The Endangered Species Act at 50

The bald eagle was in trouble. When America adopted the bird as its national symbol way back in 1782, experts say, there may have been as many 100,000 nesting eagles in the country. But by the 1960s, only about 417 breeding pairs remained in the contiguous United States, after decades of hunting and the widespread use of pesticides had wiped out much of the population.

Then in 1973, Congress passed the Endangered Species Act (E.S.A.), which became the nation’s most comprehensive legislation for protecting animal and plant species at risk of extinction. The E.S.A. is unique because its goal is to prevent extinctions no matter the cost, says Robert Fischman, an environmental law professor at Indiana University. Other conservation laws might require that anyone altering the habitat of endangered species try to limit damage, he explains, but the E.S.A. won’t allow any endangerment of protected species.

The bald eagle was in trouble. When America adopted the bird as its national symbol way back in 1782, experts say, there may have been as many as 100,000 nesting eagles in the country. But by the 1960s, only about 417 breeding pairs remained in the contiguous United States. Decades of hunting and the widespread use of pesticides had wiped out much of the population.

Then in 1973, Congress passed the Endangered Species Act (E.S.A.). It became the nation’s most comprehensive legislation for protecting animal and plant species at risk of extinction. The E.S.A. is unique because its goal is to prevent extinctions no matter the cost, says Robert Fischman, an environmental law professor at Indiana University. Other conservation laws might require that anyone altering the habitat of endangered species try to limit damage, he explains. But the E.S.A. won’t allow any endangerment of protected species.

“The Endangered Species Act draws that line,” he says. “It says . . . it’s not good enough just to do your best. If your activity will cause an extinction, then Congress tells us do not engage in the activity at all.”

Under the E.S.A., the bald eagle population gradually made its way back from the brink, and today, more than 71,000 breeding pairs roam the skies of the lower 48 states. The eagle was delisted from the E.S.A. in 2007 and is now considered one of the greatest conservation success stories. The E.S.A.—which turns 50 this month—is credited with helping save dozens of other species too, including the gray wolf, grizzly bear, and American alligator (see “Success Stories,” below).

But the law’s also been the source of bitter controversy between conservationists and industry groups, and today Congress is divided over how far the E.S.A.’s power should go. That debate has started to feel especially urgent as scientists now estimate that 1 million plant and animal species around the world are threatened with extinction.

“[The E.S.A.] was a big deal when it was first passed,” says Mike Leahy, senior director of wildlife, hunting, and fishing policy for the National Wildlife Federation, “and on its 50th anniversary, it’s an even bigger deal as we face this crisis with our biodiversity throughout the United States and throughout the world.”

“The Endangered Species Act draws that line,» he says. «It says . . . it’s not good enough just to do your best. If your activity will cause an extinction, then Congress tells us do not engage in the activity at all.»

Under the E.S.A., the bald eagle population gradually made its way back from the brink. Today more than 71,000 breeding pairs roam the skies of the lower 48 states. The eagle was delisted from the E.S.A. in 2007. It is now considered one of the greatest conservation success stories. The E.S.A. turns 50 this month. It is credited with helping save dozens of other species too, including the gray wolf, grizzly bear, and American alligator (see “Success Stories,” below).

But the law’s also been the source of bitter controversy between conservationists and industry groups. Today Congress is divided over how far the E.S.A.’s power should go. The debate has started to feel especially urgent. Scientists now estimate that 1 million plant and animal species around the world are threatened with extinction.

“[The E.S.A.] was a big deal when it was first passed,” says Mike Leahy, senior director of wildlife, hunting, and fishing policy for the National Wildlife Federation, “and on its 50th anniversary, it’s an even bigger deal as we face this crisis with our biodiversity throughout the United States and throughout the world.”

In the 1960s and ’70s, Americans were becoming more concerned about caring for the planet. That led to passage of  the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, and other pollution control regulations.

“It was an era of growing awareness among American citizens about the impact that they were having on the natural world,” Leahy says.

Congress passed the E.S.A. with almost unanimous bipartisan support, and President Richard Nixon, a Republican, signed it into law in 1973.

“Restoring nature to its natural state is a cause beyond party and beyond factions,” Nixon said in 1970. “It has become a common cause of all the people of this country.”

Under the E.S.A., a plant or animal species that scientists deem near or at risk of extinction can be put on a federal list to receive legal protection from activities or projects that could harm the species or its habitat. Scientists then put together a plan outlining the actions that will need to be taken to help the species recover. Although hunting and fishing could affect the population numbers of a tiny number of species, Fischman notes, the vast majority of species listed under the E.S.A. are endangered because of humans destroying or modifying their habitats as people transform wild areas into farms, cities, and towns. Pollution and climate change make the problem worse.

In the 1960s and ‘70s, Americans were becoming more concerned about caring for the planet. That concern led to passage of the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, and other pollution control regulations.

“It was an era of growing awareness among American citizens about the impact that they were having on the natural world,” Leahy says.

Congress passed the E.S.A. with almost unanimous bipartisan support. President Richard Nixon, a Republican, signed it into law in 1973.

“Restoring nature to its natural state is a cause beyond party and beyond factions,” Nixon said in 1970. “It has become a common cause of all the people of this country.”

Under the E.S.A., a plant or animal species that scientists deem near or at risk of extinction can be put on a federal list. This allows it to receive legal protection from activities or projects that could harm the species or its habitat. Scientists then put together a plan outlining the actions that will need to be taken to help the species recover. Hunting and fishing could affect the population numbers of a tiny number of species. However, Fischman notes, the vast majority of species listed under the E.S.A. are endangered because of humans destroying or modifying their habitats as people transform wild areas into farms, cities, and towns. Pollution and climate change make the problem worse.

It wasn’t long before controversy over the E.S.A. began. In 1977, for example, Time magazine reported that a $668 million dam project in Maine had been halted to preserve a wildflower called Furbish’s lousewort.

“For heaven’s sake, the species was thought extinct anyway—let’s make it official and drown it under a few billion gallons of water,” one reader wrote in.

Throughout the past five decades, developers and industry groups have often become frustrated with the limitations on their activities. In 1990, for example, the northern spotted owl was added to the E.S.A., and as a result, a federal court ruled that millions of acres of forest in the Pacific Northwest would be closed to logging. The decision dramatically altered the timber industry, as well as the prospects of the loggers and their families.

“I wonder how many of you are like me that are sitting there, wondering how we have come to the brink of losing our jobs and our homes and our communities,” logger Frank Backus said at the time.

The debates continue today. In 2021, scientists announced the discovery of a new whale species in the Gulf of Mexico. There were only about 50 left. The Biden administration moved to protect the whale, proposing restrictions on fossil fuel activity in a massive area of ocean from Texas to Florida. Offshore oil drillers and some lawmakers argued that the protections would be economically crippling; the matter is now tied up in court.

It wasn’t long before controversy over the E.S.A. began. In 1977, for example, Time magazine reported that a $668 million dam project in Maine had been halted to preserve a wildflower called Furbish’s lousewort.

“For heaven’s sake, the species was thought extinct anyway—let’s make it official and drown it under a few billion gallons of water,” one reader wrote in.

Throughout the past five decades, developers and industry groups have often become frustrated with the limitations on their activities. In 1990, for example, the northern spotted owl was added to the E.S.A. As a result, a federal court ruled that millions of acres of forest in the Pacific Northwest would be closed to logging. The decision dramatically altered the timber industry. It also changed the prospects of the loggers and their families.

“I wonder how many of you are like me that are sitting there, wondering how we have come to the brink of losing our jobs and our homes and our communities,” logger Frank Backus said at the time.

The debates continue today. In 2021, scientists announced the discovery of a new whale species in the Gulf of Mexico. There were only about 50 left. The Biden administration moved to protect the whale. It proposed restrictions on fossil fuel activity in a massive area of ocean from Texas to Florida. Offshore oil drillers and some lawmakers argued that the protections would be economically crippling. The matter is now tied up in court.

Although the E.S.A. became law with bipartisan support, Republicans have long said that it unreasonably hampers economic growth. Many favor instating policies that allow for more development.

“You cannot be shortsighted and say at all cost, we must save this species,” U.S. Representative Bruce Westerman, a Republican from Arkansas, told PBS. “We don’t want to see anything go extinct. But we’ve also got to use a bit of rationale and reason.”

Critics of the E.S.A. say the law isn’t reasonable, as species are rarely taken off the list. Since the law was enacted, more than 1,650 species have been listed as threatened or endangered (see “Still Struggling," below), while 54 have been delisted because their populations rebounded, according to the Fish and Wildlife Service.

But proponents say it’ll take more than a few decades to repair the damage. Fischman, the environmental law professor, uses the example of freshwater mussels in the Ohio and Tennessee river systems.

“Those mussels have been losing habitat ever since we took the plow to the soil, so it’s been 200 years of incremental eating away at the habitat,” he says. “It’s just unrealistic to think that a species whose habitat is a fraction of what it once was—and that has been suffering population declines for over a century—is going to bounce back quickly.”

Although the E.S.A. became law with bipartisan support, Republicans have long said that it unreasonably hampers economic growth. Many favor creating policies that allow for more development.

“You cannot be shortsighted and say at all cost, we must save this species,” U.S. Representative Bruce Westerman, a Republican from Arkansas, told PBS. “We don’t want to see anything go extinct. But we’ve also got to use a bit of rationale and reason.”

Critics of the E.S.A. say the law isn’t reasonable because species are rarely taken off the list. Since the law was enacted, more than 1,650 species have been listed as threatened or endangered (see “Still Struggling,” below). Only 54 have been delisted because their populations rebounded, according to the Fish and Wildlife Service.

But proponents say it’ll take more than a few decades to repair the damage. Fischman, the environmental law professor, uses the example of freshwater mussels in the Ohio and Tennessee river systems.

“Those mussels have been losing habitat ever since we took the plow to the soil, so it’s been 200 years of incremental eating away at the habitat,” he says. “It’s just unrealistic to think that a species whose habitat is a fraction of what it once was—and that has been suffering population declines for over a century—is going to bounce back quickly.”

One way to improve the situation, experts suggest, is to aid species before the populations decline too far. Right now, they say, the E.S.A. is there for those on the brink of extinction, but there would be far better results if protections were established earlier.

“It’s like if we decided that the way we would treat diabetes is just waiting so people go into diabetic shock, and then they can go into the emergency room and be treated,” Fischman says.

Instead, he argues, it would be better to focus on “preventive care” that could help species before the situation becomes dire. Then it would be easier to compromise with developers or companies looking to use wild spaces.

The problem: Federal agencies often don’t have enough money to help imperiled species, Fischman notes, and the conservation costs may unfairly fall on private landowners as a result.

Lawmakers could have a solution, however. The bipartisan Recovering America’s Wildlife Act would invest nearly $1.4 billion per year in state and tribal efforts to help at-risk wildlife. It came close to passage during the last session of Congress and was reintroduced in March. Experts remain hopeful that it will become law at some point in the next few years.

One way to improve the situation, experts suggest, is to aid species before the populations decline too far. Right now, they say, the E.S.A. is there for those on the brink of extinction. There would be far better results if protections were established earlier.

“It’s like if we decided that the way we would treat diabetes is just waiting so people go into diabetic shock, and then they can go into the emergency room and be treated,” Fischman says.

Instead, he argues, it would be better to focus on “preventive care.” It would be better to help species before the situation becomes dire. Then it would be easier to compromise with developers or companies looking to use wild spaces.

Federal agencies often don’t have enough money to help imperiled species, Fischman notes, and the conservation costs may unfairly fall on private landowners as a result.

Lawmakers could have a solution, however. The bipartisan Recovering America’s Wildlife Act would invest nearly $1.4 billion per year in state and tribal efforts to help at-risk wildlife. It came close to passage during the last session of Congress. It was reintroduced in March. Experts remain hopeful that it will become law at some point in the next few years.

In the meantime, teens are increasingly playing an important role in the discussion, Fischman says, as many young activists are speaking up about the way humans are treating the planet.

We’re “talking about the disappearance of 20 percent of all species by 2050,” Fischman says. “Today’s teens see that as part of their lives, whereas members of Congress, I think, look at 2050 as a kind of science fiction year that’s pretty distant from anything they’re going to experience.”

Even with that forecast, there’s still hope to be found, Leahy of the National Wildlife Federation adds. He notes that many groups—even some you might not expect—are working to help endangered species, including hunters, tribal nations, environmental groups, timber companies, and private landowners.

“It’s not all doom and gloom by any means,” he says. “It’s going to take this whole community of . . . people that care about wildlife and biodiversity to end the crisis that we’re currently facing.”

In the meantime, teens are increasingly playing an important role in the discussion, Fischman says. Many young activists are speaking up about the way humans are treating the planet.

We’re “talking about the disappearance of 20 percent of all species by 2050,” Fischman says. “Today’s teens see that as part of their lives, whereas members of Congress, I think, look at 2050 as a kind of science fiction year that’s pretty distant from anything they’re going to experience.”

Even with that forecast, there’s still hope to be found, Leahy of the National Wildlife Federation adds. He notes that many groups, even some you might not expect, are working to help endangered species. This includes hunters, tribal nations, environmental groups, timber companies, and private landowners.

“It’s not all doom and gloom by any means,” he says. “It’s going to take this whole community of . . . people that care about wildlife and biodiversity to end the crisis that we’re currently facing.”