Laserfiche WebLink
<br />358 <br /> <br />CHAPTER 15 <br /> <br />reservoirs of organic diversity are their limited capacity and their need to display <br />as many animals as possible to attract visitors and fulfill their educational <br />objectives. The few species that are chosen to be bred in captivity may not be <br />subjected to the same selection pressures that affect natural populations. Possible <br />reduction of genetic diversity leads to questions about the value of such <br />innovations as gene banks, frozen sperm banks, seed banks, and embryo banks. <br />Protection of biotic diversity is obviously dependent on future research and <br />political action. National and international conservation programs must share <br />knowledge about biological diversity, extinction rates, and location and size of <br />reserves and use this information as a basis for legislation. Extinction rates also <br />can be slowed by treaties and laws that protect rare organisms in nature. <br /> <br />15.2 ENDANGERED SPECIES LAWS AND TREATIES <br /> <br />15.2.1 The U.S. Endangered Species Act <br /> <br />As the environmental movement of the 1960s progressed, the American public <br />became increasingly concerned about accelerated extinction. The U.S. Congress <br />responded by passing the Endangered Species Preservation Act of 1966 and the <br />Endangered Species Conservation Act of 1969. These laws did not provide <br />comprehensive authority for protecting endangered wildlife; in particular, they <br />failed to prohibit taking of endangered species or require federal agencies to <br />comply with their intent. <br />The 1966 and 1969 Acts were replaced by the more comprehensive and <br />prohibitive Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973 (16 V.S.C. Section 1531 et <br />seq.), an attempt to slow the rate of extinction by singling out animals and plants <br />thought to be near extinction and giving them special protection. Its stated <br />purposes were to provide (1) conservation of the ecosystems upon which <br />endangered and threatened species depend, and (2) a program for the conserva- <br />tion of such species. The Act declared that it was the policy of Congress that all <br />federal departments and agencies seek to conserve endangered and threatened <br />species and use their authorities in furtherance of the Act (see Box 15.1). <br />The 1978 amendments weakened the ESA by making it more difficult to list <br />species as endangered. Before a species could be listed, it was necessary to <br />describe economic impacts and boundaries of habitat and to hold public hearings <br />within a 2-year time period. Many conservationists also considered creation of the <br />Endangered Species Committee an invitation to agencies to avoid seeking <br />acceptable alternatives to their actions that would be less likely to jeopardize <br />endangered species. However, the 1978 amendments may fairly be said to have <br />made the Act more flexible and the consultation and public participation pro- <br />cesses stronger. The Endangered Species Act Amendments of 1982 streamlined <br />listing and exemption processes, and the review board was replaced by the <br />Secretary of the Interior. More active management oflisted species was facilitated <br />by provision for experimental populations, especially by introduction to appar- <br />ently suitable or formerly occupied habitats. The 1988 amendments were the <br />result of a 4-year struggle for reauthorization of the Act by the scientific and <br />environmental communities. <br />Because the ESA will continue to be amended, interested individuals need <br />