Conservation in danger

Most college students, along with most young Americans everywhere, have grown up in a country that has almost no concept of bipartisanship. We have to reach for a long-forgotten history textbook or the deep recesses of Wikipedia to even remember what that particular word means. 

There may be no better example of bipartisanship than the Endangered Species Act of 1973. The act passed in the Senate with a 92-0 vote and a 394-4 vote in the House. Since its implementation, the act has a 99 percent success rate at preventing extinction in affected species and has created millions of dollars in value by cultivating the wildlife that serve as tourist attractions in our National Parks.

Of course, the ESA is not timeless and must be updated. In this case, that should mean that the act is revised through the legislative process to ensure that its aims are modernized with a better understanding of what the federal government’s role is in protecting at-risk wildlife. That would appear to be the logical outcome.

Then again, we must remember that the phrase “logical outcome” has become synonymous with “plan Z” under the current administration.

According to a Washington Post report, the Trump administration “wants the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to strike language that guides officials to ignore economic impacts when determining how wildlife should be protected.” In effect, no scientific perspective would be consulted before deciding whether or not environmentally destructive business initiatives would get the green light. The cost and benefits of preserving a species in the short term would be weighed against the political capital gained by allowing potential exploiters to do whatever they want.

Additional rollbacks include the removal of threatened status and alterations to the designation of critically threatened habitats. There is absolutely justification in streamlining sweeping pieces of legislation like the ESA, but removing science from the protection of our wildlife is not the answer. The act can be revised to reflect our current needs without such blatant favoritism for corporate exploitation of our wild resources.

Jonah Baker | Argonaut

It does not make any sense sense to reduce all these protections on such a whim. Shortsighted legislature is often the legislature that fails and costs all of us, in all 50 states. The Department of the Interior is still accepting commentary from the public for 60 days after the proposal was published in late July, and letters to representatives with influence on the issue are always a smart move for incensed citizens.

Idahoans are fortunate to have a wealth of natural resources and protected lands, and wildlife is a critical part of what makes our state exceptional. There is every reason to believe that conserving wildlife and habitats is an important goal for the future, and we absolutely can temper that with more realistic expectations and regulations within a revised Endangered Species Act.

Jonah Baker can be reached at [email protected] or on Twitter @jonahpbaker