Species are vanishing from the Earth more quickly today than at any other time in the last 65 million years. As we destroy the lands wildlife depends on, we render that wildlife homeless and eventually extinct. Some experts worry that during the next several decades we may lose more than a fifth of all plant and animal species.
The 100th Congress, now back in Washington, has an opportunity to slow the hands of this clock. At issue is the most important wildlife conservation measure ever passed: the Endangered Species Act. First enacted in 1973, it expired in September, 1985, and the program has limped along since then awaiting adequate funding and direction from Congress. During the 99th Congress the House reauthorized the act, but the Senate did not. In December, the House did so again. Now, once more, all eyes are on the Senate.
Nearly 1,000 species, half of them native to the United States, are protected by the act. But another 1,000 that meet the criteria have not been protected, in large part because the federal government lacks the money and staff to go through the formal steps, including solicitation and review of public comments, that precede formal listing. At the current rate, it would take 20 years to work through this backlog. Standing even further back in line are 3,000 species that have been nominated but require more study. Some creatures have become extinct while waiting for government action.
Congress` failure to reauthorize the Endangered Species Act is not the only problem. The Reagan administration has found ways to keep the listings to a minimum. Most recently, officials abolished the Endangered Species Office and merged the staff with another division, dispersing many of them to regional offices. A quarter of the positions were eliminated.
What remains of the program will receive about $39 million this year. Though more than the $28.6 million proposed by the administration, it is not enough. The bill passed by the House in December would authorize $56 million for 1988 and an additional 4.3 percent each succeeding year, reaching $66 million in the fifth year. This authorization for five years, instead of the normal three, would give the program needed stability and limit tinkering by opponents.
Why has the Senate failed to act these past 2 1/2 years? The primary problem is a wrecking crew orchestrated by water interests and ranchers. The former want no interference with dams they hope to build, and the latter want the right to kill grizzlies and block the return of the wolf.
They are overreacting, however. A recent study by the General Accounting Office found that in 3,200 conflicts involving proposed water projets, only six were stopped by the Endangered Species Act. Ranchers should look at Minnesota, where livestock owners, compensated by the government for their modest losses, coexist easily with the largest wolf population in the lower 48 states.
Because it protects such predators, not to mention small creatures that few know about, the Endangered Species Act is sometimes the butt of jokes. But each species fills a niche in its ecosystem; the loss of any one sets off reactions elsewhere.
From a purely selfish standpoint, mankind should not allow such extinctions. Recent research on the African clawed frog should lead to the production of a whole new family of antibiotics. Aspirin was derived from a willow. The rosy periwinkle was found to contain two alkaloids that have been a boon to those with Hodgkins disease and acute leukemia. More than 25 percent of the pharmaceuticals sold in this country are derived from natural substances. As we wipe species off the face of the Earth, our own chances for survival gradually decline.
The Endangered Species Act is a landmark in our evolution as a people. It indicates that we have enough humility and understanding of the world around us to realize that man is a part of the natural world-not apart from it. And with the aid of the act, the bald eagle, American alligator, whooping crane and others have made comebacks. But the toll of species lost continues to mount and must be checked. As Harvard biologist Edward O. Wilson put it: ”The loss of genetic and species diversity . . . is the folly our descendants are least likely to forgive us.”
