Yesterday was Endangered Species Day and I felt like ranting for a bit
The idea that animals could go extinct is actually a pretty new idea, and the Endangered Species Act is even newer. Before the latter end of the 18th century, it was assumed that God wouldn't take an animal off the earth without replacing it with a "better model" if you would. Therefore, it was thought to be impossible that an animal could go extinct. In fact, Thomas Jefferson told Lewis and Clark to keep their eyes peeled for what are now referred to as Jefferson's ground sloths, a type of sloth that was as big as a large ox which we now know went extinct about 10,000 years ago.
However, now that there is practically no area of the world that hasn't been extensively explored, we know that there are some creatures we can only see in fossils. In 1973, the Endangered Species Act was passed in order to keep the same from happening to creatures we know and love. Already several animals had been pushed to the brink and over; wolves, grizzly bears, bison, whooping crane, and pronghorn antelope are a few that were once numerous and were then either completely gone in the continental US or practically so.
Today, there are 1,927 species listed and protected under the ESA, both of the threatened and endangered variety. There are many other provisions and alterations that have been made to the ESA, the most recent of which is a rule that was passed regarding wolves in the Northern Rockies.
Controversy has accompanied the ESA on both sides of the "aisle" as well, from natural purists who say that it doesn't take enough into account when determining protected areas to hardened corporate bigwigs who say it hinders development too much. Certain animals have been harder to rehabilitate than others, too. The Mexican Gray Wolf, reintroduced to Arizona rather recently, has been met with a rash of illegal wolf killings. Practically the entire first pack was shot soon after reintroduction. The Mexican Spotted Owl has also raised the ire of many a logger who had to wait for nesting season to be over.
Fish, birds, predators, and prey, all have in some way stopped some economic gain when they were listed, but at the same time, it has been proven that most people are supportive of bringing more wildlife into Americans' lives. Most people can't imagine a world where there was no chance of ever seeing a bald eagle in real life. Most people value those impromptu glimpses of animals in their natural habitat. Most people want their children to be able to go into the woods and see something that takes their breath away.
But even those people, I've found, can get a case of NIMBY, Not In My BackYard, when it comes to actually protecting these animals. Take the case of the wolf (and since it's my thesis, I take it a lot). It has been shown that the majority of Americans are supportive of wolf reintroduction. Even in states where it occurs, the majority of that state are for it. So why the controversy? It comes mainly from those living closest to the areas where wolves might venture. It comes from those would, in short, might be affected by wolf reintroduction.
This is perfectly understandable. We're predators at heart and we don't like it when other predators are encroaching into our space or potentially taking what's ours, or that's my theory at least since it's usually major predators that garner the most controversy. However, with compromises and solutions that are conscientious of these objections, it's incredibly possible to minimize any actual damage that they might do. It all depends on whether or not those people allow their anger and irrational hatred to overrule their compassion.
On the other hand, it's no good trying to romanticize animals, either. There's a great book by Gary Larson (1) that I read recently and the moral of the (rather hysterical) story was "loving nature and understanding it are not the same things." I completely agree.
All predators are not evil and they are not saints, either. All prey are not persecuted and they're not nuisances. These are human concepts that have no place in the natural world. Animals do what they need to to survive. Wildness is certainly something that I believe wholeheartedly should be protected and valued as highly as we value other things (*cough*money*cough), but making it more pure than it is can present more roadblocks to compromise. To take the wolf example again, certain wolves that get a taste for livestock are usually killed to prevent them coming back. This is essntially the only solution to keep that wolf from doing the same thing again and to protect the rights of the rancher to make his own living. It's quite possibly even something that a wolf would understand the motivation for: protecting our territory.
This doesn't mean that hunting wolves who are living peacefully in national parks or wildlife refuges should be shot out of pure spite and fear. The same Gary Larson quote can go the other way, too: understanding nature and hating it are not the same.
So, this is my Endangered Species Day rant. Don't forget to pray for our newest threatened species: the polar bear (even though they decided NOT to consider global warming a threat to its survival *rolls eyes*) and the most recent delisted species: the Gray Wolf of the Northern Rockies. They both still need all the help they can get.
(1) The book is called "There's a Hair in My Dirt!" by Gary Larson. Go buy it NOW or live the rest of your lives without its awesomeness (which is a horrible prospect).
