David Wilcove, keynote speaker for the Madison Ecology Group's fall Ecology Symposium, came to campus last month to speak about America's endangered species and the struggle to save them from extinction.
Hours before Wilcove's lecture began, the U.S. House of Representatives passed a bill that conservationists claim will make the struggle much more difficult, if not impossible. The Pombo Bill proposes an overhaul to the Endangered Species Act, reducing protection levels for many threatened species and increasing financial strain on the ESA's enforcement agency, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
The bill is now on its way to the Senate where, in all likelihood, it will take a back seat to issues such as the war in Iraq and the aftermath of hurricanes Katrina and Rita. Nevertheless, the bill's passage through the House was seen as a success by its proponents, something that came as no surprise to Wilcove.
'The Endangered Species Act is not a terribly popular law nowadays,' Wilcove said. 'The number of real defenders of it is, unfortunately, small. It was passed ?? by wide bipartisan support, but we just don't see that anymore.'
Many critics of the act contend that only 13 of America's endangered species have been removed from the list in its 32-year history. With more than 1,300 species on the list, opponents interpret this lack of performance as a failure of the act, calling it a chief reason to endorse major change.
Timothy Male, a scientist with the non-profit organization Environmental Defense, disagrees. He argued in a recent study that this measurement is too simplistic, and that it 'hides all results short of full recovery or extinction.'
Male found that, of all species listed as threatened or endangered by the ESA, 52 percent have shown repeated and sustained improvement since the act's inception. He interpreted his results as a sign that the act is working.
Nancy Mathews, a professor in the College of Agricultural and Life Sciences, agreed. She viewed the Pombo Bill as the beginning of the decline of federal support of the ESA.
'There's a track record now of voting for the bill,' Mathews said, 'and there will be pressure for party members to follow suit.'
Mathews believed state governments will eventually have to shoulder the burden of protecting endangered species. She said that the loss of federal aid will result in a 'patchwork quilt of protection.' State agencies will be forced to replace the natural boundaries of endangered habitats with political borders of management.
Another concern many ESA supporters have with the bill is its requirement that the government compensate landowners when the discovery of endangered species on their property leads to a halt in developments.
Wilcove pointed out that the United States Fish and Wildlife Service does not have the funding to reimburse landowners.
'Basically, a system would be in place where a landowner could say [to the government] 'pay me for the value of the timber on my property, or the woodpecker gets it,'' Wilcove said.
Male calls this the weakest part of the ESA. He wishes there were more incentives for landowners to be proactively involved in conservation instead of seeing endangered species as a burden.
'More than 70 percent of endangered species live on private land,' Male remarked. 'We cannot conserve them without help from landowners.'
