over consumption, disease, predation, insufficient regulations, or different human-caused factors (Endangered Species Act). Subspecies and clear population segments are given protection if it is proven that the organisms are crucial to an ecosystem (Matsumoto). The law requires that the listing of a species is based solely on biological status. It is illegal to list or delist an organism when there is insufficient scientific data to support the conclusion. It usually takes less than a year to add or remove a species from one of the lists. During an emergency, it is possible for an organism to be placed on the endangered species list for a maximum of 240 days while the listing procedure occurs. Changes to the lists are proposed in a government
…show more content…
First of all, the listing system is based on lawsuits instead of scientific fact. In order to make sure that endangered and threatened species are given the attention they need, it is required for citizens to sue the federal agencies. Otherwise, the government won’t meet the deadlines set for the listing process. Prompting from concerned people is necessary for the lists to be updated (Male). The former chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee, Doc Hastings, said that the Endangered Species Act causes hundreds of lawsuits which have prevented a number of projects and jobs. “During these challenging economic times, America cannot afford runaway regulations and endless lawsuits”(Hotakainen). This quote expresses Hastings’ frustration about the current system that the act put in place. If the goal is to preserve the species that are in the most danger of becoming extinct, scientific data should override any other …show more content…
Amending the law in the 1970s so that threatened species are protected just as well as endangered species was unfortunate for many landowners. Harming a threatened organism, unknowingly or on purpose, can now cost property owners fines or jail sentences (Schiff). The terms “threatened”, “endangered”, and “recovered” are not defined with enough detail by the act. This makes it difficult to know how the federal government will treat a rare species found on a property, and it gives a stigma to discovering a listed organism on a person’s land (Male). There are many examples of the damage the act has caused from its biological opinions and regulations. The general manager of Pacific County Public Utility District No. 2 in Washington state, Doug Millar, said that the law caused a wind energy project to be discarded after over three years of communicating with the Fish and Wildlife Service. According to Millar, the public utility districts involved lost around $4 million due to the permitting issues from the presence of a rare seabird called the marbled murrelet (Hotakainen). A threatened prairie dog species in a Utah town called Cedar City has also causes trouble for locals. There are about 40,000 of these listed animals in the area, and the protections set by the Endangered Species Act starting in 1973 prevent them from being hunted or relocated. That leaves the area citizens
First of all, the listing system is based on lawsuits instead of scientific fact. In order to make sure that endangered and threatened species are given the attention they need, it is required for citizens to sue the federal agencies. Otherwise, the government won’t meet the deadlines set for the listing process. Prompting from concerned people is necessary for the lists to be updated (Male). The former chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee, Doc Hastings, said that the Endangered Species Act causes hundreds of lawsuits which have prevented a number of projects and jobs. “During these challenging economic times, America cannot afford runaway regulations and endless lawsuits”(Hotakainen). This quote expresses Hastings’ frustration about the current system that the act put in place. If the goal is to preserve the species that are in the most danger of becoming extinct, scientific data should override any other …show more content…
Amending the law in the 1970s so that threatened species are protected just as well as endangered species was unfortunate for many landowners. Harming a threatened organism, unknowingly or on purpose, can now cost property owners fines or jail sentences (Schiff). The terms “threatened”, “endangered”, and “recovered” are not defined with enough detail by the act. This makes it difficult to know how the federal government will treat a rare species found on a property, and it gives a stigma to discovering a listed organism on a person’s land (Male). There are many examples of the damage the act has caused from its biological opinions and regulations. The general manager of Pacific County Public Utility District No. 2 in Washington state, Doug Millar, said that the law caused a wind energy project to be discarded after over three years of communicating with the Fish and Wildlife Service. According to Millar, the public utility districts involved lost around $4 million due to the permitting issues from the presence of a rare seabird called the marbled murrelet (Hotakainen). A threatened prairie dog species in a Utah town called Cedar City has also causes trouble for locals. There are about 40,000 of these listed animals in the area, and the protections set by the Endangered Species Act starting in 1973 prevent them from being hunted or relocated. That leaves the area citizens