{"id":12924,"date":"2018-07-21T21:51:17","date_gmt":"2018-07-21T21:51:17","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.lifeandnews.com\/articles\/?p=12924"},"modified":"2018-07-21T21:51:17","modified_gmt":"2018-07-21T21:51:17","slug":"support-for-the-endangered-species-act-remains-high-as-trump-administration-and-congress-try-to-gut-it","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.lifeandnews.com\/articles\/support-for-the-endangered-species-act-remains-high-as-trump-administration-and-congress-try-to-gut-it\/","title":{"rendered":"Support for the Endangered Species Act remains high as Trump administration and Congress try to gut it"},"content":{"rendered":"

Jeremy T. Bruskotter<\/a>, The Ohio State University<\/a><\/em>; John A Vucetich<\/a>, Michigan Technological University<\/a><\/em>, and Ramiro Berardo<\/a>, The Ohio State University<\/a><\/em><\/span><\/p>\n

The Endangered Species Act<\/a>, or \u201cthe Act,\u201d is arguably the most important law in the United States for conserving biodiversity and arresting the extinction of species. <\/p>\n

Congress passed the ESA in 1973<\/a> with strong bipartisan support (the House voted 355-4 in favor of the law) at the behest of a Republican president, Richard Nixon. Nixon had come to believe existing protections for threatened and endangered species were insufficient. <\/p>\n

Since its passage, the Act has helped reverse and stop declines in numerous species<\/a> \u2013 from bald eagles<\/a> to Lake Erie watersnakes<\/a> \u2013 and served as a model for similar laws around the world. <\/p>\n

Nevertheless, criticism of the law has been a persistent feature of debates about whether and how to protect imperiled species. That criticism often comes from business<\/a> and agricultural<\/a> interests, who argue that the Act\u2019s provisions excessively limit their ability to develop and manage private property. <\/p>\n

Such criticisms led to a proposal by the Trump Administration<\/a> this week to severely curtail the scope of the Act. And they have prompted recent congressional hearings<\/a> and raised concern that support for the law may be waning.<\/p>\n

We are ecologists<\/a> and social<\/a> scientists<\/a> whose work often intersects with the Endangered Species Act. We wanted to know: Is public support for the Act declining? And if so, why?<\/p>\n

\n \"\"
\n President Richard Nixon signs the Endangered Species Act.<\/span>
\n Clerk of the U.S. House<\/span><\/span>
\n <\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

Arrested development<\/h2>\n

Some members of Congress have proposed legislation to weaken<\/a> the Act\u2019s protections \u2013 and these proposals appear to be increasing. The Center for Biological Diversity<\/a>, an advocacy group that supports protections for endangered species, analyzed congressional voting records and found that from the 1990s until 2010, a typical year saw roughly five proposals to amend the Act or otherwise curtail some of its protections<\/a>. <\/p>\n

Then, in 2011 the number of proposed bills to amend the Act jumped to 30 and has continued to increase<\/a>. In the past two years there have been nearly 150 such efforts aimed at weakening the Act. Sponsors of such legislation have not been shy about the goals of their efforts. As Rep. Rob Bishop, R-Utah, put it<\/a>, their intent is to \u201cinvalidate\u201d the Act. <\/p>\n

But threats to the Act are not limited to congressional actions. The Act has also been weakened by rule changes (which prescribe how to carry out the Act) adopted by the agencies charged with administering it, the National Marine Fisheries Service<\/a> and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service<\/a>. One change adopted in 2016<\/a> effectively redefines endangerment<\/a> in a way that could dramatically lower the standard for what measures are required to recover endangered species.<\/p>\n

Some say these changes are needed to prevent widespread public backlash against the Act, which could lead to its unraveling. <\/p>\n

For example, in 2015 the Obama administration proposed revising policy<\/a> concerning the listing of endangered species. The proposal effectively made it harder for citizens to petition to list a species (only listed species are entitled to ESA protections). The High Country News<\/a> characterized the proposal as a \u201cpreemptive strike\u201d that was \u201caimed at warding off a GOP overhaul of the law.\u201d<\/p>\n

Similarly, some conservation professionals worry that continuing protections for controversial species such as gray wolves could \u201ccreate resentments toward the species and the ESA<\/a>\u201d ultimately, undermining the effectiveness of the law. <\/p>\n

Decades of support<\/h2>\n

In 2014, we conducted a survey of 1,287 Americans, gathering data on a variety of topics related to wildlife conservation, including support for the Act. We also gathered data from previously published studies and public polls. We found four studies or polls that assess support for the ESA spanning roughly two decades, and combined them to assess public attitudes<\/a> about the Act over time. <\/p>\n

Collectively, results indicate support for the Act has been remarkably stable over the past 20 years. <\/p>\n

Average support in the three most recent studies, conducted in 2011, 2014 and 2015, was statistically indistinguishable from the earliest study, conducted in 1996. The data show that more than 4 in 5 Americans support the Act, while roughly 1 in 10 oppose it. <\/p>\n

In contrast to the often-repeated statement<\/a> that the Act is controversial, these data suggest that support for the law among the general population is robust and has remained so for at least two decades. <\/p>\n