Sweet Home Chapter Of Communities For A Great Oregon

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

Not many people understand the seriousness of endangered species. Some sources go as far as trying to prove that the act does more harm than good. They do not realize how drastically their lives can be changed if one part of the food chain is taken away. In the essay “Why the Beaver Should Thank the Wolf” by Mary Hannibal, the essayist explains that a group of environmental nonprofits would challenge the federal government’s removal of Endangered Species Act protections for wolves in Wyoming. Hannibal does not explain the Endangered Species Act, but according to the The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration it “provides for the conservation of species that are endangered or threatened throughout all or a significant portion of

The public policy of the ESA had multiple issues in the case of Babbitt v. Sweet Home Chapter. There have been legislative issues between the ESA and Congress in regards to the inconsistency of authority (Jennings, 2010). In addition, the lack of communication between Congress and the FWA caused discrepancies on how to best protect the habitat (Jennings, 2010). The public policy also has issues on an economic standpoint due to the cost of resources on the basis to support the ESA or abolish the Act (Sahr, n.d.).

Even if the lands are protected, they are not safe from the ecological burden of protecting our borders. Due to changes in legislation the Border Patrol Agency is exempt from stringent environmental laws. This is true in any of the areas surrounding the border, and they are looking to expand the radius of exemption, to better protect our borders. The Defenders of Wildlife, the Sierra Club, and the Northern Jaguar Project are looking to reinstall a social rule which the United States already implemented with the Endangered Species Act. This legislation created the social rule that no species should be forced into extinction due to human activities. Riders on the Illegal Immigration Act and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 and the Real ID act of 2005 allowed this social rule to become obsolete. Social rules changes in favor of the environment occur when the public is largely in support for saving the environment. However this support can be splintered by another need of the country especially when the opposing discourse has a crisis wave to ride. This case shows how the issue of border security triumphs environmental needs due to the pertinence of immigration reform along with the crisis impact caused by the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001.

The Endangered American Wilderness Act, today, protects America’s wilderness areas. Mr. Carter was concerned about the population growth spilling over into the nation’s wilderness population. At the time, strip mining and logging had resulted in already endangered wilderness areas. The act was introduced, in large part, for the generations to come, so that they may enjoy America’s wilderness.

Mason Neck Park and Mason Neck Wildlife Refuge, officially known as Mason Neck State Park and Elizabeth Hartwell Mason Neck respectively, are home to a multitude of species, such as the bald eagle, the Virginia pine tree, and the white-tailed deer (“Elizabeth Hartwell Mason Neck,” 2016; “Mason Neck State Park,” 2016). Critical to the conservation of endangered species, Mason Neck Wildlife Refuge, run by the National Wildlife Refuge System, a part of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, provides a safe habitat for the various organisms (“Elizabeth Hartwell Mason Neck,” 2016). On the other hand, the Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation, the governmental agency responsible for Mason Neck Park, keeps human’s recreational needs in mind and provides activities such as canoeing and fishing (“Mason Neck State Park,” 2016). The human interference present within the Mason Neck Park may impact the local ecosystem (“Mason Neck State Park,” 2016). Although there are activities available in Mason Neck Wildlife Refuge, they are “wildlife-oriented recreational developments” meaning the well being of organisms living in the Refuge will be the first priority (“Elizabeth Hartwell Mason

The penalties involved in violation of these laws include fines up to 100,000 dollars and one year in prison. Organizational violations include 200,000 dollar fines and confiscation of all equipment used (WWW site, ESA). Since its induction, the Endangered Species Act (ESA) has entered 967 species on its list and has 421 more labeled as possible candidates and 4,000 others as (species of concern (WWW site, What is..). Over the years, only 22 species have been removed with a third of them becoming extinct regardless, a third recovering fully, and a third put on mistakably (WWW site, What is..). In terms of the taking aspect of the law is where the controversy begins. The Takings Clause of the fifth amendment states, nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation (Pendley, 1995). This means that any endangered species on an owner's private land must be compensated for. Regrettably, the ESA of 1973 fell short of its high expectations and has completely failed up to this point from a multitude of discovered flaws in the authorization of the law from the start.

The National Endangered Species Act Reform Coalition is questioning the effectiveness of the Act, as well as its impact on people. Pointing to the poor progress of removing species from the Endangered and Threatened lists, the group calls on reform of the Act, to reform the methods for determining eligibility for listing, opening the listing and regulatory processes of the Act to include participation from all groups affected by the legislation, and providing more incentives for private citizens and businesses to pro-actively participate in conservation of 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.

Would you wipe the last existing members of an animal species off the face of the Earth? Perhaps, you would in order to grade a field for a mall parking lot. Believe it or not individuals and industries alike would not think twice about this inhumane act. In the early 1900’s an alarming rate of species started to become scarcely extinct. Endangered Species Act, was passed by Congress and became law in 1973. It is one of several federal laws such as the Lacey Act, the Bird Treaty Act, the Marine Mammal Protection Act, and the Bald Eagle Protection Act, but it is the most important one by far (Sherry, 9). The Endangered Species Act was developed for many (change) reasons. In the mid sixties Congress started to notice that the country was rapidly(change)

Wild Fish Conservancy v. United States Environmental Protection Agency is it a citizen suit brought against the Agency in which the Plaintiff believes, regulations passed by the EPA and the National Marine Fisheries Service that make salmon farms in Puget Sound not liable to general sediment-management standards breaches on the Endangered Species Act and the Clean Water Act. Because the Plaintiff argues that both the Clean Water Act and the Endangered Species Act were violated, there are a couple of Act provisions relevant to the case. Under the Clean Water Act, the EPA is required to review state water quality standards. In regards to the violation of the Clean Water Act, The plaintiff points out that the standards imposed by the 1995 amendments to the regulations on marine sediment proposed by WA Department of Ecology and passed by the EPA (1991) adversely affected wild salmon populations (which as a result violates the Endangered Species Act.) The Plaintiff argues that both the EPA and the Fisheries Service failed to take into account “the best scientific and commercial data” in their informal interagency consultation of the regulations--specifically mentioning the EPA and Fisheries Service’s decision to ignore facts that verify the negative effects that sea lice have on wild salmon. The EPA and Fisheries Service claim that they did in fact

Over the past decade, permitted by the Species at Risk Act (“SARA”), the former Conservative Government of Canada made a series of decisions that raise troubling ques-tions with regard to the conservation of endangered species in Canada. This essay exam-ines how the lenient wording of SARA permitted the Federal Government to circumvent the intent of the Act and to inadequately protect the country’s endangered species.

The ESA helps to keep animals alive and well populated. Christie Ritter, author of Animal Rights wrote, “The ESA makes it illegal to ‘ harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect’ a species

The probability that the Fish and Wildlife Service will detect a species significantly increases the level of habitat destruction by private landowners, indicating that a fear of regulation is the motivation for this behavior. One frequently referenced case involves Ben Cone, a disgruntled landowner from North Carolina who faced heavy land use restrictions resulting from the presence of 12 Red-Cockaded Woodpecker colonies on his property. The Red-Cockaded Woodpecker, or Leuconotopicus borealis, was very populous in the sandhills region of North Carolina for hundreds of years, inhabiting cavities in mature longleaf pine forests (Walters, 1991). Because the species was found on his property, Cone was restricted from harvesting 1,500 acres of prime timber, worth over $2 million (Stroup, 1995). Cone became extremely frustrated with the federal government, famously saying,

Extinction is nothing new to animal and plant species around the earth. Over the course of time on the earth there have been five mass extinctions, with many predicting that a sixth has already begun due to human fault. The Endangered Species Act (ESA) was designed to save both animal and plant life from these great feat. The ESA has seen only a 2% recovery rate since it enactment (Why is U.S. Recovery Rate (2%) for Endangered Species So Low?). Many critics and politicians have been calling for a reformation of the act for years. The ESA is in need of a change in the following areas funding distribution, time it takes to list a species on the endangered species list, and habitats on private land.