of the list and how it is used and also of conservation planning and how the IUCN Red List can be improved. This leads to the assertion that the authors view the list as a flawed document.


Part 3: Strengths and Weaknesses A strength of the article is the use of other sources to cite and back-up assumptions and viewpoints made. Also figures and data are used to provide examples to the research that is used. Another strength is the authors include footnotes to which provide more information on certain data that might be confusing and adds clarity and a better understanding to the article. A weakness of the article is the loose connection the article makes to the IUCN Red List and how it provides policy to protection and conservation of threatened or endangered species. The article mostly explains the IUCN Red List and the power and faults it has. Part 4: Comparison and Contrasts The IUCN Red List is the Endangered Species List to which the Endangered Species Act protects the listed species [16]. Conservation efforts are drawn around the List to which many organizations and bills have been formed to help conserve endangered species [15, 17, 27]. The assertion made within the article would prove useful to advocates who say the Endangered Species Act is flawed [12, 31]. Part 5: Uses in the Essay I will be using touching base with this article in my history and background section. This will be only to briefly discuss how the IUCN Red List is an important factor to the Endangered Species Act of 1983. However I will be using this article in my first subissue which discusses the conservation efforts and their degree of effectiveness. The IUCN Red List will be useful in talking about how it plays into a huge conservation effort in both positive and negative aspects.


[23] Institutional Source “Bush Administration Moves to Gut Endangered Species Act.� Earthjustice 27 March. 2007. [http://www.earthjustice.org/news/press, accessed 3 August. 2009]. Part 1: Source Analysis There is no author provided for the article, however there is a contact name and number for Jan Hasselman at the end of the article. Jan Hasselman is an attorney with Earthjustice and focuses on national issues including endangered species listing and public lands. He has a history degree from Wesleyan University and graduated from Boston College Law School (www.earthjustice.org/about_us). Earthjustice is a non-profit interest law firm dedicated to defending and protecting natural resources, wildlife, and the rights of people to a healthy environment. It was founded in 1971 as the Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund, provides legal representation at no cost to more than 700 clients, and is headquartered in Oakland (www.earthjustice.org/about_us). The organization works off of donations, 71% are from individuals and foundations. They spend most of their expenses, 92%, towards program services and fundraising (www.earthjustice.org/about_us). Part 2: Main Assertions The main assertion made within the article is the Bush administration is proposing making changes to the Endangered Species Act which would make future listings extremely difficult, redefine key concepts towards protected species, restrict habitat protections, and give the act of administration of the ESA to states. The organization says that it would make is more difficult for a species to gain protection through scaling back the future timeframe in which it is considered a species will more than likely become extinct. By using quotes and facts the organization also asserts that the Bush administration is the least involved in species protection.


Part 3: Strengths and Weaknesses A strength of the article is the use of quotes from the Fish and Wildlife Service and people within the organization itself. Earthjustice deals with issues brought up in the article and address them with quotes from people within the organization. Another strength is the facts used to show the listing of species under four different administrations, including Bush’s. This supports their sub-assertion that the Bush administration has done the least for species conservation. Part 4: Comparison and Contrasts Compared to Greenwald’s “Politicizing Extinction” article which asserts that the Bush administration is undermining the endangered species protection, Earthjustice’s assertion would agree with the claims made [25]. The fact that the Bush administration is limiting and putting restrictions on endangered species conservation and protection supports the claims made by Earthjustice [25]. Part 5: Uses in the Essay Earthjustice’s article will useful in the discussion section of the essay. The organization provides great facts about what the Bush administration has done for endangered species protection and how the administration wants to change the Endangered Species Act.


[24] Institutional Source Reauthorization and Amendment of the Endangered Species Act. “Protecting Endangered Species Habitat on Private Land: A Position Statement of the Society of American Foresters.” Society of American Foresters 8 March 2008 [www.eforester.org/fp/documents/habitat_final.pdf, accessed 23 July. 2009]. Part 1: Source Analysis Founded by Gifford Pinchot in 1900, the Society of American Foresters is the national scientific and educational organization which represents the forestry profession in the United States. Their goal is to advance science, technology, and education to continue the health and use of forest ecosystems and to present future forest resources to benefit society (www.eforester.org/about). The SAF is a nonprofit organization which focuses on forests and foresters. The organization is made up of researchers, CEOs, administrators, educators, and students (www.eforester.org/about). The organization also publishes the Journal of Forestry, Forest Science, and the Southern, Northern, and Western Journal of Applied Forestry (www.eforester.org). Part 2: Main Assertions The main assertion of the Society of American Foresters’ article is that private land needs to be furthered enforced by the government to protect endangered species habitat’s that might reside on such land. The sub-assertion of the article is the organization’s want to provide private land owners an incentive as to enhance and manage their land in a way so endangered species can live and exist. The organization goes into detail, providing sources as proof, on backing-up their assertions and suggestions on incentives and habitat management for private land owners. The article details the conflict between the Endangered Species Act and land owner’s rights with land that is shared with endangered species.


Part 3: Strengths and Weaknesses A strength of the article is the sources provided to back up viewpoints and assumptions made by the Society of American Foresters. Another strength is the in-depth discussion provided to explain and detail reasons why private lands need to be enforced and why land owners should get incentives. A weakness of the article is the lack of viewpoint coming from the land owner themselves. The organization fails to talk about consequences or negative set-backs that land owners would take if incentives were given to them. Thus the article is trying to persuade the readers that the action mentioned, incentives to further protection on private lands, should be taken. Part 4: Comparison and Contrasts Along with Rocky Barker’s novel, the organization would agree that incentives should be given to private landowners for compensation purposes [14]. However the Society of American Foresters would disagree with the Gun Owners of America who do not want to see incentives being given to landowners strictly because they feel that the Endangered Species Act doesn’t work and that any efforts to make it work are ineffective [31]. Part 5: Uses in the Essay The article will be useful in the History and Background section of the essay. It can further viewpoint that have been made to give incentives to private landowners. The article will also go in two of the subissues, the first dealing with current conservation efforts and the second dealing with economics of helping endangered species.


[25] Institutional Source Greenwald, Noah. “Politicizing Extinction: The Bush Administration’s Dangerous Approach to Endangered Wildlife.” A Center for Biological Diversity 2007. [www.biologicaldiversity.org accessed 23 July. 2009]. Part 1: Source Analysis Noah Greenwald is a Biodiversity Director for A Center for Biological Diversity, previously a field biologist, and directs the Center’s efforts towards the Endangered Species Act. He has a bachelors of science in ecology from Evergreen State College and a master’s in forest ecology and conservation from the University of Washington (www.biologicaldiversity.org/about/staff). A Center for Biological Diversity is a non-profit organization founded in New Mexico. The organization, with more than 220,000 members, works to protect through legal, biological, and citizen petitions for animal, plants, and habitat conservation and rights (www.biologicaldiversity.org/about). Part 2: Main Assertions The main assertion Greenwald makes is the Bush administration is undermining endangered species protection through lessening habitats, less of listing species as endangered, and has invoked very few recovery plans for endangered species. Through data, tables, charts, and pictures, Greenwald backs up his assertions made throughout the article. Greenwald also gives recommendations at the end of the article to give suggestions to the problems that are being faced. His recommendations are mainly to enforce that the Bush administration be more responsible for endangered species conservation and to provide more research into whether or not the Bush administration is really helping.


Part 3: Strengths and Weaknesses A strength of Greenwald’s article is the vast array of detailed information provided to back-up his assertions. The information provided clearly explains why he thinks the Bush administration is the lease helpful in providing endangered species conservation and protection. Another strength is the recommendations that Greenwald gives at the end of his article. He pointing out mistakes that the Bush administration makes and then gives solutions to what should be done. However a weakness of the article is the lack of information given from the recommendations. Greenwald says what to do but not how to do it. He suggests what should be done yet lacks information to how his solutions would work. Part 4: Comparison and Contrasts Compared to Shankar’s article on the Bush administration’s plan on allowing hunting and exportation of endangered species Greenwald would disagree with the claims made by the Bush administration and would use the plans to further his assertion [2]. Shankar’s article takes into account how the plan would work and gives view to both sides of the argument, to which Greenwald would disagree with completely based on assertions and arguments made within his article [2]. Greenwald would agree with The Humane Society’s article which disagrees and points out mistakes and faults with the Bush administration’s plan [20]. Part 5: Uses in the Essay I will be using Greenwald’s article in the History and Background section of my essay dealing with reasons why my public policy issue needs to be dealt with. Also Greenwald’s article will help to explain what the government has been doing so far surrounding my policy question. The article will also be used in the discussion section of the essay.


[26] Institutional Source Newsletter. “Endangered Earth.” A Center for Biological Diversity 2009. [www.biologicaldiversity.org/publications accessed 23 July. 2009]. Part 1: Source Analysis “Endangered Earth” is a quarterly-newsletter put out by a Center for Biological Diversity (www.biologicaldiversity.org/publications). A Center for Biological Diversity is a non-profit organization founded in New Mexico. The organization, with more than 220,000 members, works to protect through legal, biological, and citizen petitions for animal, plants, and habitat conservation and rights (www.biologicaldiversity.org/about). Members say that the organization is one of the world’s most leading organizations for animal conservation and protection (www.greatnonprofits.org/reviews). Part 2: Main Assertions A main assertion that A Center for Biological Diversity makes is the discussion of a climate bill which if passed aims at the wrong target in greenhouse gas reductions. The Center claims that the bill repeals the ability of the Clean Air Act. A sub-assertion is the several articles the Center provides within the newsletter all dealing with wildlife conservation problems or solutions that have been brought up. The newsletter talks about how the gray wolf in the Rockies still face slaughter, an assertion that they want to see the gray wolf on the Endangered Species List, to how the center is suing for sea turtle safeguards which lead to shut downs of fisheries. The center uses quotes, facts, and pictures to support their stories, assertions, and claims.


Part 3: Strengths and Weaknesses A weakness of the newsletter is because they cover an array of different topics it is hard to pinpoint what their main assertion is. Furthermore the Center is just writing on specific stories of interest rather than trying to convey or persuade their intended audience. Another weakness is the lack of sources used to confirm their accusations and statements. They quote very little on where they got their information. A strength of the newsletter is follow up links provided for people who want to know more on certain stories within the newsletter. Another strength is the use of quotes, while as little of them as there are, to help show where the Center got its information. Part 4: Comparison and Contrasts While the climate bill being proposed is seen as ineffective by the Center, it is a solution to the controversy surrounding who should be responsible for regulating greenhouse gas emissions [18]. Furthermore the story on the wolf within the newsletter would contrast to the farmers and ranchers wants keeping the wolf delisted in certain states [1, 6]. While the proposed bill to give more protection to wolves would agree with the Center’s assertion [15]. Part 5: Uses in the Essay The newsletter will be used in the first subissue of the essay dealing with animal conservation. The newsletter focuses on conservation efforts made with sea turtles and other various animals that will be useful to show how conservation efforts are working. The Center’s newsletter will also be useful in the third subissue dealing with responsibility of habitat protection.


[27] Interview Source Osterman, Cindy. Phone Interview. 14 July 2009. Part 1: Source Analysis Cindy Osterman is a former member of Wildlife Faun Rescue in Kendwood, California. She is also a former teacher but is now retired. I chose Cindy Osterman because while she is no longer a member of Wildlife Faun Rescue, she has had many years of experience working with wild deer and helping them so they can be returned back to the wild. With this experience she will give me more information to how deer, as an example, are nursed back to health and then released into the wild. The information will help me with furthering my understanding on how conservation efforts work and whether or not they are affective. Part 2: Main Assertions Osterman asserts that the deer she used to raise in her younger years were completely wild and not domestic by any means. However there were two exceptions out of all the deer she raised, that would come back and let themselves be pet and fed by Cindy and her family over the years. She expects that the deer she raised and released back into the wild lived normal lives, about six to seven years. Osterman also asserts that with careful care and treatment, wild animals do not pose as a problem to the ones being raised by people. A sub-assertion from Osterman is she thinks we help animals because we really want to see them more in the wild rather than for our own selfish intentions and if done right, people can help animal populations without the animals themselves becoming less wild.


Part 3: Strengths and Weaknesses A weakness of this interview is the fact that Osterman only raised deer rather than a vast array of wildlife that would have given a better understanding. Or if she had raised certain endangered species, it would have directly linked to the essay. A strength of the article is the interaction she had with the deer she raised and the direct example she provides with raising her deer and the outcome it has shown. Part 4: Comparison and Contrasts Compared to Bergman’s assumption that we only interfere with animals for our own selfish reasons of feeling good about ourselves, Osterman contradicts what Bergman says [9]. She thinks we help animals out of good nature and that with certain care, animals can be raised by people without any drawbacks. However Osterman does give levy to Bergman when she says she did have two exceptions when raising her deer, two of them did become slightly tame towards humans thus giving Bergman’s assertion that we cannot raise wild animals without some sort of hitch [9]. Part 5: Uses in the Essay I will be using the interview from Cindy Osterman in the stakeholders’ suggestions part of the essay. By using Osterman’s interview, she will help give information more on what is done with animal conservation. In this sense I will also use the interview in the first subissue dealing with whether or not current conservation efforts are working.


Interview #27 Conducted ____in person

___X__by telephone ____via e-mail

SECTION A: (Pre-interview) Name of interviewee: Cindy Osterman Job Title: Former Teacher and Wildlife Fawn Rescue Member Occupation: Retired Telephone Number: 707-894-4732 I hope to gain more insight on wildlife survival. Also I hope to gain more knowledge on types of protection when it comes to animal conservation and how farmers use resources to protect their herds. SECTION B: (Post-interview) The interview was 20 minutes long. I have not done a follow-up but will soon. The interview proved to be slightly different than I expected. Cindy provided information on wildlife and how raising them properly leads to a healthy domestic-free animal. SECTION C: Q: Did you have any problems with wild animals attacking or killing your animals? If so how and what? A: If she did, it was only until after she released them back into the wild. She never knew of any. One deer she saw came back with a broken leg but she never saw any predators like mountain lions, however, her hunter friends did. The deer never attracted predators. Q: What animals did you raise? Do you still raise any? A: She used to raise deer. She still raises squirrels. She does wildlife rescue. The squirrels she kept in pet carriers from feral cats and raccoons. The squirrels still come back.


Q: Why did you stop raising deer? A: She moved. Used to own a 110 acre ranch. Had to take care of everything and it ended up being too much money. Q: Did you take any precautions to help prevent your animals from being killed or hurt? A: She kept the deer in six feet high enclosures. They had plenty of room. Q: What was a typical day for you when you raised your animals? A: During the time she also worked full-time. She would wake up and make bottles of milk for the deer and feed them. The milk would go into containers where she would hardly have any contact with the deer. Then she would go to school to teach and afterwards she would come back and feed the adult deer rolled oats, no sweet mix. Q: What made you start raising deer? A: She found a wounded deer and ended up asking if she could be certified to raise it. The Wildlife Fawn Rescue approved her, which was founded Marje Davis in Kenwood. Q: Do you think the animals were truly wild and did not become domestic to humans? A: The way she helped them she definitely thinks they did not become domestic but stayed wild. However there were two exceptions, Daisy and Thursday. These two deer would come back and let themselves be pet and fed by people. However Daisy would still go mate with wild deer and end up bringing back babies when visiting Cindy. “I definitely think that the way I raised the deer, they stayed wild and were not domestic.” “I would keep the deer in a six foot high enclosure, separate from any wildlife. This way they were safe and avoided any unnecessary human contact.”


[28] Interview Source Daugherty, Jean. In-Person Interview. 29 July. 2009. Part 1: Source Analysis Jean Daugherty is a social worker that helps women re-enter society from prison. She volunteers about 10 to 20 hours a week at the Cascades Raptor Center in Eugene, Oregon. She has been volunteering at the Center for eight years working to help raptors and educate people on them (Daugherty). Cascades Raptor Center is a non-profit nature center and wildlife hospital catering to raptor recovery and rehabilitation and public education. Founded in 1987 the center follows protocols based from the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife Services (www.eraptors.org). Part 2: Main Assertions Daugherty asserts that through the conservation efforts provided at the Cascades Wildlife Center, the birds they help, help educate people and hopefully will enhance awareness and care for the planet and all animals of it. In this sense it can be said that through this education hopefully there will be less endangered and threatened species in the future. The birds received are mostly from Lane County and are not threatened or endangered; this is with the exception of the eagles and some owls that the Center has. Through the medical treatment and care the birds receive, Daugherty asserts that the birds do live longer than their wild counterparts. With this assertion it can be assumed that conservation efforts work. Daugherty uses examples of birds that she has treated in the past and the effectiveness of what they do to back up her assertions.


Part 3: Strengths and Weaknesses A strength is the knowledge she provides from working there for eight years. This ended up giving much information dealing with the education of raptors and how that will help future efforts for conservation. A weakness is because the Center usually receives birds that are plentiful in numbers, the capture and release program doesn’t make a significant difference with the species population. However they do make a difference when educating people. Part 4: Comparison and Contrasts Daughtery believes that through teaching younger generations about conservation efforts made to help and save raptors, it is opening up future generations to be more aware and care for the earth so that future animal species won’t become extinct [28]. Compared to the Endangered Animals Articles which believes that animal conservation won’t work until ecological problems are solves, Daughtery’s assertion is proving to combat the problems that the EAA proposes [32]. However the efforts provided by Daughtery would contrast Bergman who says we only help animals for our own selfish intentions and benefits [9]. Part 5: Uses in the Essay Daughtery’s knowledge of raptor rehabilitation provides extensive material into the conservation efforts that people and organizations provide for wildlife. Her information will be useful in the conservation sub issue of the essay.


Interview #28 Conducted __X__in person ____by telephone ____via e-mail SECTION A: (Pre-interview) Name of interviewee: Jean Daugherty Job Title: Director of Women’s Services Occupation: Social Worker for women released from prison Telephone Number: 541-485-6738

E-mail address: jean@sponsorsinc.org

Location and time of interview: Cascades Raptor Center in Eugene, OR at 4:00 p.m. I expect to learn more about raptor conservation and would like to gain more knowledge about how the Raptor Center provides services to help raptors. I also hope to gain more insight to how a volunteer helps and nurses these birds back to release conditions. SECTION B: (Post-interview) The interview took roughly 27 minutes. I did not contact the interviewee for a follow-up but I do have her number in case I should need a follow-up. I expected to learn more on how the efforts of the Cascades Raptor Center contributes to wildlife conservation and their personal opinion on whether or not conservation makes an effort on animal populations. SECTION C: Q: What is a typical day for you volunteering? A: It depends. Jean is in charge of three different positions. She does animal care which is a required one four hour shift per week where she comes in and takes care of the rehabilitation birds. This includes work of either tube feeding or medical treatment. She also is in charge of rounds and feeding at night. Q: What made you start volunteering? A: Her daughter had left for college and she felt that she needed a challenge in her life. She originally was scared to death of birds but decided to take on the challenge of volunteering at the


Cascades Raptor Center. About two shifts in one of her fellow co-volunteers locked her in a cage with the eagles. This is when she overcame her fear. Q: Is it rewarding to be doing the volunteer work? A: She finds it very rewarding and not only with herself but for others who come and visit and for the birds that they help. Q: Do you think the conservation efforts made for wildlife, such as the efforts here at the Cascades Raptor Center, are effective? A: She isn’t sure. The vast majority of the birds they care for are already healthy in population numbers in the wild. However it is very effective for educating people and hopefully leaves an imprint of conservation efforts on future generations. Q: Are the non-releasable birds allowed to mate and produce offspring? If so are those birds released? A: No, the non-releasable birds are strictly there for educational purposes. However they still let the birds go through their cycles such as laying eggs and sitting on them. This prepares them to be foster parents. The babies that the foster parents take care of are released into the wild when they are mature enough. Q: Do you think that with the care and treatment of these raptors, they end up surviving longer than their wild counterparts? A: Yes, with the medical care provided their lifespan usually is longer here under care. Q: Have you had any problems with predators? A: Not to her recollection. She has been volunteering there for eight years and doesn’t know of any predator problems. However they also do take precautions. Cages are designed to exceed the requirements of the Oregon Department and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services.


[29] Interview Source Gervais, Jennifer. Phone Interview. 5 August 2009. Part 1: Source Analysis Dr. Jennifer Gervais is a Wildlife Ecologist for the Oregon Wildlife Institute. She has a Ph.D. and M.S. in Wildlife Ecology from Oregon State University and Humboldt tate University. She also has an A.B. in Biology from Bowdoin College (www.fw.oregonstate.edu). Her research involves dynamics and ecotoxicology of wildlife species and most of her work is with the burrowing owl in California (www.oregonstate.edu/~gervaisj). The Oregon Wildlife Institute is a non-profit organization working with conservation and enhancement of wildlife resources in both human interacted environments and native (www.oregonwildlife.org). They have five different programs, one including a education and outreach program which has volunteers help and interact with species to collaborate research and educate the public (Gervais). Part 2: Main Assertions Gervais asserts that scientific research is what defines species conservation. Without research, conservation wouldn’t be here. Through her efforts she has done research on many different species for funded groups to find out what conservation efforts should be done for what. She also asserts that through research and finding out what species is on certain lands and in water, the question of what the main goal is frequently brought up. Research efforts should be done to figure out what the main effort of a group should do. Through examples of what Gervais has done, she explains how research has shaped and made conservation efforts for certain species including the gray-tail vole and sea turtles.


Part 3: Strengths and Weaknesses A strength of the interview is the information provided about how scientific research has shaped species conservation. The examples Gervais provides shows how her research and the research efforts of the institute have given agricultural and conservation groups a guide to how they should deal with the species on their land. However a weakness of the interview is the lack of clarity brought forth when Gervais mentions her belief that conservation should be questioned to reach the main goal of what should be done. Part 4: Comparison and Contrasts Compared to the National Governor’s Association both the group and what Gervais say is through scientific research polices and conservation efforts can be formed [17]. However Gervais lacks to explain how the Endangered Species Act has been formed through research and the NGA feels that through research ESA can be improved [17]. Part 5: Uses in the Essay The interview will be helpful in the Stakeholders’ suggestions part of the essay. Dr. Gervais explains how scientific studies, surveys, and research have contributed to species conservation.


Interview #29 Conducted ____in person __X__by telephone ____via e-mail SECTION A: (Pre-interview) Name of interviewee: Dr. Jennifer Gervais Job Title: Wildlife Ecologist Occupation: Faculty member in the Department of Fisheries and Wildlife and Oregon State University. Telephone Number: (541)-757-9041

E-mail address: jen@oregonwidlife.org

I hope to gain more insight to what Dr.Gervais does within the Wildlife Institute and her viewpoint on species conservation and the effectiveness of it. I also want to know more about what she does as a Wildlife Ecologist and how her studies and research give back to wildlife conservation. SECTION B: (Post-interview) The interview took roughly 20 minutes. I have not done a follow-up with the interviewee however she has agreed to do a follow-up in case need be. I expected to learn more about how scientific research helps add to species conservation and the personal opinion of Gervais on species conservation efforts being effective or not. SECTION C: Q: What are some of the efforts that the Wildlife Institution does for species conservation? A: The Institute does various funding sourced research. They also work with Oregon State University. Dan Rosenberg is the co-founder and also Gervais’ husband. They receive grants for conservation videos. However all of it depends on the funders to determine what conservation effort they look into. They do field research and present it to growers, agricultural and conservation groups. Q: What are some current conservation effort research is the institute doing?


A: Recently she was doing some research into conservation of sea turtles. She did a synopsis of what is out there. She worked with restoration sites by doing surveys. This includes getting information on what is out in the area and how it should be valued. The institute also works alongside other conservation groups. What should be done is a matter of questioning the goal of the site depended on scientific research. The co-founder of the institute, Dan Rosenberg, has been training dogs as detectors to spot out certain species of plants. Q: Do you think conservation efforts are effective? A: It depends. She questions how you can see conservation effective or not. Is it saving an entire species? Probably not. However research has helped guide conservation efforts. So in this sense, yes. The sea turtles she has recently been researching is a good example. Through the scientific means of finding out information the conservation efforts for this species has made a significant difference positively. It helps. However not everything is so obvious. Sometimes the research isn’t effective. Q: Do you have any research done on the current situation of the gray wolf? A: No, they don’t work with canines. However the situation of the gray wolf is very controversial. But you have to question what the goals of the conservation efforts for them are. Farmers don’t want them but other research groups want to see them throughout the west. You have to determine the main goal in order to gain a policy question to deal with if you haven’t decided yet. Q: How long have you been working in your field of research? A: She has been doing 20 years of wildlife research however the institute is quite new. Roughly two years old. “Research is what determines species conservation”


[30] Other Source “Killing of Wildlife, Pets Brings Call for Poison Ban.” Narr. Jeff Brady. All Things Considered. Natl. Public Radio. Radio. 7 Apr. 2007. Parts 1-3 Jeff Brady is a general assignment reporter for NPR, National Public Radio. Before working at NPR in October 2003, he was a reporter at Oregon Public Broadcasting, OPB, in Portland and graduated from Southern Oregon State College in 1995 (www.npr.org). NPR is a producer and distributor of noncommercial news, talk, and entertainment programming. It is privately supported and a not-for-profit membership organization (www.npr.org/about). They have an audience of about 27.5 million each week, are in partnership with more than 860 independently operated public radio stations, and are partnered with public broadcasting PBS. Brady asserts animal protection groups to ban certain poisons farmers, ranchers, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture uses to kill wildlife. Not only is it killing people’s pets but endangered animals as well. Brady uses a human interest story to bring up the proposed ban to try and persuade listeners the dangers of the poison. However Brady also address the other side using quotes from a rancher talking about the positive impacts that the poisons leave and how without them flocks and herds are destroyed and huge profits are lost, but not only in profits but also in collateral damage. A weakness of Brady’s is the lack of clarity when he mentions animal advocates. He does mention one group and gets a quote from them. A strength of Brady’s is the great support from both sides that he uses to showcase his story. He uses quotes and statements from both sides to support his assertions and claims.


Part 4: Comparisons and contrasts Farmers and ranchers would agree with the side wanting to allow poisons to combat against predators [6]. They also would agree that without this form of protection, their herds and livestock are subjected to huge profit losses [6]. Part 5: Uses in the essay Brady’s news story will be useful in the third subissue dealing with habitat protection and who should be responsible. The issue of poison deals with how endangered species coming onto private lands needs to be protected and whether or not this should be regulated under the Endangered Species Act of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services.


[31] Other Source

“Letter to Rep. Richard Pombo Re: ESA Reauthorization.” Gun Owners of America. Online. 16 Jun. 2005 [www.gunowners.org, accessed 25 July. 2009]. Part 1-3 The Gun Owners of America is a non-profit lobbying organization formed in 1975 to protect the rights of gun owners. Founded by Senator H.L. Bill Richardson, the organization is associated with the Gun Owners of America Political Victory Fund and Gun Owners Foundation (www.gunowners.org/protect). The main assertion from the letter sent to Representative Richard Pombo is while the GOA agrees that the Endangered Species Act has failed in more ways than one, pointing out that rare species are at greater risk now than before the ESA became a law, they disagree with Pombo’s proposed bill stating that instead of strengthening and trying to fix the ESA it is better to just abolish the law and start over. Therefore the bill would be useless and a futile effort of Pombo’s part. The GOA uses details and facts from the past to support their assertion including failed attempts at trying to fix the ESA. A strength of the letter is the useful information and opposition that the GOA provides. Another strength is the facts they provide to support their assertion. In this sense they are showing why they believe the ESA is a failed law and why Pombo should just forget his bill. However a weakness of the letter is the one-sided stance on Pombo’s bill. Another is the lack of detail to talk about Pombo’s bill but instead goes into details on why the ESA is a failed law. In this sense they move off topic slightly.


Part 4: Comparison and Contrasts The GOA would most likely agree with farmers and ranchers who view that the wolf should be delisted from the Endangered Species List [1, 6]. The GOA would also agree with the facts presented by private land owners who claim that because it is their property, they should be able to do what they want on it [20]. However compared to the claims from RedOrbit the GOA would disagree stating that Pombo’s bill is ineffective and instead of reviewing the bill, they should abolish the ESA [7]. Part 5: Uses in the Essay The GOA’s letter will be helpful in the History and Background section of the essay. Their rebuttal to Pombo’s bill will be helpful to discuss what the government has been doing so far to address the current public policy issue. The letter will also be useful in the first subissue of the essay dealing with conservation efforts being effective. The GOA’s opinions will be useful to show reasons why the ESA doesn’t work and the problems that are caused by it.


[32] Other Source “Are current conservation efforts enough to save many animals from going extinct?.” Weblog entry. Endangered Animals Articles. June 2009. [www.endangeredanimalsarticles.blogspot.com, accessed 26 July. 2009]. Part 1-3 Endangered Animals Articles is a weblog site trying to raise awareness to endangered animals and trying to point out the reasons why there are so many endangered and to try and show possible solutions to the problems (www.endangeredanimalarticles.blogspot.com). The main assertion that the blog makes is that animal conservation is helpful for keeping animals from going extinct however it is ineffective and won’t be able to solve anything until people start solving ecological problems first. The blog questions scientific efforts and reasons for why endangered animals are on the brink of extinction. A strength of the blog is the way they handle the problems. The blog looks into possible reasons for why endangered animals are extinct then steers into the main assertion to which ecological problems makes conservation efforts difficult. This is so the intended audience is persuaded into believing that the main issue with endangered animals is ecological problems. Another strength is the examples the blog provides to help readers understand the reasoning behind their assertion. A weakness of the blog is the lack of sources to back up the claims and assertions made. With sources and facts added to drive the blog’s viewpoint there is a lack of substantial information. It could be questioned whether or not the information mentioned within the blog is correct or misrepresented.


Part 4: Comparison and Contrasts Compared to the claims from advocates voicing their strong desire to see the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services responsible for the carbon emissions melting the sea ice and threatening the polar bear, the blog would agree that this is one way to start solving the ecological problems that the blog asserts [3, 18]. However many say that putting the responsibility on the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services or even the Endangered Species Act is improbable and would only lead to problems later on [3, 18]. Part 5: Uses in the Essay The website’s blog will be useful in the first subissue dealing with conservation efforts within the essay. The blog states that conservation efforts won’t work until ecological problems are solved first otherwise we are just going around in circles. The blog will also be used in the third subissue dealing with habitat protection responsibility. It is mentioned within the blog examples of animals that have become endangered due to loss of habitat either through human interaction or climate change.


Essay Outline I. Introduction A. Should the United States Fish and Wildlife Service propose a new amendment to the Endangered Species Act of 1973 governing when animals can be taken off the endangered species list in order to prevent certain species of animals from becoming endangered again and possibly extinct? B. Currently there is debate between the listing and delisting of wolves in the northern Rocky Mountains of the United States, including Wyoming, Idaho, and Montana. Many want the wolves to be delisted and others want the wolves to stay listed on the IUCN’s Red List of endangered species. The confusion with whether the animal should be taken off due to overpopulation or kept on to keep it from being threatened again is debate to whether or not the Endangered Species Act should be clarified when an animal can be delisted from the endangered species list. [1, 6, 22, 26] C. Many people question whether or not current conservation efforts are working to help endangered species recover from the Red list and if the efforts provided are flawed. Other issues are economic benefits and stability to the protection of endangered species through the ESA and should the ESA include habitat conservation when it is threatening endangered species, more specifically on the level of carbon emissions leaving habitat loss. [3, 4, 9, 11] D. I think that the Endangered Species Act shouldn’t add a new amendment to strengthen when animals can be put on and taken off the Endangered Species List. However the government should clarify and rewrite the Endangered Species Act completely to fix flaws and help protect more species from facing extinction [12]. II. History and background information A. What events, if any sparked the need for this legislation, policy or regulation? 1. Within the Rocky Mountains of the United States current debate is going on whether or not the gray wolf should or needs to be delisted from the endangered species list. [1, 6, 15, 26] 2. The Rare Cats and Canids Act of 2009 would give more protection to the big cats species and canids species which includes wolves, dogs, foxes, and coyotes. [6, 15] 3. The lack of clarity has brought up the issue of whether or not endangered animals in other countries are protected under the Endangered Species Act which has had very limited success. [2, 12] B. How has the government addressed the issue, or comparable issues, in the past?


1. The Bush administration has come forth allowing endangered animals in other poorer countries to be hunted and exported at a cost in order to gain money for conservation efforts of endangered species in those same poor countries. [2, 20] 2. There are several laws protecting wildlife conservation which include habitat preservation and protection to animals. [13, 16] 3. Suggestions have been made from political figures and organizations on how to clarify the Endangered Species Act and what should be done for private land owners. [12, 14, 17, 24, 29] C. The Endangered Species Act of 1973 has had several amendments added to it and currently the Great Cats and Rare Canids Act of 2009 seek to add more protection to big cats and wolves, foxes, and coyotes. Organizations and private property owners are up in arms about what should be done for species residing on private property. [6, 14, 15, 16, 17, 24] III. Issues A. Are current conservation efforts effective? 1. Conservation efforts are effective. a. Through raising and releasing animals back into the wild, current conservation efforts are working to improve animal welfare and numbers in population. [9, 27, 28] b. Legal action has been taken place to help certain animals being threatened, even on the endangered species list, and those animals are making a comeback. [16, 26, 29] c. Talk about giving private land owners incentives has given rise to more protection of endangered species. [7, 24, 29] 2. Conservation efforts are not effective. a. By human interaction we are actually making it worse for endangered animals to make a comeback because our way of helping is flawed and leaves an imprint on the animal. [9] b. We only care to help when it helps ourselves and our own selfish intentions actually get in the way of helping endangered species survive. [1, 9, 13] c. Conservation efforts help but are overall ineffective in helping animal conservation until people start solving ecological problems. [12, 31, 32] 3. Conservation efforts are effective in helping endangered species make a comeback within the world today even through the selfish reasons why people help.


a. People create programs of capturing and releasing animals back into the wild to help them and has shown successful. [13, 27, 28] b. Between the IUCN’s Red List and the Endangered Species Act endangered animals are given a fighting chance at surviving through people’s intentions and motivations. [12, 16, 22] B. Is it economically beneficial or available to continue the protection of endangered or threatened species? 1. Certain endangered species conservation efforts bring in money to poorer countries that need help with their own conservations. Economics also helps determine whether or not an animal species should be considered endangered or threatened. a. Parks bring in money from people who come to watch animals. A major example is the gray wolf, which under much debate, is endangered in some states and not in others. [1, 13] b. A main part of determining whether or not an animal should be considered for the IUCN Red List or the endangered species list is economic limits that the United States government gains and can use for conservation efforts. [11, 22] c. Economic incentives can be given in order to benefit private land owners into protecting endangered species on their properties. [11, 24] 2. Farmers and other landowners are suffering losses due to the protection of endangered species. On top of that companies are losing out on money due to habitat and animal protection laws. a. Hunters, pet industries, zoos, and circuses rely on the capture, hunt, and exports of animals for profit and much of the revenue goes back into poorer nations to help. Without it these companies lose out on money. [2, 20] b. Lack of habitat due to endangered species protection causes companies to lose money. [4, 11] c. Farmers lose out on profit from their crops and herds due to protected predators killing or destroying their farms. [6] 3. While at times it is neither economically beneficial nor available to continue with endangered species conservation and protection, most of the times conservation proves to be an advantage for people and for animals.


a. Economics plays a big deal with endangered species conservation however economically we are not benefiting from the conservation without negative drawbacks. [2, 20] b. In order to help protect endangered species, conservation on private lands is required and through the government incentives can be given to landowners in doing so. [7, 24] C. Should the United States Fish and Wildlife Service be responsible for habitat protection when it becomes threatening for endangered species? 1. Loss of habitat for animals results in the decline of animal populations. The Endangered Species Act is responsible for these protections which are carried out by the United States Fish and Wildlife Services. a. Polar bears are losing their habitat due to carbon emissions destroying their habitats making them threatened and possibly endangered. [3, 18, 21] b. The Endangered Species Act states that each Federal agency shall carry out actions to help threatened and endangered species in result of habitat modification or destruction. [16] c. Decline in habitat for the gray wolf, grizzlies, and tigers due to private land have left them either over hunted or at a loss of hunting grounds for food. [16, 30, 32] 2. The Endangered Species Act along with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service cannot afford nor do they have the manpower to maintain certain global climates to prevent habitat loss. a. The Endangered Species Act was never meant to be used for climate policy. [18] b. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, along with the Interior Department, cannot keep up with the duties of maintaining carbon emissions linked to habitat loss. [3, 18] c. The Endangered Species Act cannot prevent landowners from using their property. [14, 16] 3. I believe that the United States Fish and Wildlife Services should not be responsible for carrying out habitat loss due to carbon emissions, however the organization should be responsible for protecting land that endangered animals survive on. a. Incentives should be given to those who use cleaner air for power production. [3, 18] b. Private land needs to be regulated by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to protect endangered animals from going extinct. [14, 30]


IV. Discussion A. During the Bush administration little was done for endangered species protection and conservation. [23, 25] 1. It was only during one presidency which invoked other actions such as opening hunting to endangered animals and wanted to change the Endangered Species Act through restrictions. [2, 20, 23] 2. Science plays an important role in determining research and allowing agencies certain actions within endangered species habitats. The lack of support from the Bush administration undermined the Endangered Species Act giving federal agencies free range to take actions without the consent of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services. [8, 10, 19, 29] B. The Threatened and Endangered Species Recovery Act proposed compensating private land owners for endangered species laws they had to follow on their land. [5, 7] 1. The bill never passed and many didn’t want the incentives because it would have caused more problems rather than solving them. [24, 31] 2. The bill would have rewritten the Endangered Species Act to eliminate critical habitat for endangered species. [5] V. Stakeholders’ suggestions for how best to resolve the issue A. Stakeholders suggest more endangered species conservation should be done to protect threatened and endangered species from becoming extinct rather than rewriting the Endangered Species Act. They argue on whether or not incentives should be given. [24, 26, 27, 31] 1. Many conservation efforts have worked to bring animal populations back. Some examples are the California Condor and the Bald Eagle. Stakeholders for giving more incentives claim that compensation is in order for the loss of rights on their property and by giving incentives would give private landowners more motivation for protecting endangered species on their land. [5, 6, 9, 14] 2. Conservation efforts only work if people cut back on contributions that lead to habitat loss. As of now only a monetary incentive has been provided to cut back on carbon emissions dealing with habitat loss. Also certain conservation efforts are deemed ineffective or flawed while only helping a small percentage of threatened or endangered animals. [13, 18, 28, 32]


B. The non-stakeholders suggest not rewriting the Endangered Species Act but to give private landowners incentives, and have more scientific research done to figure out what can be done more for endangered species. [12, 17, 19, 29] 1. More scientific research provided allows for greater protection of endangered species. Incentives for landowners provide more motivation for endangered species conservation on private land. [10, 12, 29] 2. Due to scientific research deeming certain actions of agencies harmful against endangered animals, companies end up losing out on money. [4] VI. Recommendations I view that by clarifying the Endangered Species Act to specify when an animal is to be taken off will bypass all of the problems faced with trying to delist an animal. Many want to kill them for hunting and pest purposes while other want to see animals last longer on the list to ensure that the population and health of these creatures perseveres. [1, 6, 26] A. Having a clear and strong delisting law or amendment would allow animals to stay on if need be and taken off when they are no longer of being endangered anymore or ever again. B. By clarifying and tightening laws when animals can be delisted face problems from land owners and farmers. Many farmers will lose money and livestock due to endangered predators killing off their herds. Also land owners would be restricted to what they could do on land that is a habitat for endangered species. [24] C. However by giving incentives to private owners in compensation for restrictions the overall benefit from creating clarity to delisting an animal from the endangered species list is a greater success rate for that species and preventing extinction. [12] VII. Conclusions A. Many animals face extinction again after being taken off the endangered species list. This is due to predators becoming a problem to farmers and ranchers and habitat loss squeezing out threatened species to a smaller existence. B. I analyzed the issue by breaking down sources focusing around the Endangered Species Act and current amendments to it. From there I focused on sources dealing with threats to threatened or endangered species including habitat loss and economic matters. I also focused on conservation efforts. C. I believe that something should be done to clarify when an animal is delisted. However a much more concerning matter is the habitat loss of animals due to those same people who complain about their rights of being able to kill animals on their land. A clear delisting would allow for a clearer idea of when an animal should be taken off and prevent further endangerment of species.


I. Introduction Should the United States Fish and Wildlife Service propose a new amendment to the Endangered Species Act of 1973 governing when animals can be taken off the endangered species list in order to prevent certain species of animals from becoming endangered again and possibly extinct? The gray wolf of the northern Rocky Mountains faces the current threat of being delisted from the Endangered Species Act. Within the northern Rocky Mountains of the United States, this includes the states of Wyoming, Idaho, and Montana, much debate surrounds this species [1]. Many want the gray wolf delisted due to pest problems concerning the killing of livestock, herds, pets, and threatening people [6]. Due to efforts on the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and through the Endangered Species Act, the gray wolf has made a remarkable comeback in population numbers [1]. However because of the high numbers the wolves are causing problems for ranchers and farmers who want the wolf delisted in order to protect their property and livestock [1]. Farmers say they lose thousands of dollars in profit because of the wolves [6]. So far the government has delisted them, only to list them a year later, and then finally settled on listing them as endangered in Wyoming and open season in Idaho and Montana [1]. The controversial solution was brought forth with the Bush administration and is now carried into the Obama administration [26]. Currently the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is accepting public comments on the wolves’ status [26]. With such a back and forth debate between keeping the species on the list and taking them off, this has left confusion to what to do, it also proposes that the wolf might be over-hunted again and possibly go back to being critically threatened on the IUCN’s Endangered Species List [22]. This questions whether or not this is a valid way to look at keeping an animal from going extinct. Thus the issue of whether or not a new amendment


to the Endangered Species Act of 1973 should be put in place in order to prevent future controversy and confusion with all species, just like the current situation going on with the gray wolf. Through the actions of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Endangered Species Act, and organizations helping to protect endangered species, it is questionable that all the efforts are even working. Are conservation and protection laws and efforts working and are they helping to bring back the numbers of threatened species [9]? This issue is not the only one that faces endangered species protection. Another issue is the economics behind the Endangered Species Act and species protection [11]. With the gray, wolf farmers complain that they lose profits [6] and oil tycoons in Alaska now have to face legal consequences and profit loss due to restrictions brought upon by placing the polar bear on the endangered species list [4]. The polar bear was only listed due to rapid decline in its habitat of sea ice which faces the threat of carbon emissions and global warming [3]. This questions if the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or the Endangered Species Act should be responsible for habitat protection when it threatens endangered species. Rather than dealing with making an amendment to the Endangered Species Act to strengthen when animals can be taken off and put on, the government should clarify the already pre-existing law about the flaws that face it. The Endangered Species Act doesn’t clarify certain aspects of species conservation, such as the protection of species in other countries and has only had about a handful of species recover from the brink of extinction [12]. II. History and Background The gray wolf debate has struck up controversy to decide whether or not the species has made a full comeback and if so, whether the wolf should be delisted. In 2007 the proposed delisting would happen in Montana and Idaho with the governor of Idaho wanting hunters to


reduce the wolf populations from 650 to 100. This would keep the wolf off the endangered species list [1]. However since then, the gray wolf has undergone several changes concerning its listing on the endangered species list. In 2007 the wolf was taken off the endangered species list in Minnesota; however farmers could still shoot wolves that attacked cattle. In 2008 the wolf was reenlisted under the Endangered Species Act [6]. Nonetheless illegal shooting has gone on [6] while the wolves still face threats within the northern Rocky Mountains [26]. As of June 2009, gray wolves in the Great Lakes region are under full federal protection for the time being and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service are accepting public comments on the wolves’ status. Organizations such as a Center for Biological Diversity place lawsuits against the federal government to defend gray wolves that are still at threat in the Northern Rockies [26]. Jay Inslee, the representative from Washington, sponsored a bill titled the Great Cats and Rare Canids Act of 2009 which would give more protection and conservation rights to big game cats and the canids species. This includes foxes, coyotes, dogs, and wolves [15]. The proposed bill, which has passed the House and moved onto the Senate [15], would help bring peace to the threat of wolf delisting but would cause more complaints from farmers and ranchers who seem them as a threat and profit losing pest [6]. However if the bill passed, it would only apply to domestic endangered species [15]. Until now, the Endangered Species Act prohibits removing domestic endangered species from the wild; extending to foreign species. Yet now it is debated whether or not species in other countries should be used towards monetary efforts for species conservation. This roundabout way would in turn help species conservation for other animals and is also said to give poorer countries money to help endangered species conservation where it is unaffordable [2]. However the rules under the Endangered Species Act do not restrict this proposed way of saving species.


The act has had very limited success in saving species and reversing the trend of extinction [12]. The lack of clarity and limited success adds to the need of a proposed strengthening amendment. The proposed amendment would clarify these faults and flaws that the Endangered Species Act currently is debated over. In 2003 the Bush administration proposed allowing U.S. hunters, circuses, and the pet industry access to endangered species in other countries [2]. Currently the Endangered Species Act states that endangered species may be imported into the United States only for scientific reasons and only to improve the survival of the species [20]. The access to endangered animals could generate profits for poor nations to pay for conservation for remaining animals [2]. The proposition means to save animals you need to kill animals. The exploitation of animals is a huge debate. Conservationists find it to be a bad idea [2] and animal welfare organizations such as the Humane Society of the United States are in protest [20]. Organizations also fear that by allowing legal trade will allow poaching to thrive. If made right, the proposed policy would give poorer countries money to fund conservation for endangered species. Hunting groups like Safari Club International find it to be a great idea. The trophy animals would be killed for game purposes but the money that allowed for the shooting of the animals would go to conservation programs [2]. However a bigger concern is that endangered species would be open to hunting and exportation which could threaten species even more and possibly further the threat of extinction. The main law for protecting endangered species is the Endangered Species Act of 1973. The Endangered Species Act (ESA) has had three amendments added to it in 1978, 1982, and 1988 since President Nixon signed the act into a law in 1973 [16]. However before the ESA was invoked several other laws were put in place to help critical wildlife needs. The first wildlife law passed was the Lacey Act in 1900, which “prohibited the interstate shipment of illegally taken


wildlife as well as importation of injurious species� [13]. Since the Lacey Act, other laws have been established to protect specific species. For example the Bald and Golden Eagle Act, in 1962, gave protection rights to the bald eagle and golden eagle. Other laws were implemented to put restrictions on imports and hunting of wildlife. The Airborne Hunting Act of 1971 prohibits the use of an aircraft to hunt or harass wildlife [13]. Yet, to this day the Endangered Species Act is still considered to be the best law concerning wildlife conservation efforts and protection. While the Endangered Species Act is the most influential law and provides other nations a model for species conservation strategy, the act has undergone much debate on whether or not it is a successful tool for species conservation and protection [12]. Some view that the Endangered Species Act is flawed because it conflicts with Fifth Amendment rights dealing with private property and conservation efforts of endangered species on private land [14]. Therefore many organizations including government sponsored groups like the National Governor’s Association suggests incentives should be given to encourage state and local governments to develop plans that balance habitat preservation and environmental concerns. The act also should encourage private landowners to engage in habitat conservation activities [17]. This way endangered species residing on private land will be fully protected [24]. Another aspect to look at is the issue of science to back up findings that prove that a specific species is endangered [12] and to use science to help figure out what should be done for the species [29]. Currently the Endangered Species Act is under hot debate regarding land incentives [17] and private property rights [14]. Some want compensation for the halt of developmental plans on private property due to endangered species inhabiting the land [17] and others want the government to provide more protection and jurisdiction to the species that reside [24]. The Endangered Species Act does provide protection to species that are deemed threatened or


endangered but doesn’t provide clarity to issues dealing with listing and delisting [16]. However government officials like Jay Inslee are proposing bills [15] to help strengthen flaws that Endangered Species Act doesn’t cover, including the current wolf delisting debate [6]. III. Issues A. Are current conservation efforts effective? Through the efforts of people and laws such as the Endangered Species Act, endangered species are given a fighting chance at survival. However organizations and government officials argue whether or not conservation efforts are effective or helping. Wildlife organizations such as the Cascades Raptor Center, volunteers their time and effort to helping animals back to health and to educate people about species conservation and what the public can do to help [28]. The effort to help animals through capture and release programs is responsible for population numbers increasing and to give wildlife a fighting chance from extinction [27]. One way that people interference has helped animals is by breeding them in captivity [9]. The California condor was almost extinct in 1986 when the last six remaining wild condors roamed the state. However the Fish and Wildlife Service decided that it would be best to capture the six remaining wild birds and bring them into captivity for breeding purposes. They released the birds back into the wild after their population numbers increased. Through the efforts that have gone into helping the species, it has made a comeback within captivity. This type of capture and release effort that brought the condor back from the brink of extinction is one way conservation efforts have helped species recover from the threat of extinction [9]. Other ways of helping animal protection is by informing other people about species conservation and what they can do to help animals. By educating people through conservation


organizations it will hopefully leave an imprint of conservation efforts on future generations [28]. The Endangered Species Act has proven to be a valid law to which legal intrusion has helped threatened and endangered species. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service use the law to implement and conduct programs that sponsor species conservation while scientifically proving the threats which may harm a species [16]. Through the government and lawsuits filed by organizations, endangered species are given a fighting chance. Lawsuits from A Center for Biological Conservation have proven to be effective in helping species. They have helped loggerhead and leatherback sea turtles get their habitat back to getting the gray wolf reenlisted in the northern Rockies of the United States [26]. Private land is under the responsibility of the owners and of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. This means if a private land owner wants to build or construct any development on their land inhabited by an endangered species [24], the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has the right to come in and stop the plans if they can prove it scientifically threatens a species [29]. Land owners are angered by the lack of free development on their own lands. To combat this, talk has been brought up to give private land owners more incentives for the restrictions put on their land [7]. This would give private land owners more incentive to keep up on the protection of endangered species on the land they own. Also the added incentives would help the conservation of endangered species to be more effective where people might interfere. However it is debated that by having people help endangered species we are actually in turn making them worse off. Zoos and organizations do try and help species but for the wrong reasons. People help to make themselves feel better and we see species as inferior creatures that need our help because we are strong enough to do so. A great example of this is the dusky


seaside sparrow. They caught the last remaining five birds in 1979 and tried to cross breed them with a near relative. The last remaining sparrow died in his cage at Disney World, in Orlando, Florida. The extinction of this creature was available for all to see. The capture and release program is also flawed in the sense that upon catching and breeding the animals in question, people are leaving an imprint on the animal. The offspring of the captured species are either caged or set in an environment to which food is easily available. While little to none human interaction is encouraged, it is still apparent. Either the species gets used to people and sees them as no threat or they get used to the readily available food supply that when released in the wild the species does not know how to hunt or obtain food for themselves [9]. This problem has been faced several times and while most of the time it doesn’t occur, it still does happen. The selfish intentions of helping endangered species actually interfere with overall endangered species populations and helps contribute to the threat of extinction [9]. The gray wolf is a prime example of selfish intentions on trying to help. The gray wolf started as endangered due to over hunting and shooting the animal as a pest. Now people want the wolf delisted because it proves to be a nuisance once again [1]. When wildlife proves to be a nuisance the one thing people can agree on is that it must be taken care of by any means [13]. The lack of hunting [13], for example, is brought up to show how the wolf populations have overgrown their stay and now people want them for pest problems [1]. This shows that people only want to help animals when they don’t conflict with their own needs. People tend to put themselves first and by doing so conservation efforts suffer. It isn’t wrong to say that the conservation efforts towards endangered and threatened species help but they are ineffective in helping animal conservation. The major aspect to look at is the Endangered Species Act which is the most influential law for species protection but has


had very little success to date. This is mostly due to the fact that the species that are successfully saved are usually high-profiled like the bald eagle or the lack of clarity within the ESA doesn’t provide clear protection rights to the habitat of endangered species [12]. Many find the ESA so flawed that it is overall ineffective and instead of trying to amend it, the government should just abolish it [31]. To add to this, conservation efforts won’t be effective until humans stop interfering with species, such as the act of hunting, poaching, and the loss of habitat due to either clear cutting or climate change. The biggest issue is the decline in habitat loss due to carbon emissions is failed to be regulated within the ESA or through any other laws or acts. The ecological problems that face endangered species will always be there until people take the time and effort to fix them and only in doing so will conservation efforts be effective [32]. Despite what the opposition says, conservation efforts are still effective in helping endangered species make a comeback. The creation of programs such as capturing and releasing species back into the wild has proven to be effective [27] and has helped educate people in the past to see that today more needs to be done for species conservation [28]. Other ways of helping animals without pinpointing certain species are national parks such as Yellowstone and Denali. National parks have proven to show that people are generally interested in wildlife and parks help preserve species in a biodiversity field [13]. Also the Endangered Species Act has provided a way for endangered species to make a comeback. It has proven to be influential in other countries [12] and has invoked an International Union Conservation of Threatened Species Red List. The IUCN Red List is an international endangered species list to which many conservation efforts are based off of. The list helps priority-set what species needs help more than others. It also helps to create conservation plans


and incorporates opportunities and costs should they need be [22]. All of this proves that conservation efforts towards endangered species are effective and helpful. B. Is it economically beneficial or available to continue the protection of endangered or threatened species? Some endangered species conservation efforts help to bring money for other conservation efforts. This is especially helpful in other countries that cannot afford it [2]. Also economics helps determine whether or not an animal should be considered endangered or threatened and helps decide what conservation efforts go into effect. Parks are one way that helps generate revenue for species conservation. Many people like to go to national parks and observe wildlife [1]. More than 76 million Americans spent $18.1 billion watching, photographing, and feeding birds and other wildlife in 1991. The economic revenue generated helped not only conservation efforts but also jobs and state and federal tax revenues [13]. At Yellowstone many people like to watch wolves that hunt and play in the wild and it is estimated that wolf watchers leave behind $35 million annually [1]. In turn this money goes into wildlife conservation. Economics play an important role in determining whether or not an animal should be considered for the endangered species list. Economics also matters because human behavior and economic restrictions help determine the degree of risk to a species. Communities with greater wealth and lower relative land prices can afford to preserve more habitat for protection and conservation [11]. The IUCN is one conservation effort that relies on degrees of determination to put species under its protection [22]. Because the world has a scarce amount of resources the opportunity cost of species protection has to be taken into account and the incentives from economics are important in shaping human behavior which results in conservation efforts from


people and the government. Time, labor, and capital available are all considered when planning endangered species conservation. Every preservation program weighs benefits from spending resources to see if it is a worthwhile cause to help a species [11]. Economic incentives can be given to encourage landowners to preserve property in order to protect endangered species [11]. The use of incentives encourages landowners to preserve habitat for endangered species and to encourage maintainability of the land. It is argued that the value of land is reduced if it is inhabited by a species [11] and the presence of a listed species will result in restrictions of activities [24]. Therefore landowners would bribe government scientists from finding listed species. Giving incentives would prevent this destruction by either providing compensation or permits and fines [11] Landowners aren’t the only ones to lose out profit-wise due to species conservation. Hunters, pet industries, zoos, and circuses rely on animals for profit [20]. They hunt, capture, and export species of animals which in turn generates profit for conservation effort [2]. Part of the profit made from hunting goes back into conservation. Unfortunately without hunters part of species conservation wouldn’t exist. The habitat for species conservation is also an economical debate. Private landowners would have to give up certain rights as restrictions would be placed on them by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service under the Endangered Species Act if scientists found listed species on the land [11]. The recent listing of the polar bear has left oil companies in Alaska rethinking their future drilling plans. Because of this the oil companies lose out on profits and will face future lawsuits due to the listing of the species [4]. The gray wolf is once again a prime example for conservation efforts. Minnesota farmers and ranchers are angry about the court ruling that puts the wolf back on the endangered species


list. The wolf has proven to be a huge problem to them due to the killing of livestock and herds. However the state does reimburse them for animals killed by wolves. But in order to get paid, the farmer must find the carcass and have proof it was killed by wolves. Farmers and ranchers complain they lose out on profits due to the pest problems. Whenever a wolf comes through, it costs them money [6]. However conservation does show there are economic benefits to protecting and preserving listed species. Economically species conservation can generate jobs from people spending money to watch, photograph, and feed birds and other wildlife [13]. But species conservation doesn’t come with a price. We benefit from conservation but we also accumulate negative drawbacks as well. The Bush administration wanted to implement a policy that would generate revenue for species protection [2]. However in order to do so endangered species would have been allowed to be exported, hunted, and caught to hunters, circuses, zoos, and pet industries [20]. Furthermore endangered species provide to be a pest problem to farmers and ranchers due to the lack of restrictions that are placed upon them. To combat this, private landowners should be compensated [24] while the Endangered Species Act should be rewritten to include this [7]. C. Should the United States Fish and Wildlife Service be responsible for habitat protection when it becomes threatening for endangered species? The loss of habitat for listed species and even non-listed species is a major contribution to the threat of extinction that faces many animals. The Endangered Species Act is responsible for protecting most habitat conservation. The United States Fish and Wildlife Service see the policies out and makes sure the protection is provided. Such a way is if government scientists


can prove that a listed species resides in a specific habitat then restrictions are then placed on the habitat [29], like restriction on development plans, cutting trees, and drilling for oil. Due to human interference and global warming the decline of sea ice has rapidly increased within the last few years. This is partially due to carbon emissions increasing the temperature and melting the ice [3]. Global climate change is predicted to result in the decline or extinction of a large number of animal populations worldwide [21]. Therefore the polar bear was added to the endangered species list in 2008 under scientific findings that in the future the rapid decrease in its habitat will place the species extinct if nothing is done for it now [18]. The Endangered Species Act states that critical habitat must be given to endangered species when no habitat is available or the current habitat of a listed species is required to sustain its survival. However critical habitat may only be established if it meets the needs deemed necessary under the ESA. If not, the ESA has no jurisdiction on land or habitat protection [16]. Decline in habitat for gray wolves, grizzlies, and tigers, have either left these species over hunted or at a loss of hunting grounds for food. Wolves and other predators of the northern Rockies have loss much land due to farmers and ranchers. In turn this leaves the animals at a loss of hunting grounds. The result of this is predators that hunt livestock and herds from farms. Farmers use poisons to protect their herds from predators such as gray wolves, where legally delisted, and grizzlies [30]. Tigers in India need large areas to hunt prey but because of habitat loss, their areas are getting smaller and smaller which conflicts with local population [32]. The only thing that helps prevent threats to these species is the critical habitat that is implemented under the Endangered Species Act [16]. Yet the Endangered Species Act and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service cannot afford nor do they have the manpower to maintain global climates to prevent habitat loss due to


human interference such as carbon emissions. Many believe that a new policy should be enacted to combat this type of threat to listed species. While others thought that the Endangered Species Act was never meant to be used for climate policy control. Or at least this is what former President Bush claims. Instead other incentives should be provided so that people and companies are encouraged to find better and ecological ways of power production [18]. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service under the Endangered Species Act is responsible for working “with others to conserve, protect, and enhance fish, wildlife and plants and their habitats for the continuing benefit of the American people” (fws.com). The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is a bureau within the Department of the Interior (fws.com) and could not handle the burden of trying to monitor emissions [3]. The carbon emissions in question have been the main culprit in the decline of sea ice which has resulted in the polar bear’s admission to the endangered species list. However the listing of this species should not be confused with the ability or will power to stop global climate change from melting sea ice [18]. Furthermore the issue with private landowners deepens debate with habitat responsibility. The Endangered Species Act can only protect private land and water when it is deemed critical habitat [16]. Additionally while the ESA can claim privately property as critical habitat, the Constitution’s Fifth Amendment says that limits place without compensation represent an unconstitutional way of taking private property. Organizations claim that the ESA could violate the Fifth Amendment if it prohibits landowners from development rights without compensation. This has resulted in limited inclusion of privately owned lands as critical habitat [14]. The United States Fish and Wildlife Service should not be responsible for carrying out habitat loss due to carbon emissions. The current structure of incentives being provided for owners of private property is an effective way of keeping species conservation alive.


Furthermore Interior Department Secretary Kempthorne proposes that incentives should be given for wind and solar energy to help reduce carbon emissions [18]. The Bush administration’s proposal that the ESA nor the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service was right on the money. The Obama administration seems to agree as well. By giving the responsibility of containing habitat loss due to carbon emission to the Fish and Wildlife Service, the government would burden them with solving causes of global warming [3]. This isn’t to say that all habitats shouldn’t be their responsibility. Private land needs to continue being regulated by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. By keeping the ability of deeming private property as a critical habitat, the prevention of more species going extinct is enabled [14]. This will keep listed animal species from being threatened or harmed on private property [30]. IV. Discussion While former President Bush was in power it is argued that little was done for endangered species protection and conservation. His presidency had the lowest listing species since the Endangered Species Act was passed. In comparison to the Clinton administration which listed 512 species, the Bush administration has only listed 50 since they took over in 2001 [25]. The Bush administration also proposed several different polices concerning endangered species conservation and protection which would reverse much of the hard efforts that the Endangered Species Act had put in place [23]. One policy proposed would gut the Endangered Species Act by making it harder for a species to gain protection. This would scale back the future timeframe that is considered to determine if a species is more than like going to become extinct [23]. Another policy that the Bush administration wanted to pass was to expand access to endangered species. They Bush administration proposed allowing hunters, circuses, and the pet industry to kill, capture, and


import threatened and endangered listed animals [2]. The money generated from this idea would in turn be profited for conservation of the same threatened animals to poorer countries [20]. No other administration has come forth propose claims that focus on profit rather than conservation [2]. Another set-back issue the Bush administration proposed and even got passed was to strip the input of federal wildlife scientists in some endangered species cases, allowing the federal agency in charge of building to authorize and fund a project without consent for the possible endangered species [8]. This will more than likely harm endangered wildlife [8] because science has proven to show reasons why a species should be listed and what conservation efforts for it should be done [10]. The political turmoil with the Bush administration proves that through politics, endangered species are helped or saved depending on what is more important within the government [10]. Science shows how a species could become extinct, what should be done on a matter of scientific research, and through surveys can show what species resides on what habitats [29]. Luckily in 2009 the Secretary of Commerce Gary Locke and Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar stated that it is revoking the Bush administration rule. The rule undermined the Endangered Species Act and the protections and efforts that have gone towards conservation [19]. In 2005 a proposed bill titled the Threatened and Endangered Species Recovery Act proposed limiting habitat protections but still give new rights to property owners. House Resources Committee Chairman Richard Pombo wanted to eliminate the critical habitat protection for listed species where development is limited, would still allow some scientific determinations but under political appointees, and would require compensation to property owners whose development plans were blocked by threatened species [5]. The bill ended up


passing the House but was rejected within the Senate. The funneling of money as incentives to private property owners instead of federal and state programs aimed at saving threatened species was held against the bill [7]. If passed the bill would change the act in a dramatic way but at the same time could result in a budgetary impact [5]. The proposed incentives potentially could have cost the United States a budget problem [5] while many organizations and groups argued for and against it [31]. The Gun Owners of America were against Pombo’s bill stating that while they agreed that the Endangered Species Act has failed to live up to its expectations, the proposed change from the bill would prove to be futile because you cannot fix an already broken law [31]. While other organizations didn’t agree with everything Pombo’s bill addressed, mainly the limiting of habitat protections, they did mostly agree that incentives should be provided to compensate property owners. Plus the added incentives should entice land owners to engage in habitat conservation activities [24]. V. Stakeholders’ Suggestions Stakeholders suggest that more endangered species conservation should be done to protect threatened and endangered species from becoming extinct rather than rewriting the Endangered Species Act. More funding for the ESA should be enhanced to address the list of threatened species and a clear methodology for delisting recovered species should be clarified [24] so that species such as the gray wolf don’t face on-again off-again threats [26]. People can help by volunteering and helping with conservation efforts [27]. However stakeholders argue whether or not incentives should be given to private land owners as compensation. This is mainly due from arguments that find the ESA to be a failed law and any effort to save it is futile [31]. Conservation efforts have help and worked to bring animals facing the brink of extinction back to healthy population numbers. The California condor and the bald eagle are prime


examples [9]. Stakeholders that want more incentives claim that the compensation is in order for the loss of rights on their property but also for the loss of profit due to species protection [6]. However those against the incentives find it to be economically detrimental to endangered species protection which instead of going to the land owners could have gone towards species conservation [5]. However the conservation efforts that contribute to species protection can only work if people find solutions to ecological problems and cut back on contributions that lead to habitat loss [32]. As of now monetary incentive has been provided to cut back on carbon emissions dealing with habitat loss [18]. Stakeholders also suggest that the Endangered Species Act is flawed because it only helps a small percentage [13] but also argues that it is helping even if it is a small number [28]. Non-stakeholders suggest that rewriting the Endangered Species Act is not a very good idea but to give private landowners incentives [17] and to have more scientific research to find out what more can be done for endangered species [19]. Using science will help show what can be done for a listed species and how people can deal with them [29]. Non-stakeholders also find the Endangered Species Act to be flawed but by adding and editing new things to fix the flaws will provide the ESA to be a sustainable law [12]. The incentives suggested would take care of the problems faced with private property owners not being able to further development plans that might have been halted due to protected species. With the incentives land owners are compensated for such a problem [12]. More scientific research allows for greater protection of endangered species [10]. The use of science has proven to be important for organizations to help conserve and protect species that could reside on private lands and public property [29].


However due to scientific research deeming certain actions among agencies to be harmful to protected threatened and endangered animals, companies end up facing lawsuits and losing out on profits. With the polar bear being listed as an endangered species, major oil companies like BP and Exxon stand to lose huge stakes within Alaska. There is concern that the decision will drive future court battles over oil exploration and production [4]. VI. Recommendations By clarifying the Endangered Species Act to specify when an animal is to be taken off the Endangered Species Act will help decrease future struggles with animals facing delisting. The gray wolf wouldn’t have such a questionable future [1] and farmers would find a solution to their pest problems [6]. Organizations wouldn’t have to rally so hard to see a species from facing over hunting problems [26]. If there was a clear and strong delisting the worry and debate between animal populations wouldn’t be as severe. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services would be able to mandate certain population numbers based on a species habitat and conflict to humans. However by clarifying and tightening laws when animals can be delisted still faces problems from land owners and farmers. Farmers might still lose out on money and livestock due to protected predators killing and defacing property value [24]. Private land owners would still be restricted to what they could do on land that an endangered species habitats. Yet this could be combated by giving incentives to private land owners for the restrictions that they face. The incentives would also prove to be helpful in convincing these people to help in species conservation [12].


VII. Conclusions Many animals face extinction again after being taken off the endangered species list. This is partially due to predators become a problem for farmers and ranchers but also due to habitat loss squeezing out threatened species to a smaller living existence. I analyzed the issue by breaking down sources focused on the Endangered Species Act. From there I looked at current bills, amendments, and acts that were in place to help with species conservation efforts. I focused more on sources dealing with threats to threatened or endangered species including the loss of habitat and economical issues. Conservation efforts were a huge factor for the policy and most of the time went into research behind this. I believe that something should be done to clarify when an animal is delisted. The gray wolf is a prime example of the faults of the Endangered Species Act, which needs to be addressed in order to make conservation efforts a complete success. However a more important matter to look at is the habitat loss threatening species existence. It is prevalent everywhere from melting sea ice to smaller hunting grounds in the United States. A clear delisting would allow for a clearer idea of when an animal should be taken off to prevent further endangerment of that species.


Works Cited www3.interscience.wiley.com.janus.uoregon.edu [accessed 11 July. 2009] www.ap-389.newsvine.com [accessed 26 July.com] www.ap.org [accessed 26 July. 2009] www.biologicaldiversity.org/about [accessed 23 July. 2009] www.biologicaldiversity.org/about/staff [accessed 23 July. 2009] www.biologicaldiversity.org/publications/papers [accessed 23 July. 2009] www.cambridge.org/about/default.htm [accessed 26 June. 2009] www.caria.org/esa.html [accessed 4 July. 2009] www.constitutioncenter.org/jennings/bios/Vedantam_S.html [accessed 29 June. 2009] www.ct.gsfc.nasa.gov/nasw2003/revkin.html [accessed 14 July. 2009] www.dana.org/news/author [accessed 29 June. 2009] www.doi.gov [accessed 25 July. 2009] www.doi.gov/history [accessed 30 July. 2009] www.earthjustice.org/about_us [accessed 3 August. 2009] www.endangeredanimalarticles.blogspot.com [accessed 2 August. 2009] www.epw.senate.gov/esa73.pdf [accessed 10 July. 2009] www.eraptors.org [accessed 29 July. 2009] www.esasuccess.org/reports [accessed 1 July. 2009] www.fundinguniverse.com/company-histories [accessed 15 July. 2009] www.fw.oregonstate.edu [accessed 5 August. 2009] www.fws.gov [accessed 4 July. 2009] www.fws.gov/endangered/esasum.html [accessed 4 July. 2009]


www.gannett.com [accessed 26 July. 2009] www.greatnonprofits.org/reviews/center-for-biological-diversity-inc [accessed 23 July. 2009] www.google.com [accessed 28 July. 2009] www.govtrack.us/congress/bill [accessed 30 June. 2009] www.govtrack.us/congress/person [accessed 30 June. 2009] www.gunowners.org [accessed 25 July. 2009] www.hcs.harvard.edu/heec/conf_program.html [accessed 28 July. 2009] www.house.gov/inslee [accessed 30 June. 2009] www.hsus.org/about_us/index.html [accessed 15 July. 2009] www.hsus.org/wildlife [accessed 15 July. 2009] www.huffingtonpost.com/jim-robbins [accessed 29 June. 2009] www.int-res.com/about-ir [accessed 16 July. 2009] www.int-res.com/articles/esr2009 [accessed 16 July. 2009] www.int-res.com/journals/esr/information [accessed 16 July. 2009] www.islandpress.com [accessed 27 July. 2009] www.jcu.edu.au/mtb/publication [accessed 16 July. 2009] www.justicejournalism.org [accessed 17 July. 2009] www.leadershipprofiles.com/preview [accessed 30 July. 2009] www.lclark.edu/law/faculty/dan_rohlf/ [accessed 17 July. 2009] www.leisnexis.co [accessed 29 June. 2009] www.libweb.uoregon.edu/guides/journalism/j202/index.html [accessed 1 July. 2009] www.linkedin.com/pub/scott-smullen/7/504/203 [accessed 30 July. 2009] www.loc.gov/about/generalinfo.html [accessed 30 June. 2009]


www.minnesota.publicradio.org/about [accessed 17 July. 2009] www.nasonline.org [accessed 10 July. 2009] www.nationalacademies.org [accessed 10 July. 2009] www.newsvine.com [accessed 26 July. 2009] www.nga.org/Files/pdf [accessed 23 July. 2009] www.nga.org/portal/site/nga [accessed 23 July. 2009] www.nytimes.com [accessed 15 July. 2009] www.nytimes.whsites.net [accessed 15 July. 2009] www.oceanconserve.info [accessed 30 July. 2009] www.oregonstate.edu/~gervaisj [accessed 5 August. 2009] www.oregonwildlife.org [accessed 5 August. 2009] www.pnas.org/content [accessed 10 July. 2009] www.pnas.org/site/misc/about.shtml [accessed 10 July. 2009] www.rockybarker.com/shamless.html [accessed 27 July. 2009] www.sagebrushsea.org/pdf [accessed 23 July. 2009] www.senate.gov/pagelayout/history [accessed 4 July. 2009] www.scholar.google.com [accessed 10 July. 2009] www.smallcats.org [accessed 5 July. 2009] www.staging.charlesbergman.com/cv.pdf [accessed 26 June. 2009] www.staging.charlesbergman.com/ [accessed 26 June. 2009] www.templeton-cambridge.org/fellows/vedantam [accessed 29 June. 2009] www.theslatefoundation.org [accessed 1 July. 2009] www.thomas.loc.gov [accessed 4 July. 2009]


www.ulrichsweb.com [accessed 28 July. 2009] www.usatoday.com [accessed 26 July. 2009] www.usatoday.com/marketing/media_kit [accessed 26 July. 2009] www.uwacadweb.uwyo.edu [accessed 28 July. 2009] www.washingtonpost.com [accessed 29 June. 2009] www.washpostco.com [accessed 26 June. 2009] www.wec.ufl.edu/faculty/moultonm/ [accessed 5 July. 2009] www.wildlifeconservationnetwork.org [accessed 5 July. 2009] www.wiley.com [accessed 17 July. 2009] www.winchester.ac.uk [accessed 26 June. 2009] www.worldwildlife.org/species [accessed 1 July. 2009]

The Protection of Endangered Species: A Working Effort or Failed Attempt  

Should the Endangered Species Act of 1973 be amended to help prevent the grey wolf among other endangered species become endangered again or...

Advertisement