Argumentative Essay On Endangered Species Act

1399 Words 6 Pages
Register to read the introduction… In august of 1973, there was controversy regarding the Telico Dam in Tennessee after a scientist discovered the small fish species in the small Tennessee river while doing research regarding the lawsuit of the dam. A biologist predicted that the construction of the dam will halter the snail darter’s habitat. The Tennessee valley authority argued that since the ESA was passed after the project had begun, the project should not be halted and the act doesn’t apply. The authorities also argued that after congress passed the ESA, it continued to appropriate funds to the project, meaning that congress did not intend for the ESA to apply to the Telico project. After ruling in the Tennessee valley authority vs. Hill, it ruled in favor of the snail darter and halted construction in the dam. The case ruled in the snail darter’s favor because in the goals of the ESA, there are no exceptions when it comes to the projects like the Telico dam, and that congress is supposed to stop or slow down the trend toward species extinction; no matter the cost. In the late 1980’s the species have been delisted. The snail darter controversy illustrated the unhappy partnership of biologists and politics which are still causing problems in this topic today (Rolston. …show more content…
The conservation is achieved when all actions have been no longer necessary to prevent extinction, and then a species is considered recovered. The agencies administrating the ESA, USFWS and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Fisheries Service, focuses on abundance and distribution because they are commonly used in quantitative objectives (Neel et al. 2012). Scholars researching this topic have asked six questions: 1) what percentage of listed species with recovery plans, do the agencies consider to have potential to be delisted? 2) What quantitative abundance criteria are used to measure recovery? 3) What percentage of species with potential delisting has quantitative objectives or delisting? 4) How do the abundances required for delisting compare with historical abundances, those at the time of the recovery plan’s writing; with objectives from previous reviews of listed species; with the benchmarks of literature; and with quantitative criteria for the IUCN red list? 5) How do the abundances for delisted species compare with these same values? 6) Do the abundances required for the recovery of threatened species differ from those of endangered species? (Neel et al. 2001). They focused more on abundance and distribution because they are used commonly quantitative objectives in recovery plans and delisting rules (Teal et al. 1993, 1995) and because they play

Related Documents