I'm suprised no one disputes Reason #1, that species are being
created by evolution while others go extinct. Although this indeed is
occurring, extinction commonly occurs in just a few decades, sometimes a
year or less. Whereas, for evolution to create a new species, it takes
decades for the most viable of insects but centuries to millennia for
most other invertebrates and hundreds of thousands to millions of years
for most mammals. To allude that there is some sort of even turnover
between species coming and going misrepresents what's actually happening
to our biosphere.
A commonly used extension of this argument (which I heard as
testimony to the Senators in Lewiston) is that extinction is natural so
we should not care about loss of biodiversity. Again, the rates have
changed. Whereas the natural historic background rate is one species
extinct per four years. Today it is nearly two species per hour. The
historic rate has been interrupted 5 times in the history of the planet.
And this century provides the sixth great extinction episode. But unlike
in the past, this episode - which is comparable to an asteroid smashing
into Earth - is the result of one organism, Homo sapiens.
Mr. Meyer provides another argument to reform the ESA. That is,
it is unnecessarily causing hardship to people. Although, I'm more
familiar with scientific justifications for a strong ACT, I can say that
between 1976-1986, out of 50,000 projects scrutinized by the ACT, 99%
were approved.
Sure the ESA should consider people, and I think that's a
granted concern. However, as our society plays an instrumental role in
fueling the Sixth Great Extinction Episode, now is not the time to
dilute, dissuade, or dispel efforts to retain biodiversity.
Michael Murray