Instructions:
Students are required to contribute one initial post and at least two responses for each discussion forum. Responses to other students should be substantive. Points will not be earned for responses that simply state, “I agree” or “Good point.”
For response posts (one per forum) students will, unless otherwise specified by the instructor:
- Post at least two replies (400 words minimum) to classmates or the instructor for each discussion forum
- Demonstrate integration of required reading, peer responses, other course materials, scholarly or peer-reviewed sources (as applicable), as well as pose questions or comments to further the discussion, using either APA or MLA style, depending on the instructor/assignment specifications.
Student 1:
David Olson
Endangered Species Act
The Endangered Species Act (ESA) protects over 2,000 species, of which 47 recovered and only 10 went extinct. The act is a problem to some because large areas of land in concentrated public areas (especially in Western US) allow limited access for housing development, oil drilling, and logging. Naturally, many real estate companies, fossil fuel industries, and construction companies have a great disdain toward the act and have always tried attacking it. The ESA protects endangered species by not putting a price on them, therefore disallowing the government from using economic impacts to alter the bill. Alters to the bill could make mining, road construction, pipelines, and other developments easier for industries to build, in turn opening up housing, new jobs, and having other benefits. This would be detrimental to endangered species, overriding their habitats. Delegating more power to the states to control the fate of endangered species has been presented in the past with 2 bills. This will allow states to manage the species within their own state, as opposed to the federal government always coming into the states. This can be dangerous, because many politicians are backed by fossil fuel industries, so they can alter the act to expand fossil fuel production. Many farmers and fossil fuel industries claim they don’t get enough credit for what they’ve done for endangered species, and flexibility to the act can allow some leeway, and build environmentally safe facilities. Solar and wind power facilities have stopped construction due to safety issues amongst the bat and bird population. Some leeway to the act will allow clean, renewable energy facilities like those ones to be built.
The ESA allows the government to have vast amounts of power protecting endangered species. The government can regulate private landowners and other industries in the name of protecting an endangered species. It is easy to see why some believe this is government overreach because they can regulate private land if they believe there is an endangered species present. In some cases it’s probably justified, and by law they’re technically allowed to do it, but it also seems to violate the fifth amendment. Revising the law could lead to a lot of beneficial side effects, while still protecting endangered species. Less regulation for threatened species that aren’t classified as endangered might be justifiable in some cases. Having the government reward land owners that have endangered species as opposed to punishing them could lead to the survival of many species. It is fair to say that we should save endangered species but also not punish those who may have them on their land. Making adjustments to the act and seeing how those changes occur could benefit both landowners and endangered species.
31, S. F. |J., Fecht, S., Johnson, D., Jeremy, & Kim. (2018, July 31). What are the biggest threats to the Endangered Species Act? State of the Planet. Retrieved April 3, 2022, from https://news.climate.columbia.edu/2018/07/31/endangered-species-act-threats/
O’Toole, R. (2019, August 20). Save the Endangered Species Act with Common Sense. Cato.org. Retrieved April 3, 2022, from https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/save-endangered-species-act-common-sense
Student 2:
Rebecca Kyniston
WEEK 2 DISCUSSION
After reading both points of view with the articles we were instructed to read and consider, I can say that I have very mixed opinions when it comes to endangered species. Having lived through the “spotted owl” issue that came into being in Oregon in the year 1990, I can say that having an endangered species that you must protect is harmful to people and their livelihoods. Many families were uprooted and had to live very much under how they had become accustomed to living when the spotted owl was found to be endangered and at a risk of becoming extinct. A large portion of the lumber industry was supporting many families and the spotted owl stopped the lumber industry cold and put many families out of work. I did not suffer personally from the lack of work that it created as my father was a road construction worker, but I had many friends who had to relocate with their families because the jobs were no longer there. My own husband’s family was devastated when his father could no longer work as a lumberman. He had six children relying on him to feed them. My husband said that his family had to live with relatives and move several times when he was young. Hard times for many ensued. To this day there is still a limited number of lumberyards and mills to provide employment that is needed.
Knowing the devastation that can happen to people when it comes to endangered species being at risk, I also know that it is important to help the different species to continue to exist if we want to keep a healthy balance when it comes to the ecosystem. If there is not such a widespread stop to everything when it comes to the endangered species perhaps it would not have such a painful effect on as many people as it does at times. For instance, I could not understand why everything had to come to such a complete halt as it did with the spotted owl. Why could they not have just made a certain area of land and trees be designated to the conservation of the owls and let the rest of the lumber continue without issue? I agree with what it says in the article Save the Endangered Species Act with Common Sense, by offering rewards to landowners for allowing the species to thrive on their lands and by charging equal amounts to the people who use the land for free may help to ensure a more even effect that could be incurred by the endangered species being protected. It is a very difficult choice to be made when it comes to weighing the value of life to different living things, but in the end, I think that human life is more important. Also, the use of sanctuaries has proven to be effective when it came to helping to keep certain animals from extinction. One point I found interesting in the reading was that they could “give people ownership rights to selected species” like it pointed out “People go to great lengths to save rare breeds of dogs, cattle, and other domestic animals, not for any economic reward but simply for the pride in doing so” (O’Toole, 2019)). It would stand to reason that it may work the same with the endangered species. I know that after moving to our town I have taken great pride in the critters that live on my little part of the world. I went to great lengths to make sure they had water when the drought hit, and we buy them deer blocks and salt licks to make sure they stay healthy. Silly it may be, but it makes me feel pride that I am helping another living being to survive.
O’Toole, R. (2019, August 20). Save the Endangered Species Act with Common Sense. CATO Institute. Retrieved April 5, 2022, from https://www.cato.org/commentary/save-endangered-species-act-common-sense