Declaring that we need to avoid the “train wrecks” that have resulted from previous battles between economic interests and the Endangered Species Act, Secretary of the Interior Bruce Babbitt has announced his intention to change the focus of enforcement of the ESA from individual species to entire ecosystems.
It occurred to me that if I was on the same side of this issue as a bunch of California real estate developers and the Tribune it be time to reexamine my position.
Best of Chicago voting is live now. Vote for your favorites »
So I called David Wilcove, senior ecologist with the Environmental Defense Fund. Wilcove has just completed a study of the effectiveness of the Endangered Species Act, so he has been thinking about the issues involved in protecting plants and animals.
So for purposes of law enforcement, how do we define this slippery term? How do we know when we have preserved an ecosystem? I would like to suggest two characteristics that could define an ecosystem for legal purposes. First, it should be self-sustaining, and second, it should be large enough to support all the species that belong in it.
So how much do we need to preserve of the remaining old-growth forests to preserve the ecosystem? This is where we get into the serious definition questions. The Tribune thinks we need preserve nothing but what it calls the “core” of the ecosystem.
An ecosystem approach also looks good to some developers because of the greater certainty it provides. You plan a project now to avoid harming the California gnatcatcher, and then a year from now another coastal sage animal–and there are several candidates–is added to the list, and all your plans have to be scrapped. With a plan in place to protect a whole ecosystem, you can count on the rules staying the same.
