Westminster College

Under Threat of Extinction

Alex Spears

Environmental Policy and Politics

Mike Zarkin

5 May 2019
 Spears 1

I was a junior in high school when we did a project on the reintroduction of the Grey

Wolf. This was around the time the discussion about delisting the Grey Wolf from the

Endangered Species Act (ESA) was taking place. At that time the delisting would take place in

Idaho, Montana, parts of Washington and Oregon and a small corner of northern Utah. We took

a field trip up north to learn about this amazing species and the incredibly important ecological

role it plays. At the time, and to this day, it baffled me how despite the enormity of the scientific

data pointing to how important this one species was; people were still fighting tooth and nail for

its delisting and removal from the territory it was barely reintroduced into. This was my

introduction to the ESA and subsequently my interest in endangered species as a whole. Since

that day I have done half a dozen or so high school and college level papers, reports, and

presentations on the Grey Wolf and endangered species. These all, however, were from the

perspective of a scientist, looking at why species go extinct, looking at background extinction

rates, endemism, climate change, etc. I had never looked into or tried to understand the political

side of the debate. To my surprise, it is as complex if not more so then the scientific side. My

initial research leads me to the question of how did our historic culture lead to the need for the

ESA, how did our more recent culture lead to the formation of the ESA and how might our

current culture put the Act itself under threat of extinction.

Land of Abundance

To begin this journey we must travel back in time to the formation of the country we

know and love. My analysis of the culture that influences our relationship to wildlife starts in the

1600s with the North American fur trade. Greeted with the abundance of wildlife in North
 Spears 2

America the fur trade and market hunting were booming industries. Unfortunately for the

wildlife population, this was unsustainable. By the 1650s much of the beaver population on the

east coast was eliminated ​(​ “The History Of Wildlife Conservation” Nd). Declines in white-tail

deer population prompted a Rhode Island colony to institute the first seasonal ban on hunting.

Though these laws popped up semi-frequently they were not commonly enforced. The preferred

method of game conservation was to eliminate the competition. Many colonies paid out bounties

for killing large predators, specifically wolves. Though there were declines in many of the

wildlife populations on the east coast, the west was untouched by settlers with populations of

bison and pronghorn estimated in the tens of millions (“A Conservation Timeline” Nd). This

relative abundance continued into the mid-1800s and paved the way for the agrarian mindset of

the late 1800s.

In the mid-1800s the U.S. was far from what it was like 100 or 200 years prior. The vast

empty lands were now prepared with settlements and roads and railroad tracks fragmented the

land. It was during this time that the agrarian mindset heavily influenced the overexploitation of

this era. The agrarian mindset is one where wildlife and wildlands are seen as untamed, it was

man's job to reign them in, we were conquering the land as we spread west across the country. It

was during this time that the once great bison herds were reduced from tens of millions to a few

hundred, the passenger pigeon that was said to block out the sun was on a path to extinction by

the early 1900s. During this expansion and overexploitation, we decimated the large predator

populations as compensation for declining game populations. Grey wolves and cougar were

essentially eliminated in the east; grizzly bears shared a similar fate in California (Moyle et al.).

This agrarian mindset of taming the wilderness led to the overexploitation, marred this era, and
 Spears 3

set the building block for culture and political system more focused on the protection of our

wildlands and wildlife.

Road to the ESA

The late 1800s and early 1900s were an extremely important time in the history of

conservation in the United States. In the late 1800s, we got the first national park in Yellowstone

established by Ulysses S. Grant, the park would have to be protected from poachers by the U.S.

military for the next 10 year. During this time a young Theodore Roosevelt moved to North

Dakota, this experience profoundly influenced him about wildlands and wildlife. It was in this

time period where coalitions and clubs like the Sierra Club and Audobon Society were first

formed and the main proponents of conservation. Publications like ​American Sportsman ​and

Forest and Stream​ informed the public of the decline of wildlife in the west and brought into

focus the idea that natural resources in the U.S. were not unlimited.

The 1900s began with the passing of the Lacey Act in 1900, this Act prohibited the

commercial hunting and interstate trade of many plant and animal species. Although widespread

consciousness and knowledge were still uncommon there were a few people that noticed the

decline of our wildlands and wildlife and did something about it. Much of this effort was kicked

off by the election of Theodore Roosevelt as president of the United States. Roosevelt was an

avid hunter and outdoorsman and influenced by his years spent as a hunter, adventurer, and

outdoorsman in North Dakota. During his presidency, Roosevelt set aside over 230 million acres

of land including 16 national monuments, 55 wildlife refuges, and 5 national parks. The efforts
 Spears 4

and advancements to conservation by Roosevelt laid the groundwork for conservation as a

political concept for the years to come.

In the mid-1900s we got the concept of wildlife management as a profession. This

concept was heavily influenced by Aldo Leopold with his book ​Wildlife Management​. Leopold

was the first professor of wildlife conservation in the United States. During this time the

Pittman-Robertson Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act and later the Dingell- Johnson

Federal Aid in Fisheries Restoration Act put in place taxes on hunting and fishing equipment.

The money from this tax was to be used for the specific purpose of wildlife restoration, research,

and education.

The prosperity of the post-war years put a lot of strain on our natural resources. With an

increase in commercial development for housing and agriculture, the loss of wildlife habitat was

abundant and liberal use of pesticides and herbicides was common. It was at this time when

Rachel Carson published her book ​Silent Spring d​ ocumenting the potential impact of pesticides

on wildlife populations, specifically bald eagles. This book in large part is responsible for the

modern-day conservation movement. We then got the Endangered Species Conservation Act

which was later strengthened to the Endangered Species Act in 1973.

I have spent quite a bit of time going over the history of wildlife management and

conservation up to this point. I don't want this to read like a history textbook but I think many of

the events I outlined were monumental in bringing us to a point where a major piece of

legislation in the form of the Endangered Species act was necessary and possible. The agrarian

mindset of the 19th century was brought on by the abundance of natural resources in the 17th

and 18th century. This mindset quickly resulted in the mismanagement and over-exploitation of
 Spears 5

our wild populations during the 1800s. Though, not common knowledge at the time coalitions of

hunters, adventurers, and outdoorsmen like John Muir and Theodor Roosevelt as well as

academics like Aldo Leopold and Rachel Carson started to notice this degradation; their actions

both political and not, set the building block for our ideas of natural resource protection and

management that are still used to this day. With an even greater increase in public awareness

with the publication of ​Silent Spring​ the modern environmental movement was kicked off and

brought us to a place where the Endangered Species Act and others like it were almost

unanimously supported politically and publicly.

An Act In Danger

Like the historical events and the cultural attitude of the past leading to an era of

protection, these same factors can be used as a lens to view current policy making about wildlife

and natural resources. It took slightly more than 20 years for legislation like the Endangered

Species Act that passed almost unanimously to be under direct fire from our political leaders.

Since 1996 the Endangered Species Act alone has had at least 303 direct attacks as of 2015, 233

of which have been since 2011 (Pang & Greenwald 2015). As of March 2019, there are 362

entries reported by the Center for Biological Diversity, with a record 135 in 2016 alone (Attacks,

2019). Many of these attacks are calls for “Modernizing the Endangered Species Act”; the title

of a 2018 Senate RPC (Republican Policy Committee) article. The article makes the claim that

the ESA is underperforming. It points out that since 1973 only 3 percent of species have

recovered to the point they are no longer endangered or threatened. In his article, they lay out

bipartisan policy recommendations for improving the Act. These include calls for more state
 Spears 6

control, whether the goal of the ESA is stabilization or recovery, introducing incentive and

market-based approaches and considerations for economic factors. It seems though, that most of

these attacks are focused on the restructuring of the ESA and not necessarily the idea; most admit

that they support the ESA. Perhaps some of this controversy stems from how the ESA conducts

itself.

Sidelined Science

The Union for Concerned Scientist, Scientific Integrity Program has been documenting

incidents involving issues of scientific integrity in politics since the early 2000s. In a report, they

provided 47 examples between 2004 and 2009 where political interest trumped documented

government science. These include interfering with peer review selection in the 2011 decision to

delist the Grey Wolf (Rosenberg, 2013), and the 2014 disregard for the advice of Fish and

Wildlife Service (FWS) scientists in declining to list the wolverine (Goldman, 2015). A 2015

survey of FWS scientists showed that over 70% felt like political consideration was given too

much focus within the agency (Progress, 2015).

In just 20 years we have gone from overwhelming support to overwhelming calls for

change. What has happened that put us on this path of disregarding science? That's where it gets

even more tricky. Based on the data I provided you would assume that we as a society have lost

our confidence in science and want an end to the Endangered Species Act, our representatives

sure seem like they have. The problem isn’t that there is no support for the Endangered Species

Act, in fact, there is overwhelming support in favor of it, 86 percent of self-identifying

conservatives support the Act as well as 96% of liberals (Bruskotter, 2018). In fact, there is
 Spears 7

support across almost all political and ideological backgrounds. If the problem isn't in our

support for the Endangered Species Act perhaps society has lost its confidence in the scientific

community. Once again data indicates that 44 percent of Americans have a great deal of

confidence in the scientific community; 47 percent have some confidence; only 7 percent have

hardly any, these numbers have been steady since the 1970s (Funk, 2019). It would seem that

overwhelmingly Americans support the Endangered Species Act as well as the scientific

community. Yet our politicians continue to ignore science in favor of political interest. I would

like to provide two potential explanations for this apparent discrepancy. The first has to do with

campaign promises and democratic governance. One of the backbones of democratic

representation is mandate theory, this stipulates that elected officials have a mandate to uphold

campaign promises. Sullivan and O’Connor (1972) outline four conditions that must be met if

public influence over policy making is upheld during elections under mandate theory.

1. Opposing candidates for office must offer voters differing issue positions.

2. Voters must perceive the issue positions of difference.

3. Voters must cast their ballots on the basis of these perceived issue positions.

4. Winning candidates must vote in accordance with the pre election issue positions.

The empirical evidence suggests that the first of these three conditions are met in common

practice (Ringquist et al. 2013); there has been little data talking about the fourth condition. One

study on the issue found that there is a 48% defection rate in the House when it comes to

endangered species campaign promises and 49% in the Senate ( Ringquist et al. 2013). This

propensity for deflection undermines our democratic representation and challenges the link

between public preference and policymaking. The study also showed that this defection rate is
 Spears 8

influenced by campaign contributions. There is about a 2 percent decrease in defection from

anti-environmental promises per $200,000 contribution. Although average anti-environmental

campaign contributions are less than $30,000 (Ringquist et al. 2013), there are some that range in

the millions of dollars. This is more troubling when you consider my second potential

explanation; how much influence economic elites and interest groups have over policymaking.

The multivariate analysis shows these groups have substantial independent impacts on U.S.

government policy, much more than average citizens and mass-based interest groups ( Gilens,

2014). This evidence may shed light on how we have diverged from a country that is very

proactive in environmental policy-making and one that leaves our policies on endangered

species, endangered.

The policies surrounding wildlife management in this country closely follow the ebbs and

flows of our culture. From times of great abundance to overexploitation; ideas of controlling

nature to more preservationist theory of living in concert with it; from extinction to

reintroduction. It is almost impossible to talk about where we are now without taking this into

consideration. Hopefully, by better understanding the relationship between our environmental

policymaking and our relationship with the wildlife we can more easily navigate the politically

turbulent climate of today.

References

“Attacks on THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT.” ​Attacks on The Endangered Species Act​,
Center for Biological Diversity, Mar. 2019,
www.biologicaldiversity.org/campaigns/esa_attacks/table.html.

Brown, Robert. “A Conservation Timeline.” ​Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation,​

Brown, Robert D. ​The History of Wildlife Conservation and Research in the United States -
and Implication s for the Future​. North Carolina State University,
citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.494.2051&rep=rep1&type=pdf.

Bruskotter, Jeremy T., et al. “Most Americans Support the Endangered Species Act.” ​Most
Americans Support the Endangered Species Act -,​ 24 July 2018,
www.hcn.org/articles/endangered-species-most-americans-support-the-endangered-species
-act.

Funk, Cary, et al. “Public Confidence in Scientists Has Remained Stable for Decades.” ​Pew
Research Center​, Pew Research Center, 22 Mar. 2019,
www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/03/22/public-confidence-in-scientists-has-remained-
stable-for-decades/.

Gilens, Martin, and Benjamin I. Page. “Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest
Groups, and Average Citizens.” ​Perspectives on Politics,​ vol. 12, no. 3, 18 Sept. 2014, pp.
564–581., doi:10.1017/s1537592714001595.

Goldman, Gretchen. “Taking a Stand for Science: Documents Show FWS Scientists
Disagreed with Wolverine Decision.” ​Union of Concerned Scientists​, 4 Dec. 2015,
blog.ucsusa.org/gretchen-goldman/taking-a-stand-for-science-documents-show-fws-scienti
sts-disagreed-with-wolverine-decision.
 Spears 10

“Improving the Endangered Species Act.” ​Strata,​ Strata, 2 Aug. 2017,

“Modernizing the Endangered Species Act.” ​Senate RPC​, 17 July 2018,

Moyle, Peter, and Mary A. Orland. “Chapter 2: A History of Wildlife in North America.”
MarineBio Conservation Society,​ July 2004,
marinebio.org/creatures/essays-on-wildlife-conservation/3/. Accessed 30 Apr. 2019.

Pang, Jamie, and Noah Greenwald. “Politics of Extinction.” ​Center for Biological Diversity,​
Center for Biological Diversity, July 2015,
www.biologicaldiversity.org/campaigns/esa_attacks/pdfs/Politics_of_Extinction.pdf.

“Progress and Problems.” ​Union for Concerned Scientist​, 2015,

Ringquist, Evan J., et al. “Campaign Promises, Democratic Governance, and Environmental
Policy in the U.S. Congress.” ​Policy Studies Journal,​ vol. 41, no. 2, 2013, pp. 365–387.,
doi:10.1111/psj.12021.

Rosenberg, Andrew. “Wolves, the Endangered Species Act, and Why Scientific Integrity
Matters.” ​Union of Concerned Scientists,​ 19 Aug. 2013,
blog.ucsusa.org/andrew-rosenberg/wolves-the-endangered-species-act-and-why-scientific-
integrity-matters-212.

Sullivan, John L., and Robert E. Oconnor. “Electoral Choice and Popular Control of Public
Policy: The Case of the 1966 House Elections.” ​American Political Science Review,​ vol.
66, no. 04, 1972, pp. 1256–1268., doi:10.2307/1957178.