Endangered Species Act under fire: Controversies, science, values and the law

My central purpose was to explore whether Congress intended to protect ecosystems and err on the side of species protection in the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and whether the Act's legislative history transcends a simple economy versus environment dialectic. I examined the ESA's legislative history from its passage in 1973 through key amendments in 1978, 1982, and 1988 by analyzing the values actors invoked, their rhetorical strategies, and their use of ecosystem and precautionary themes.; I identified actors' expressed values and preferred outcomes within congressional hearings and floor debate. I assessed their value usage using cross-tabulations and log likelihood ratios. The use of ecosystem protection and the precautionary approach was reviewed via content analysis. I analyzed these themes within conflict areas such as the Tellico Dam controversy in 1978 and wolf reintroduction in 1988. I considered general expressions regarding ecosystem protection and erring on the side of biodiversity protection given scientific uncertainty.; I found that ecological values and ecosystem protection arguments were invoked consistently throughout the legislative history. Actors expressing ecological values were likely to support strengthening species wildlife protection. Utilitarian and moralistic arguments were also used by actors promoting a stronger ESA, thereby undermining an economics versus environment dichotomy.; Results from the precautionary principle analysis were mixed. Although the precautionary principle was never explicitly promoted in the legislative history, a variety of actors advocated protecting species in the face of uncertainty. This stance was challenged by other participants, and the legislative outcomes remained equivocal.; The findings of this congressional analysis were compared with the ESA's implementation via case studies on the northern spotted owl (Strix occidentalis caurina) and the black-tailed prairie dog ( Cynomys ludovicianus). These cases indicated that the ESA is not being administered using an ecosystem or precautionary approach. Despite opportunities for ecosystem-wide protection measures and early intervention before crisis, these opportunities were foregone. This is likely due to agency desires to avoid bold action.; Specific suggestions are offered to improve policy by integrating ecosystem and precautionary protection into current conflicts surrounding species listings, reintroduction/translocation, critical habitat designation, recovery plans, consultation, habitat conservation plans, and prohibitions on take.