Endangered Species Act works

Critics of the Endangered Species Act say it needs drastic revision because the number of threatened and endangered species keeps increasing. Yet many of these same critics are politicians who consistently fail to adequately fund species recovery efforts, such as critical habitat protection. California Republican Rep. Richard Pombo's deceptively named "Threatened and Endangered Species Recovery Act" would "solve" this problem by doing away with critical habitat protection altogether. Go figure.

Despite inadequate funding, the Endangered Species Act has been a stunning success, having brought many species back from the brink of extinction — among them the magnificent California condor, grizzly bear, gray wolf, bald eagle, peregrine falcon, sea otter and black-footed ferret. Are we now willing to risk consigning perhaps thousands of species to the void of extinction so that the greediest among us can extort payoffs from the rest of us for not destroying critical habitats? Should we have to?

Species are like threads in a fabric: Pull one out and the entire fabric begins to unravel, more species disappear and ecosystems break down. Opportunities for communion with wild nature will gradually disappear, especially for people of modest means. Is this the legacy we want to bequeath future humanity in order to embrace a bloated concept of property rights?

The Endangered Species Act works. The only serious question is, do we human beings have a moral duty and the resolve to try to prevent species extinctions? I say we do and we must — not only for our sake but for theirs.

Kirk C. Robinson

executive director

Western Wildlife Conservancy

Salt Lake City