Photo credit: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Bald eagles were taken off the federal list of endangered species in 2007, largely thanks to protections put in place by the Endangered Species Act.
“Imagine that you’re on a trampoline. The only thing protecting you from a bed of nails is a net, and you’ve got people cutting holes in that net.” That’s how Bill Davis, director of Wisconsin’s Sierra Club John Muir Chapter, describes our relationship with the flora and fauna vital to our human existence, much of which is protected by the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Those imminent holes? The unprecedented volume of proposed changes that have been hurled toward the ESA over the past few months.
Since its inception in 1973, the ESA has been, in large part, left well enough alone by Democrats and Republicans alike. Perhaps most famously credited with saving the iconic American bald eagle and touting a 99% success rate in preventing extinction, the ESA has been highly effective under uncontroversial, bipartisan support. Until now. Dozens of alterations or new bills have been introduced since July that would weaken ESA protections. Until this barrage of propositions, the ESA has seen just four amendments in its 45 years of existence.
“The arsenal of attacks aimed at the Endangered Species Act will place in jeopardy a vital array of endangered Wisconsin species, including the lynx, whooping crane, peregrine falcon, rusty patched bumblebee and American marten,” says Jodi Habush Sinykin of Midwest Environmental Advocates. “Each of these species plays an integral part in Wisconsin’s ecological landscape; how are we supposed to place a ‘price tag’ on the survival of any one of them? Wisconsinites need to stand up for the ESA before it is too late.”
While every species plays a vital role in an interconnected system crucial to sustaining the human species, Davis adds that the gravity of loosening protections for already vulnerable species may lie in the unknown. “There are these examples where we find things that turn out to be incredibly valuable that we didn’t know about, and that is constantly happening,” he says.
He can testify firsthand to the significance of that truth.
“In 1997, my younger sister died of breast cancer,” Davis says. “At that time, particularly when she was diagnosed in ’92, the most effective chemotherapy for her kind of cancer was something called Taxol, a derivative from the bark of the Pacific yew tree, which is an endangered species. So, the amount of Taxol was incredibly limited; you obviously didn’t want to wipe out the species.”
|
|
Responsible for prolonging the lives of hundreds of thousands of cancer fighters each year and included on the World Health Organization’s List of Essential Medicines, Taxol remains one of the most popular chemotherapy treatment options to date. But, if economic interests are prioritized over conserving potentially life-saving species, we could lose their medicinal use forever.
Such predicaments may arise if certain changes to the ESA take effect. Key proposals include:
• The removal of the phrasing, “without reference to possible economic or other impacts of such determination” originally included regarding the listing of species as endangered or threatened. This could mean that economic interests carry weight when ESA-listing decisions are being made.
• Alterations to how threatened species, or those at risk of becoming endangered, are treated. Instead of receiving the same level of protection as endangered species (as has always been practice for all but marine species), threatened species’ protections would be determined on a case-by-case basis.
• How “critical habitat,” or areas necessary to the continued survival of a species, is treated. Originally, this could be areas both occupied and unoccupied currently by the species but vital to its future conservation; the change would mean currently unoccupied areas would not automatically receive protection as critical habitats.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and the National Marine Fisheries Service brought forth the above proposals; additional proposals include nine amendments referred to as the “ESA Modernization Package” by the Republicans who introduced it (or the “Expanded Extinction Package” by environmental organizations) and the “Poisoned Pollinators Provision,” which would prohibit regulation of the types of pesticides most harmful to bees at state and local levels.
Altogether, these proposals translate to less consistent and reliable protections for species, with multiple opportunities to favor economic or other interests over the species’ needs throughout the process of determining protections. Organizations endorsing the Expanded Extinction Package include those that use land for actions like mining, hunting, developing highways, farming and livestock management. Organizations opposing the proposals include Earthjustice, the Endangered Species Coalition (ESC), the Natural Resources Defense Council and the Sierra Club.
Public comment was accepted through Monday, Sept. 24, for the changes proposed by FWS and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Leda Huta, ESC executive director, anticipates that we will see a final version this winter or spring at the latest. Four of the nine amendments proposed by Congress were passed by the House Natural Resources Committee on Thursday, Sept. 27. These bills need to pass the U.S. House and U.S. Senate to become laws and won’t be considered by the latter body until after the midterm elections.
So, what could all this mean for Southeastern Wisconsin? Take, for example, the rusty patched bumble bee (bombus affinis). This bee is endangered and calls Milwaukee County home. Should it be lost, we’d see a dramatic decline in the volume of thriving flowers and crops that the bee plays a vital role in sustaining. We would see other animals struggle, like birds and rabbits that rely on the vegetation supported by bees, and we’d see produce price hikes, even if its quality suffers.
More than 200 plant and animal species are listed as endangered or threatened in Wisconsin; more than 1,000 are so listed throughout the Great Lakes region. With the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources’ science department eliminated in 2017, those most capable voices in defending the biodiversity that we depend on are no longer another level of defense against that ever-impending bed of nails Davis speaks of. Just how many more pokes can our protective net take?
