Dare I say it: The Endangered Species Act (ESA) has
to go. Iām sure many megalopolis developers, real estate
cronies and ranchers-without-a-cause would agree with me, though
not for the same reasons. The ESA protects habitat for a single
species, not the entire ecosystem. This is short-sighted, biased
and inappropriate given current ecological understanding.
When the act passed in 1973, the science of ecology was just
branching from its overprotective mother, divide-and-define
biology. Since then, humans have had to admit our hubris, as there
is no way for us, as a species, to fully comprehend the life cycle
and interactions of any other species, let alone all of the others
with which every species interacts.
Because we
donāt fully understand any species, we have a difficult time
arguing for protection ā and restored habitat more closely
resembles what we think the species needs. The ESAās
single-species emphasis has preserved habitat, but quickly loses
its efficacy in the face of a dynamic political situation. We risk
putting all our passenger pigeon eggs in one legislative basket if
we defend an ecosystem with one species. Letās take
Pomboās impetus and really protect ALL species.
Leigh Bernacchi
Mariposa, California
This article appeared in the print edition of the magazine with the headline Is Pombo the kick we need?.
Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.
