Lecture Notes Oct. 14

Finish endangered species discussion.

In the US we have federal law that protects species whose population is declining and may become extinct. The Endangered Species Act (1973) requires the US Fish and Wildlife service (and the National Marine Fisheries Service for sea-going fish like salmon) to: assess species status and “List” them if they are:

Threatened (showing pop decline that might push them toward extinction in the future)

Or

Endangered (near extinction now and needing immediate protection)

· The protection is encompassed in the idea that no action can “take” or harm species. Take means no hunting and no other action, like building a dam or plowing a field, that kills the species. This has also been interpreted in some court cases as also meaning habitat destruction, even if that habitat transformation does not kill a species immediately.

· No economic considerations required by statue, but as groups hurt by species protections have protested, economic concerns have begun to be considered by the federal agencies. In a few cases key federal agency heads (termed the called the “God Squad” by some) can decide not to protect a species determined to be endangered because the economic costs would be too high.

This raises the question, addressed in pp. 97-101, of why protect a species? Harper lists these reasons, which we discussed in class:

· Economic value of species and their habitats (medicines, industrial compounds, etc.)

· Value to agriculture and food systems: diverse germplasm to chose from for future hybrids/crops; disease resistance (Corn blight); pollinators.

· Other “Ecosystem services”: diverse ecosystem more stable, produce more reliable services (freshwater, flood protection, cleansing pollutants, etc.)

· Historical, esthetic and moral/spiritual reasons. One example here is the great efforts of Pacific Northwest tribes to protect salmon not only as an economic and sustenance issue, but as part of their culture and history.