Is the Endangered Species Act the worst piece of environmental legislation ever?
ESA was signed under Nixon.
YES
Side Score: 7
|
 |
NO
Side Score: 7
|
|
|
|
|
1
point
The Endangered Species Act is an law where government bureaucrats have an hidden agenda, for two reasons apply. First, these government bureaucrats want to stop the spread of globalization and capitalism by limiting economic development, which ultimately destroys job creation in order to save animals. In North America, there are only 20 species on the ESA list ESA, and has cost billions of dollars of lost economic development. Why save 20 species ? 99% of all the species that have ever lived on the planet are extinct. Without extinction, humanity would not be here today. Extinct There is a higher diversity of species on the planet today than the last 4.5 billion years, which is basically due to the building of family trees. As you keep on adding extra generations back in time then the number of living members gets increasingly less and less. Second, the ESA authorizes the federal government with unprecedented control of the use of land, which then ultimately trumps the Fifth Amendment under the eminent domain clause. Land owners are told what they can or can't do with their land if an endangered or threatened specie is within the vicinity. It dramatically declines the owner's land value or simply stripped away without just compensation. Side: yes
While I totally agree that extinction is necessary for different life forms to develop more, I think the main reason a lot of people are trying to save various species is because it's our collective fault for their endangerment. Humans cut down forests, pollute oceans and rivers, demolish mountains, and build roads and wall that block off migratory paths. So our advancement is actually hurting a lot of species. And the reason we can't let them die is because of the circle of life. Every organism is vital in the circle of life. If a few plankton die, the diet of a small fish is compromised and it could die from undernourishment. Once that population decreases, it's predators' populations decrease and their predators' populations, and so on until you reach either the apex predator or human beings, who eat fish. On the other end of the food chain, we also have groups trying to save the apex predators that could either prey on us or compete with us. Why? Because their population numbers keep the populations of their prey in balance. If too many wolves did out west, the caribou and elk populations increase. And if the herbivores increase, the plant diversity decreases. This is exactly what happened in Yellowstone a while back, but now the wolves have returned with our help. Side: No
1
point
In summary, the conservation of wild life and the food chain is unjustified for the unregulated complete control of all private land. That means if the Federal Government finds a endangered or threatened specie on your school, work, or home, they have the absolute authority to expropriate you right off without any compensation because eminent domain only fits under economic development including public utilities, highways, and railroads. Oh, wait, I am sure that you will leave because as long it saves some animal, then you are just great. There are many species created every year that go undiscovered and very likely replace those that go extinct. Side: yes
0
points
I don't see the point in having the federal government overstep their boundaries, spend billions of dollars in order to save some animals for an inevitable demise. Many animals are extinct and we shouldn't try and control nature. Did early humans try to prevent mammoths from becoming extinct or any other prehistoric animal? Side: yes
|
2
points
1
point
|
