Stop The Endangered Species Act Of 1974

Since earth was created, there has been a natural phenomenon of species across the globe appearing and disappearing. However, in the past century, many species of animals have been disappearing at an alarming rate. Mainly, this rapidly occurring issue is caused by humans. Humans that contribute to the harmful actions that cause side effects such a pollution, deforestation, habitat loss and poaching. The natural rate of extinction pales in comparison to the extinction rate caused by all of these. According to the World Wildlife Fund, the current rate of extinction is 11,000 times greater than the natural extinction rate. Several different efforts have been made in order to stop or slow down the extinction of earth’s species. The Endangered Species Act is possibly the most successful example of these efforts. It’s main purpose is to get a commitment from the American people that they will work hand in hand to help save species that are at risk of becoming extinct and never returning. This act was put in place in 1973 and since then, no other law about the disappearance of wildlife has been quite as accomplished. Many different species that are protected under this law are either fully recovered or on their way to becoming safer. Laws like these are helping many different creatures left and right, however, at the alarming rate that they are disappearing, something else needs to be done. What people don’t seem to realize is that we depend on many of the animals that we are

Within the Endangered Species Act, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service helps watch over and investigate the health of different species. Then, local and national scientist collects data to determine if a species gets put on the Endangered Species list. The main factor to determine the endangerment of a species is if a large percentage of the species’ habitat has been destroyed. Next, note if the animal’s population has been excessively decreasing, threatened by disease, or any terrorized by any predators. Also, record any man-made

To put this on equal terms, think one day you and your family are taking a leisurely stroll down the park. While walking down the spark another person randomly tries to kill you. But, no one but your mom is wounded with a poisoned wound without an antidote. Frighten you would not be able to know or think straight with the sight of someone dear to you dying right in front of your eyes. Now if you would please take that picture and put it in terms of an animal being hunted by another species far more advanced, without a way to protect themselves. Is it really morally right to kill another living thing for sport? Especially when the animal involved is on the endangered species list, to be fair, it is on the endangered species list for a reason because it is on the verge of becoming extinct. So let me ask you again why should anybody think it's more to hunt and kill animals that are endangered or simply in our backyards. it is morally wrong to continue trophy hunting as a Leisure activity when endangered animals are

The problems which have arisen since 1973 seem to be endless. First of all, the time needed to put an endangered species on the list is much too long. By the time most species get on the list, they are on the brink of extinction. Second, private

The National Wildlife Institute has published “Conservation Under the Endangered Species Act: A Promise Broken”. Their critique of the Act includes questioning the programs undertaken as a result of the Act have played sufficient roles in the recovery of species that were delisted, as well as questioning the allocation of funding to programs intended to aid listed species.

Could the Endangered Species Act itself become endangered with the current debates? Recently, many conservation advocates and government officials think so, pointing to the proposed policy change that could make it harder for wildlife to receive protection under the Act. So, what does the future hold for the Endangered Species Act? With more than 40 years since the passage of the ESA in 1973, politicians and environmentalists alike have analyzed the realities of the Act, creating an interesting current state of debate regarding conservation. With poor administration and provisions designed to promote good science and good sense flouted, the Act needs to change and improve to find the best middle available between the suppression of economic activity and the preservation of species within the United States. The Act now more than ever is in need of political cooperation that can both revive and reform it to best protect against future challenges and obstacles otherwise the act will eventually be rendered useless due to it ineffectiveness, falsified science, and lack of consistency.

Since the European colonization of eastern Africa, trophy hunting has been a highly debatable topic. During the early days of trophy hunting, dwindling numbers of some of the world’s most unique and prized wildlife was not a problem like it is today. Wildlife conservationists and hunters continue to debate the merits of legalized hunting on the economy and on the environment. However, not all hunters value the economic benefits and have passion for the outdoors. In fact, some of these hunters are conservationists themselves, who believe that it will allow for better conservation efforts in the long run. In another perspective, trophy hunters tend to downplay the reality of the killing part. To kill is to put to death, extinguish, nullify, cancel, or destroy. There is a fine line between conservation, and senseless killing of animals involved in trophy hunting.

Dr.King gives a great definition of an unjust law saying, “A law is unjust if it is inflicted on a minority that, as a result of being denied the right to vote, had no part in enacting or devising the law,” since animals cannot create their own laws we as people have to care for them and make sure that they are not treated unjustly, and when a crime has been committed against them justice should entail immediately (383). King also states, “justice too long delayed is justice denied,” and these words ring true in the case of animal rights since many animals are in such dire situations that time is always of the essence

The Endangered Species Act was signed by President Richard Nixon and approved by the 93rd Congress on December 28, 1973. The overall purpose of the act is for the federal government to protect and recover species that are in jeopardy and the ecosystems upon which they depend on to survive and reproduce successfully. Protecting the 2,245 species that are either endangered or threatened and preventing future possible species from becoming endangered are the two main goals of the Endangered Species Act. Equally, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Commerce Department’s National Marine Fisheries Service administrate and enforce the Act so that the

For the food and farming industry animals are a business of more than 9.7 billion dollars a year. These animals are livestock raised. New laws are protecting this animal and when companies don’t follow the laws they get criminal charges. The use of animals has also helped in the medical field with human life. This type of animals has also been regulated by the FDA. Rats and mice are the most used animals for lab testing. If we believe that animals should not have rights because they don´t have rationality, we also have to remember that baby human don´t have rationality either. For this reason, animals have

Trophy Hunters don’t always hunt the endangered species; they also hunt species that are overpopulated so the population of that species can stay under control. Dr. Michael H Knight and Dr. Richard Emslie, the chairman and the scientific officer of IUCN SSC African Rhino Specialist Group state “the killing of two old white rhino in 2012 paid for 49% of a $377,000 high-tech security fence”(Knight, Emslie). The hunt helped the reserve pay for a fence that could save the animals on the reserve from many dangers like poachers. Also, the rhinos that were killed were old. Since the rhinos were old, they might not have been able to fend for themselves anymore so killing the old ones were the best choice and because the hunters took two of these rhinos lives, they caused all the other rhinos on the reserve to now have protection. According to Jada F. Smith, a news article writer for the New York Times says “we found many troubling examples of funds’ either being diverted from their purpose or not being dedicated to conservation in the first place”(Smith). This is why we have the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species. It makes sure that all the money from trophy hunting gets dedicated to a cause that helps protect endangered animals. Even if we didn’t have that organization and the hunters didn’t pay, then they wouldn’t be able to hunt the species they’re going after. Trophy hunting can help with many things concerning conservation and protection of an endangered species if it’s done the right

Trophy Hunting is detrimental to the overall populations of species. Only 12.3% of contribution to wildlife conservationists comes from Trophy Hunters who claim they are making dramatic changes in a positive manner for animals like

Hunting is frowned upon by animal activists and some environmentalists. Hunting promises injuries, pain and suffering to animals and their family members. Activists believe that hunted animals do not have a fair chance to survive and populations will eventually become extinct. With wildlife agencies seemingly promoting hunting, activists view traditional hunting as an unnecessary practice; only practiced out of

The recovery rate of those species has been 2% (Why is U.S. Recovery Rate (2%) for Endangered Species So Low?) with 58 species being delisted (Corn & Alexander, 2014, p.6). Of the 58 species that have been delisted 30 species were delisted due to recovery of the species, 10 species due extinction, 7 species due to taxonomic revisions, and 11 species due to legislative changes. 41% of the species that have been listed have improved in some way or form during their listing. (Corn & Alexander, 2014, p.6) Over 950 conservations plan have been made, more than 520 critical habitats have been selected, and the amount of conservation plans that have been put into effect has gone over 1,138. (Primo, 2014, p.4) As of 2011 the amount of money being spent on protecting endangered species totaled $1.39 billion. $1.34 billion was spent by the federal government and $57.8 million by states. The species that have the highest expenditures are the Pacific Salmon () at $352.5 million, pallid sturgeon () at $53.8 million, and bull trout () at $37.7 million. Expenditures include land acquisition, streamside cleanup, and artificial nest creation. (Corn & Alexander, 2014,

Bill Freedmen, author of “Endangered Species—Human Causes Of Extinction and Endangerment” notes, “scientists approximate that present extinction rates are 1,000 to 10,000 times higher than the average natural extinction rate.” These distressing numbers should be acted upon to save the endangered species and avoid the catastrophic change to this planet if these species were to become extinct. In order to produce change, people need to recognize that habitat loss, climate change, and poaching are all factors in why our animal species are going extinct.