7749

• UCREFRP Catalog Number: 7749
• Author: Kohm, K. A., ed.
• Title: Editor
• USFW Year: Series
• USFW - Doc Type: 1991
• Copyright Material: YES

The Power-and Potential o f the Act 33
One of the ironic results of the case was that TVA, spurred on
by the pressure of the issue, found room in its budget to develop
a way to protect the little-known snail darter. In the process,
they found populations of the tiny, reclusive fish in other
streams of the area. The event, at least, increased our general
understanding of the effects of humans on other creatures and
demonstrated how little is really known about the flora and
fauna of the United States.
Yet the interposition of a plant or animal between humans
and their desire to build, change, or turn a profit became in-
creasingly controversial. It was alleged on one hand that propo-
nents of the act were trying to stop evolution-or at least that
part of the process which causes species to disappear. It was
sometimes difficult to convince those who held this view that
evolution does not really count if it is speeded up by a bulldozer
or a chainsaw. Others maintained that environmentalists would
want to save the virus causing smallpox or, on a more practical
level, would protect aman-killing grizzly bear instead of its
potential victims.
Early in the process of applying the act, the question of how to
deal with large predators emerged. The grizzly bear was at the
center of some of the first controversies. When the bear was
finally listed as threatened, its listing was accompanied by a
provision allowing for an annual total "man-caused" take, in-
cluding alegal harvest, protection of livestock, and human self-
defense. In the absence of this flexible approach, the last great
predatory mammal in the United States might not have been
listed at all.
A similar controversy developed around the timber wolf, a
remnant population of which existed in northern Minnesota.
Those opposed to protecting the wolf insisted that any real in-
crease in wolf numbers would decimate dairy herds in the area
and wreak havoc on the deer populations for which the area is
well known. Hence a carefully drawn plan for the management
of wolves in the area was developed, and state and federal offi-
cers were made available to control depredating wolves. The
plan has worked well, though, it has not allowed for state-
managed sport harvest of wolves; lawsuits brought by pro-wolf
groups have prevented the exercise of that degree of flexibility.
As the act matured, the often-heard expressions of concern