|
<br />
<br />w
<br />
<br />[Vol. 11
<br />
<br />nay authorize
<br />.ke authoriza-
<br />and prudent
<br />gency exceeds
<br />section 7 con-
<br />!r FWS is re-
<br />s they do not
<br />(4) notes the
<br />~esting that it
<br />
<br />, in support of
<br />ntly "useless"
<br />74 First, it is
<br />~onomic value :
<br />,t if they were
<br />; view point to '
<br />ery of the pos-
<br />n yew trees in
<br />.c material in
<br />ains of crops.
<br />w in advance
<br />might be, and
<br />nic tenns' be-
<br />10wn and un-
<br />
<br />(1992) (When an
<br />.ns of ESA section
<br />1 statement speci-
<br />:5; the reasonable
<br />ures to be used in
<br />to the Prohibition
<br />If 1973: Learning
<br />. L. REV. 109, 165
<br />
<br />19ainst protection
<br />?or discussions of
<br />, see, e.g., RoHLF,
<br />Dan Tarlock, The
<br />WATER L. REV. I,
<br />
<br />,~ .I;
<br />';,~."
<br />t~!.
<br />
<br />
<br />iJ
<br />',q
<br />g
<br />~
<br />:1
<br />.~
<br />'t
<br />:~
<br />:~
<br />
<br />1993]
<br />
<br />. RAZORBACKS AND RESERVOIRS
<br />
<br />knowable.';) Indeed, Congress did not include economic value
<br />among its list of reasons to preserve endangered species.76
<br />A second justification for species preservation is the ar-
<br />gument that we have an ethical obligation not to completely
<br />eliminate other life forms. Many, if not most, people in the
<br />United States have some sympathy for this view, at least so
<br />far as "glamorous megafauna" such as eagles and pandas are
<br />concerned.77 While support for the furbish lousewort may fall
<br />short of that for the peregrine falcon, there is widespread
<br />support for species preservation, as is evidenced by the ESA's
<br />repeated reauthorization.
<br />A third argument for preservation is that biodiversity is
<br />a good in itself, and that it is dangerous to remove any link in
<br />the biotic chain, lest we cause changes we cannot foresee. It
<br />is sometimes noted that the force of this argument is blunted
<br />by the fact that, by definition, few individuals of an endan-
<br />gered species remain, and thus their removal is unlikely to
<br />have widespread biological effects. This is particularly true
<br />in the case of isolated endemics such as the snail darter,
<br />which exist in only a few, limited habitats. However, it is
<br />also true that isolated species, such as Darwin's Galapagos
<br />finches, evolve under unique conditions and so can provide a
<br />unique and valuable resource for study.78
<br />The final and perhaps most persuasive argument for spe-
<br />cies preservation is closely related to the biodiversity ration-
<br />ale. Endangered species can be viewed as canaries in the
<br />
<br />75. See, e.g., Tarlock, supra note 74, at 4.
<br />76. 16 V.S.C. ~ 1531(a)(3) (1988).
<br />77. See generally Charles C. Mann & Mar~ L. Plummer, The Butterfly Prob-
<br />lem, THE ATLANTIC MONTHLY, Jan. 1992, at 47 (discussing the economic hard-
<br />ships caused by cancelling development projects because of possible danger to
<br />listed species); see also Julie B. Bloch, Preserving Biological Diversity in the
<br />U.S.: The Case for Moving to an Ecosystems Approach to Protect the Nation's
<br />Biological Wealth, 10 PACE ENVTL. L. REV. 175, 199 (1992) (discussing the
<br />shortcomings of single species patchwork protections).
<br />78, The Colorado River Basin contains a higher percentage of endemic spe-
<br />cies - species found in no other habitat - than does any other North American
<br />river. See Rolston, supra note 8, at 94. These endemics are often characterized
<br />by unique adaptations. The humpback chub, for example, has the most pro-
<br />nounced stabilizing "nuchal hump" of any fish on this continent, to help it sur-
<br />vive in fast-flowing waters. [d.
<br />
<br />49
<br />
|