The promise to America when the Endangered Species Act (ESA) was enacted in 1973 was that it would save animals, plants and insects that were thought to be in danger of extinction. This noble cause was used to force landowners and others to sacrifice portions of their property rights and livelihoods for a greater good.
After 50 years, the truth is that most of the “successes" claimed under the ESA relate to species that were never in peril. Worse, many landowners, outdoors enthusiasts and communities have been robbed of their lands and rights by the ESA for no meaningful benefit at all.
The costs of endangered species listings has been high. Recall how ESA efforts to protect habitat for the spotted owl wiped out the Northwest timber industry. Or look at how protections for the Gray Wolf and Grizzly Bear have endangered the lives of ranchers and farmers, and destroyed agriculture operations.
Rob Gordon, a policy expert on the ESA, recently identified new victims—he has written about how protections for the Braunton’s Milk-Vetch, an herb that is native to the Hills around Los Angeles, played a major role in the recent wildfires that destroyed homes and lives in Southern California.
A review of species listed under the ESA makes clear that most were never in need of federal protection. Keeping them on the ESA list is resulting in lost revenues to landowners, never-ending pressure on enterprises that drives them out of business, and an ever-increasing federal tab from which taxpayers can never find relief.
Mr. Gordon's report, “The Endangered Species Act at 50,” was published last year by the Western Caucus Foundation. It shows that the ESA has been effective at controlling property uses and strangling landowner activities, but not effective at protecting the few species that should actually be on the list.
According to the report, nearly 60% of so-called "species recoveries" resulted from the fact that the species was never actually endangered or even threatened. The law's ineffectiveness may be the reason environmentalists have not pushed for its reauthorization.
When the ESA was written, its funding provisions were required to be reauthorized about every five years to ensure that Congress could revisit whether the experimental approach to protecting species was working. The law has not been reauthorized since 1992, despite its huge economic costs and near-total failure to provide measurable value for most species.
A bill by U.S. Rep. Bruce Westerman (R-AR) would mitigate the ESA's negative impacts on landowners. For example, his bill would help ranchers and farmers find more success when they challenge over-bearing ESA restrictions on their lands. However, more is needed.
Congress can make six changes that will help prevent species listings from unfairly damaging landowners.
1. Remove “distinct population segments” from the “species” definition. This would prevent species that are thriving from being listed under ESA protections simply because their populations are sparse in a particular area or across political boundaries. The Wolverine, Canada Lynx, and Yellow-Billed Cuckoo are good examples—all listed because they are sparse in some areas, but are thriving everywhere else.
2. De-list species that no longer meet statutory definitions. Congress amended the definition of “species" in 1978 to make qualifications more precise. The old definition allowed for groups of species and subspecies that were widespread to be listed. However, many of these species—including the Gray Wolf and Grizzly Bear—only meet the old definition, but still remain on the list.
3. Remove “throughout all or a significant portion of its range.” This definition has allowed the federal government to list an endangered or threatened species even when it is not in danger, just because it is not prevalent in a portion of its presumed “range” or area. This changed the purpose of the ESA from protecting species to restricting every acre of land a listed species might utilize.
4. Clarify and limit the scope of “critical habitat.” Congress should ensure that only lands necessary for a specie's “survival” are included, and that State and private lands are not
considered unless they are essential for the specie's survival.
5. Require congressional review of critical habitat designations over 100,000 acres. In recent years, the federal government has designated millions of acres as ‘critical' habitat. For example, the National Marines Fisheries Service (NMFS) designated two areas—each over 160 million acres—as critical for Bearded and Ringed Seals.
6. Reduce Agency Consultations. The ESA requires an agency to consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and/or NMFS when an action “authorized, funded or carried out” by that agency may impact an endangered species or its habitat. This creates miles of bureaucratic red tape, long delays, and potentially endless “mitigation” requirements for otherwise normal agriculture and business activities.
The ESA should at least be re-designed for the benefit of all species—animals, plants, insects, and humans. This includes making it easier for landowners to challenge the law's onerous provisions, and ensuring that only species that require protection are placed on ESA lists.
Most importantly, Congress should question whether the ESA should be reauthorized and funded at all. The costs to America’s landowners and taxpayers is not justified given the ESA’s 50 years of results.
Margaret Byfield is the founder of the American Stewards of Liberty.
