Americans have become increasingly supportive of environmental protection. Ironically, however, recent battles to save endangered species jeopardize the survival of this conservation movement. The Endangered Species Act (ESA) itself may be endangered. How have we gone astray with endangered species? Let's first consider the Act's history.

The 1973 passage of the ESA expanded the federal power to protect any "ecosystems upon which endangered species and threatened species depend". This bill enjoyed widespread support. Politicians realized that the general public held a reservoir of good will toward charismatic beasts and birds.

People liked the bald eagle, wolverine, and ruby-throated gnat catcher. These creatures posed no obvious threat to human health, wealth, or housing. Politicians and conservationists assumed saving their lives and habitat would be nearly costless.

Since 1973, however, the costs of protecting land areas from human disturbance have escalated dramatically. As a result, much of that reservoir of good will has been drained, often needlessly and irresponsibly, and recharged with disenchantment. What happened?

Years of experience with the ESA soured many people as the costly implications of enforcement became evident. The Act had evolved to protect noxious bugs, bats, and beetles, often at substantial costs. Some of these costs were financial, others were opportunities foregone. Support further eroded when the protected creatures were obscure and favored only by a tiny, arrogant, highly educated constituency.

The Political Economy of Endangered Species

Basic economic principles can help us explain the ESA's loss of support. Here's how.

People first consider the personal impact of decisions: How will a decision effect me and those people, beliefs, and things I care about? For example, subjecting hundreds of homes to recurrent fire danger to protect a subspecies of rat may protect that rat, but it erodes support for the ESA.

Second, the only costs people count are those they actually face. When a person is insulated from the consequences of his actions, costs are ignored or discounted. I, for example, can easily advocate expanding the land protected for the endangered grizzly bear for I no longer graze livestock or harvest timber; I only recreate on the protected land. To people like me, increased protection is free.

Others, however, face the direct costs of this protection. For example, the construction of a hospital in California's San Bernadino County was postponed and relocated for the sake of protecting eight Delhi Sands flower-loving flies inhabiting the property. The cost? $4.5 million, or about half a million dollars a fly.

The Mischief of Myopic Friends

Academics are among the strongest advocates of increased protection for endangered species. They manipulate symbols, not material stuff. They may understand ecological interdependence, but few academics appreciate the economic links between people and the land to be protected.

For example, in the March 1998 issue of Science magazine, professor Michael Soule noted that saving 10% of wildlands is "far too little to prevent a mass extinction". He admonishes us to accept this as fact and place one half of the earth's land area -- including the most productive -- into wildlands.

Such posturing may feel good to certain greens, but it's intellectually and ethically irresponsible to ignore or pretend away the costs inherent to protecting lands from human disturbance. The pro-environmental Liz Claiborne and Art Ortenburg Foundation, in their booklet The View From Arlie, concedes this fact: "[Protected-area strategy] has obliged poor people who are resident in contested landscapes to bear most of the costs of conservation, while larger societal interests reap most of the benefits".

What to do for endangered species?

A new approach is required to achieve the goals which motivated the ESA. Simply scolding people for wanting the "wrong things", and demanding that they change their values, is naive. We must acknowledge our practical inability to save all species. People are simply unwilling to sacrifice things they cherish to save things they don't.

Protecting land to the detriment of those who depend upon it is rarely productive. A more constructive approach would:

1. reward those who provide habitat for endangered species,

2. foster innovation and entrepreneurship directed toward saving species; and

3. respect peoples' rights and compensate them accordingly when these rights conflict with habitat requirements of endangered species.

Saving species is a management problem, but the ESA precludes efficient management of scarce resources for both human and nonhuman use. Fundamental reform is required. To deny this fact is ethically and ecologically irresponsible.

This column originated from Bridge News.<\i>