Scientists Say Act Is Sound Species Protection Regarded As Important To Human Welfare

A prestigious group of biologists finds the Endangered Species Act is scientifically sound and should be maintained, with a few improvements.

“The original justifications for the law remain valid and many of the criticisms of it could be addressed at little cost to the federal government,” said Jane Lubchenco, professor of zoology at Oregon State University and coauthor of a report in Friday’s issue of the journal Science.

The Endangered Species Act is up for renewal this year in Congress, where it has been the subject of fierce debate.

The report noted there is wide support in the scientific community for the act, but suggested it could be amended to protect more habitat through tax incentives for private landowners, more careful consideration of the most endangered ecosystems, and low-cost land exchanges.

The report noted that recent advances in scientific understanding of biodiversity “have underscored the importance of species protection for human welfare.”

Many critics of the Endangered Species Act have argued that it puts the welfare of fish and wildlife over the jobs of people.

Others participating in the report included Edward O. Wilson, a Pulitzer Prize winning biologist from Harvard University; Thomas Eisner, professor of biology at Cornell University; ecologist David S. Wilcove, and wildlife expert Michael J. Bean of the Environmental Defense Fund.

Lubchenco, president-elect of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, said other conservation measures are needed to complement the act to protect ecosystems, habitats and species before their survival is threatened.

The report said the government could trade federal lands for private lands to improve its portfolio of habitats and relieve landowners of their endangered species obligations.

It added that species provide new agricultural products, medicines and chemicals that benefit people.<