Since passage of the Endangered Species Act 50 years ago, more than 1,700 plants, mammals, fish, insects and other species in the U.S. have been listed as threatened or endangered with extinction. Yet federal government data reveals striking disparities in how much money is allocated to save various biological kingdoms.
Of the roughly $1.2 billion a year spent on endangered and threatened species, about half goes toward recovery of just two types of fish: salmon and steelhead trout along the West Coast. Tens of millions of dollars go to other widely known animals including manatees, right whales, grizzly bears and spotted owls.
But the large sums directed toward a handful of species means others have gone neglected, in some cases for decades, as they teeter on potential extinction.
An argument in contrast, from a very respectable naturalist -
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-pandas-idUSTRE58L1P320090922/
Hah, I’ve read that article! That same sentiment is one that came to me to start my critical thinking about how we try to do conservation years ago.
With the proposal to kill half a million Barred Owls, there have been articles of public outcry to let nature do its thing as well because people don’t want to kill one thing to save another because of what humans have done.
I also learned the Spotted Owl and Barred Owls can breed and they produce hybrid owls, which they currently also kill. Accepting the Sparred Owl may be the only realistic option.
I’m not sure how to feel about that, but it’s interesting to debate.