HOME
Message Board
CURRENT COLUMNS
- Editor's Corner
- Blogfest 2005
- Commentary
- Commentary Too
- Down The Middle
- Faulking Around
- Global Warning
- This guy walks into a bar...
- Investing 101
- Faulking Opinions
- Off The Rail
- Words
ARCHIVES
LINKS
CONTACT US
 | |||
Global Warning - Jun 4, 2004 - Printable Version
- How Extinct Is Too Extinct?
by Robin Buckallew
Quick. Think of an endangered species, one you would like to see saved. Now, visualize that species in your mind's eye. Let me guess - it is warm blooded, and bearing either fur or feathers, right? Odds are, more than a few of you thought of the spotted owl or the Bengal tiger. If you named a fish, such as the snail darter, give yourself a pat on the back. Or perhaps you came up with an amphibian or reptile, such as the Texas horned lizard? Two pats on the back. If you thought of a plant, such as the nipple cactus or the Venus flytrap, you can take yourself out to dinner. And you deserve the major prize if your favored species was an endangered fungus, such as the Giant Polypore fungus of the Pacific Northwest, which has a 300-pound fruiting body and has been listed in the Guinness Book of World Records. OK, I'll confess. Yours truly, environmental guru that I am, had to look that last one up on the Internet. Endangered fungus? OK, now we're reaching the realm of the surreal, right? It is hard enough for most people to imagine endangered lizards. When I start mentioning endangered plants, they begin to shut off - it's beyond the realm of reality for most to imagine plants could be endangered. But there are many species of plants going extinct every day, and many more are threatened with endangerment or extinction by reckless harvesting or deforestation.
OK, I'll concede the plants, you say. We need plants, they make oxygen, we eat them, and they're pretty. But fungus? For heaven's sake, get real. OK, I'll get real. The risk of extinction is a real threat for many species, including this fungus. Currently, a total of 11,046 species of plants and animals are listed as threatened or endangered. Oh, you answer, but don't species go extinct anyway? Yes, at the rate of about one species every 400 years. Current extinction rates are estimated to be at least 1,000 times the normal background extinction rate. In geologic time, there have been five great extinction events. The most renowned, of course, is the one that wiped out the dinosaurs - making room for the domination of large mammals. Currently, it is believed by most scientists that we are in the middle of the sixth great extinction event, this one related solely to human activities.
Most people, even those who read little and get all their news from Fox and Clear Channel, are aware of endangered species. Most, unfortunately, are prone to think only of large charismatic mammal or bird species. Most of the money goes to protect only those showy specimens that look great on the cover of a fund raising pamphlet. Most taxpayers would squawk loudly to think their tax dollars were going to protect a lizard (after all, think of all the uproar over the snail darter, who has the distinct advantage of being a fish, one of the groups that gets a healthy share of the financial pie). When speaking of endangered species, plants usually go totally unnoticed. And a fungus isn't figured into the equation at all, since it is not clear whether the endangered species act even covers fungi.
There are three generally accepted rationales for saving an endangered species. The one that is most generally persuasive with the most people is the commercial one. It is easy to argue against the extinction of a species that is, or might be, commercially valuable and contribute vast amounts of money to the economy. This argument is closely related to the argument that is a perennial favorite among the chronically anthropocentric - you never know when we might discover a use for a species. Usually this argument involves medicine, and principally the argument is made from the standpoint of cancer. A prime example often heard is the yew tree, growing in California, becoming more and more endangered everyday, until suddenly it was discovered that the bark had anti-carcinogenic compounds - from this we get the cancer drug, Taxol. Another perennial favorite is the aesthetic one, the value a species contributes simply for its beauty. This is also fairly easy to argue, especially for large charismatic mammals, birds and plants. It becomes a little more difficult when you enter the realm of the amphibians, reptiles and fungus; but for those of us who have had the pleasure of interacting with these species up close, it becomes much more palpable. The third generally accepted rational for protection of endangered species is the morality issue. This one is probably the most difficult rational to get accepted, but it is by far the most necessary, as we will never fully embrace the realities of extinction until we recognize the fundamental rights of all living things to survival. To dismiss other species as somehow lower or inferior is to display a fundamental ignorance of biological principles. It is time we learn to rephrase Descartes - "I live, therefore I am".
That said, it is time to revisit the endangered species act. For a long time, this particular act has been a favorite bugbear of the right wing. It gives them plenty to holler about - excessive regulations, threats to economic well-being, government telling you what you can do on your own property. Endangered species rarely come out winners in cost benefit analysis. You see, these analyses are usually done by the very people with the most at stake - the people wishing to develop the land. Costs of preservation are often overstated, benefits of preservation understated. A perennial problem with protecting endangered species is that the costs of losing a species typically accrue to society as a whole, while the benefits of development all accrue to the developer. Developers feel that they are all too often stymied by some small, insignificant creature that they don't like much, anyway. Who can measure the value of a prairie dog village against the economic impact of a large, multimillion dollar housing development? Cost-benefit analyses rarely favor the prairie dog. Large dams vs. the snail darter? Snail darter loses, even when the cost-benefit analysis proves the dam is a losing proposition. Logging jobs vs. the spotted owl? Well, who needs owls, anyway? Too much owl poop probably isn't good for the forest. Irrigation projects vs. the salmon? Oh, that one's rich. Turns out, it has never been scientifically proven that the fish need that water. Dead fish, of course, might provide the proof, but by then, it's a little late. Oops.
The current administration certainly is no exception to the standard Republican party plank. Endangered species act - bad. Economic development - good. Black and white, simple. Bring 'em on. This administration, however, has proven even more hostile than previous Republican administrations in the steadfast refusal to even consider the proposal of additions to the endangered species list. The current thinking, indeed, is to get most of the species delisted. This would be good, if they were planning to accomplish this by supportive legislation that resulted in a "saving" of the delisted species. This is not the case. Simple removal from the list doesn't solve the problem, it merely sweeps it under the rug. Gutting of the endangered species act is immoral, illogical, and ultimately dangerous. Someday, the endangered species could be the one we care the most about - whichever one that is.
Voice your opinion on our message board (you don't have to sign up to post).