A viewpoint on endangered species By John F. Payne The phrase “endangered species” has a tendency to stir equally intense emotional reactions in apparently polarized individuals. The emotions produced often overshadow the realities of the phrase. There is little disagreement within the biological community that the Earth is losing flora and fauna at a rate that appears to be accelerating. Although extinctions have occurred for eons, there may have been “replacements” concurrently evolving to fill the niche left by the extinction. If this is true, there would seem to be little cause for concern if a species becomes extinct. The obvious flaw in this theory for modern times is the correlation between human activities and the rapid extinction rate; because evolutionary changes are slow, there is little chance the niche can be killed. The question one must ask is how do we balance the need to preserve a species and to slow the rate of extinctions with the perceived needs of the human population. To most of the population of the United States, the idea of threatened or endangered species has not yet touched their lives. (Threatened species are those likely to become in danger of extinction in the foreseeable future: endangered species are in danger of extinction.) We read about the spotted owl, the desert tortoise, the whales and sea turtles, and the unknown species in the world’s rain forests, but they seem to always be somewhere else. Even those of us who live and work with threatened and endangered species often become concerned only with species native to our areas and tend to mention other areas only in passing conversation. Yet in the
Views are insightful commentaries on timely environmental topics, represent an author’s opinion, and do nor necessarily represent a position of the sociery or editors. Contrasting views are invited. 364 Environ. Sci. Technol.. Vol. 25. No. 3. 1991
United States alone there are 592 animal and plant species that are either threatened or endangered. More will undoubtedly be added as we expand and develop to obtain our measure of life’s bounty: the gross national product. The question I am most often asked when conversations turn to threatened or endangered species is, “Why should we be concerned with X species? Aren’t the needs of humans far more important?” This is also the question biologists have the most difficult time answering to the satisfaction of the inquirer. My own mother, who has a deep respect for all living things, once suggested that perhaps the time has ended for X species and we should let it go. Sure, there are the standard responses like, “It may be important for medicine,” or “It has great scientific interest.” Both responses may be true, but are these reasons enough to justify saving a species? Perhaps one of the best analogies is the cutting of a pie: If a person cuts the pie into eight equal pieces, then realizes the pie should have been cut into nine equal pieces, it cannot be put back together again and redivided because “the sum of the parts does not equal the whole.” The same can be said of the ecosystem in which we coexist with a tremendous diversity of living things.
Although it may not appear to be important if we allow a species to go extinct, or even a few species, what effect are we having on the system as a whole? We must be responsive to changes in the human environment around us. Likewise, we must recognize and respond to the ecosystem changes that are occurring because of our activities. When Congress created the Endangered Species Act in 1973, its stated purposes were to provide a means whereby ecosystems upon which threatened and endangered species depend may be conserved, and to provide a program for the conservation of such species. The act was intended to encompass all land ownerships, including private holdings. The act was powerful and virtually stopped some major development projects. Federal entities could address the provisions of Section 7 of the act, which requires consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service prior to any federal action that might affect threatened or endangered species. Private interests had no such outlet: they were subject to the enforcement provisions of the act. Congress recognized the need to have a means of consultation by private interests, and in 1982 added Section IO(a). This section allows private interests whose actions may affect threatened or endangered species to prepare conservation plans that address those species. Until relatively recently, the provisions of Section IO(a) had not received much attention. Now, entire communities are reviewing the Section IO(a) process as part of their coordinated community planning efforts. Certainly the time and effort spent on developing a conservation plan is far more productive and sometimes less expensive than litigation challenging the act. Communities are beginning to recognize that whereas development and expansion are generally important to the health of the community, providing for threatened or endan-
This article not subject 10 US. copyright. Published 1991 American Chemical Society.
Desert tortoise, Gopherus agassizii, declared endangered in 1989 gered species also has a place in the long-range outlook. These communities, by providing habitat for threatened or endangered species, are providing a better quality of habitat for the human species. Green belts, parks, natural waters, and undisturbed areas enhance the beauty of the community and, perhaps, allow for the continued existence of many plant and animal species that would surely become extinct without intervention. I am not suggesting that the provi-
sions of Section 10(a), or any other provisions, of the Endangered Species Act can or will provide a stabilized environment for those species near the edge. The act and its provisions have enlightened, and in some cases, shaken us about the effects our actions, as humans, are having on ow world. Whether we are committed to human growth and development or dedicated to preserving our natural heritage, or somewhere in between, we must come together to a realistic common goal of recognizing
and resolving the impacts we are all having upon the living things around us.
John F. Payne is a wildlife biologist for endangered species in the Department of the lnterior Bureau of Land Management in SI. George, Utah. He has a B.S. degree in range science and resource economics and an M.S.degree in wildlife science fiom the Utah State University. He was previously refuge manager and pilot with the U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service in Alaska. Environ. Sci. Technol., Vol. 25, No. 3. 1991 365
