Modify the Species Act

It's hard to argue with the successes of the Endangered Species Act, particularly when you look at how one of America's strongest symbols, the bald eagle, has come back from the brink of extinction 30 years ago.

And yet, it's also hard for Americans, with the value they have always placed on individual initiative and the incentive of private ownership, to argue that it's OK to deprive people of their property to protect an animal, fish or plant.

The Endangered Species Act may have become like the Miranda warning — something that time and popular culture has fused with the public's notion of public policy, and which would be almost impossible to change. And yet, it seems reasonable to believe the act could be amended to help property owners without also harming endangered species.

When the Western Governors' Association holds its executive summit early next month, this is scheduled for a prominent spot on the agenda. Meanwhile, Republicans in Congress already are talking about possible changes to the law. One proponent of change, Utah State University professor Randy T. Simmons, was quoted in this newspaper as favoring a plan that would allow landowners to be compensated if they help protect endangered species.

Simmons notes that some people have seen their property values drop by 80 percent once an endangered plant or animal is discovered on it. That hardly seems fair to someone who has invested in land honestly and has plans for its development.

Environmentalists see things differently, of course. There's is not an entirely unreasonable position. Each species is part of an intricate eco-system that sustains life on the planet. When man forces a species into extinction through thoughtless acts, it can reap untold consequences up and down the food chain.

And yet, too often environmentalists act as if it is 1917 again and the Alaska territorial legislature has just posted a bounty on bald eagles because they were seen as threats to the fishing and fox fur industries. No one is considering allowing the type of careless destruction that reduced bald eagles to about 400 breeding pairs, or that nearly destroyed the buffalo.

And yet, there ought to be room for some reasonable tempering of a law that seems capable of summarily robbing people of their land with the state's full consent.