7749 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

$2 REFLECTIONS ON THE ACT Well, it will be replied, although the terms are maleficent, humans are not endangered; only the plants and animals are in jeopardy. In a noteworthy suit, the palila, a Hawaiian finch, is listed as though it is one of the plaintiffs.14 Certainly the palila stands to be harmed. On a naturalistic reading of the act, the loss of species is a bad thing in itself. But on a humanistic reading, Congress is concerned about extinction only insofar as it con- cerns humans; only the humans who were plaintiffs along with the palila really have standing to sue. For humans, aesthetic, ecological, educational, historical, recreational, and scientific benefits are claimed in the act. All these benefits are something gained. But the better perspective is not gain but loss. Even though the loss of life is suffered by animals and plants, there is danger of loss and threat of serious harm to humans who lose too when these animals and plants vanish. So the human benefits, though not a matter of life and death, are a matter of danger and threat of loss. The U.S. Supreme Court found in the act "repeated expressions of congressional concern over what it saw as the enormous danger presented by the eradication of any endan- gered species."15 Landowners will argue that the things they want to do (cut the timber, build a summer home, fill a swamp) have not hitherto been thought of as harming the public. To the contrary, they have been judged positively. The right to develop one's land has always been a standard property right; most property is in fact purchased for its development potential. But even if the land- ownerintends to do something worthwhile, the threat of extinc- tion or actual extinction may result. Indirect and incremental harm is still harm. In the state of Hawaii, untempered develop- ment threatens more than 700 of the 2,000 to 2,500 plants en- demic to the islands-at least one taxon in three or by some estimates half the flora. California, Florida, Oregon, Texas, Utah, Arizona, and Puerto Rico stand to lose plant species in the hundreds, and most states stand to lose more than a dozen. Perhaps 3,000 species, subspecies, and botanical varieties are at risk out of 22,000 known in the United States-about one taxon in seven (McMahan and Walter, 1987; Altevogt and MacBryde, 1977). Landowners may counter that whether there is gain or loss