I don’t like to write about topics related to politics, especially in our current divisive and eruptive political environment. However, sometimes politics cross the line and challenges important and vital environmental protections. This week, the Trump administration announced that it was going to essentially reduce the strength of the Endangered Species Act of 1973.
Before I get on my soapbox, please realize that there are many species that would be extinct today if not for the Endangered Species Act (ESA). This includes the bald eagle, the national symbol of the United States. They were placed under protection through the ESA in the 1970s when there were only 400 pairs remaining. They were removed from the list in the 2000s because their population increased to 20,000 pairs. It took almost 40 years of educating people, hunters, farmers, as well as reducing the use of toxic chemicals for agriculture which inevitably makes their way into the food chain. This success story alone should be all we need to keep the ESA held sacred.
They’re moving fast on this as well – the new changes are expected to take place next month. Not many government changes go into effect that fast.
Photo by Cristofer Jeschke on Unsplash
Including Economics in Assessment
The New York Times article explained, “the new rules would make it easier to remove a species from the endangered list and weaken protections for threatened species, the classification one step below endangered.” The ESA previously did not allow for economic assessments when determining if a species deserves protection. “For instance, estimating lost revenue from a prohibition on logging in a critical habitat” would become part of the equation. This is dangerous because in government the short-term costs often outweigh the long-term benefits. This type of thinking could cause many species to become extinct.
“Over all, the revised rules appear very likely to clear the way for new mining, oil and gas drilling, and development in areas where protected species live.” – NY Times
I can’t agree more! I champion this statement because it is exactly what’s going on.
According to the article, Erik Milito, a vice president at the American Petroleum Institute, a trade group representing the oil and gas industry, praised the revisions to the ESA. Of course he did.
We have to put nature first and make nature more important than profit and consumption.
Excluding Climate Change as a factor
While economic assessments will now be considered, revisions will go a step further by REMOVING the impact of climate change when evaluating how to best protect species. This is despite that study after study, CITES, the IUCN, and the United Nations have all determined that climate change is one of the critical challenges in protecting wildlife. A recent study in part from the UN declared that approximately one million species are at risk of extinction and that global warming is one of the biggest factors in wildlife decline and endangerment.
“The new rules also give the government significant discretion in deciding what is meant by the term ‘foreseeable future.’ That’s a semantic change with far-reaching implications because it enables regulators to disregard the effects of extreme heat, drought, rising sea levels and other consequences of climate change that may occur several decades from now.” – NY Times
Photo by Ken Goulding on Unsplash
Politicians Claim Revisions are for “Modernization” and “Transparency”
Interior Secretary David Bernhardt said the changes would modernize the ESA and make it more transparent, which is just BS. “Mr. Bernhardt, a former oil and gas lobbyist, wrote that the act places an ‘unnecessary regulatory burden’ on companies.” He argued in 2018 that the ESA elevates protections for threatened species to the same level as those given to endangered species and that “we need creative, incentive-based conservation, but that becomes impossible with the current blurring of the lines between the two distinctions.”
The distinctions were created because of scientific foresight. If a particular species is declared “threatened” the ESA allows protections to be put in to place to prevent that species from becoming endangered. We cannot wait for species to become endangered before we do something about it.
Bernhardt also wants species to stay on the list for less time. The reason species stay listed as threatened or endangered is because they are not recovering in population, habitat, and health. The argument that the law is not reasonable because species are rarely removed from the list, is flawed. “Since the law was passed, more than 1,650 have been listed as threatened or endangered, while just 47 have been delisted because their populations rebounded.” That’s not because the standards have gone up! That’s because species are continually threatened and assaulted by a variety of human activities. Further, it seems that no one is looking at the numbers of species that went extinct while waiting to get on to the ESA’s list.
Image by Андрей Корман from Pixabay
This Is Not the First Time the ESA Has Been Attacked
Republicans have been working on relaxing and reducing this bill for several years, if not longer. I’m sharing a video of wildlife biologist and conservationist Jeff Corwin (@wildcorwin) testifying at a hearing of the House Natural Resources Committee in July 2017:
“Historically, the [Endangered Species Act] was not politically-based. Remember, it was produced in an administration that had tremendous challenges. And if it wasn’t for Richard Nixon, and his policies, we would not have bald eagles today.” – Jeff Corwin
Image by Christine Sponchia from Pixabay
“We celebrate the value of natural resources, going back to Teddy Roosevelt, John Muir, through the work of Rachel Carson. And today, we as Americans, are unique and we have a such a splendid tableau of valuable species and landscapes. And it can only stay through wise, pragmatic, common-sense management, and I believe that the ESA is a big partner in that.” -Jeff Corwin
In response to this news, Corwin denounced the changes on social media:
“When we allow our political persuasions to destroy the very fabric of our country‘s wild legacy, then it will be our children that pay the ultimate price.”
Update (8/27/2019): I found this video of an interview with Jeff Corwin from the same date that I originally published this post:
You Can Help!
Everyone who knows even just a little about the Endangered Species Act knows that it has been overwhelmingly successful. So we have to fight this! Besides voting, here is a petition you can sign to help stop this! It will go to your state’s representative (it will ask you to donate but you are not required). I’m going to call my representative in the morning. We can be the change!
As always, thank you for reading, and please subscribe!
It seems that every type of tourism exists now, as you can almost have any experience you can dream of if you’re willing to pay for it. But when does it go too far?
This is something I wasn’t really familiar with until I read an article about it recently. But once I read up on it, I realized that I had participated in this type of tourism myself! It’s a broad topic and also slightly outside of the scope of my blog, but I wanted to expose my readers to the topic.
Photo by Andy_Bay on Pixabay
What is Wildlife Tourism?
Simply put, wildlife tourism is interacting with wild animals either in their natural habitat or within controlled environments, such as tours where you can bathe with elephants. It also includes observing and photographing animals, interacting with animals in zoos or wildlife parks, and animal-riding. Hunting and safari trips are sometimes lumped into this category as well, but for the purposes of this post, I’m not including those today.
This type of adventure travel can support the values of ecotourism and nature conservation programs. But it can be damaging if not done responsibly.
A growing industry
Wildlife tourism is one of the fastest-growing sectors of the tourism industry. It is often an important part of the economy in many countries. According to a 2005 book on Wildlife Tourism, “ecotourism generates as much as $20 billion in revenues each year. It is especially important to the economy of some lesser developed countries.” Wildlife tourism spans the globe and is happening on every continent.
John Scanlon, the Secretary-general of CITES (Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora), wrote an article entitled “The world needs wildlife tourism. But that won’t work without wildlife.” He wrote that in Belize “more than 50% of the population are said to be supported by income generated through reef-related tourism and fisheries.”
Photo by Una Laurencic from Pexels
Good for economies – but is it good for wildlife?
This is, of course, the big controversy: Can wildlife tourism protect threatened and endangered animals while vastly improving local economies?
The answer is sometimes. I found many articles and even entire books dedicated to this very topic.
In Scanlon’s article, he argued that when wildlife tourism is done appropriately, it can actually protect animals, even endangered species. Wildlife tourism provides economic resources to local communities. When those local communities have such a stake in the wildlife, they will become the greatest protectors of it. Some countries, such as Kenya, have developed national guidelines for ecotourism. In one region, for example, elephant poaching was reduced by 50% and no rhinos have been poached in 4 years.
In a January 2010 article entitled “Tourists and turtles: Searching for a balance in Tortuguero, Costa Rica” from Conservation and Society, sea turtles and wildlife tourism “are now so inextricably linked in some places” because “sea turtle conservation organizations promote tourism as a way to ‘save turtles'”.
However, without informed and effective management, wildlife tourism can have negative effects on wildlife. It can disrupt normal activity, cause injuries, and alter habitats. In a June 2018 article from NewsRx Health & Science, a study of white sharks interacting with cage-divers found it may change the activity levels of the sharks and distract them from normal behaviors, such as foraging.
Photo by Anton Avanzato on Pexels
National Geographic‘s exposure
I recently read an article about Wildlife Tourism in the June 2019 issue of National Geographic. The magazine sent a reporter and a photographer to different countries to explore this business, and what they often found was exploitation rather than conservation. I’ll be honest, the article was depressing and left me feeling really sad. But it was worth reading because it opened my eyes to the issue.
As Susan Goldberg from National Geographic wrote, wildlife tourism “a way for people to appreciate and support animals when it’s done appropriately but an exploitive business with terrible consequences when it’s not.”
The article provided helpful guidelines for wildlife tourism, such as paying attention to the animal’s health, weight, and general appearance. Is the animal underweight? Does the animal have obvious injuries or illness? Is the animal performing unnatural tasks (such as bathing or giving rides to tourists)? Does the animal seem to have been trained by fear?
Photo from Free-Photos on Pixabay
I am responsible too
When I was a teenager, my Dad took me to a popular tourist site in Myrtle Beach, South Carolina to see a parade of wild animals. The elephants, lions, and tigers were starring in a popular movie at the time and touring, I suppose, to promote the film. We sat with the animals and got our photos taken.
While I wouldn’t have known better then, and my Dad was just trying to show me a good time that summer, we participated in wildlife tourism. I don’t see any injuries or evidence of neglect in these photos, but I have no idea if they were treated well. See the chain on the tiger?
I’ve also let my child ride the camel at the Chattanooga Zoo. I let him feed the giraffes at Zoo Atlanta as well. Were those examples of exploitation, or just fun childhood interactions? I’d assume both zoos treat their animals well since they are members of the Association of Zoos and Aquariums. But not all organizations and countries have or follow guidelines set forth by national and international organizations.
Going forward
Now that I’m aware of the potential problems with wildlife tourism, I feel it’s important to share the issues with my readers. John Scanlon wrote that tourism operators have the opportunity to protect wildlife while making money. “But operators can’t do it alone. How we behave as individual tourists is ultimately what counts.”
The most important take away from the National Geographic article and this blog post is that we should all be aware, be intentional, and be mindful of what we are doing when it comes to wildlife tourism.
Thanks for reading, please share and subscribe!
Additional Resource:
Article, “Suffering unseen: The dark truth behind wildlife tourism,” National Geographic, May 30, 2019
Photo by Patrick Shields on Pixabay
