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.
Ya, that’s why most funding goes into charismatic mega fauna. It’s a lot easier to say that grizzly bears need all of this land protected and then protect other animals in that land, than to try and protect one clam in a small part of a river. It’s an umbrella strategy, protecting one animal to protect the others in it’s ecosystem. And protecting old growth forests? They already listed the spotted owl and that’s what they are doing. Basically the only old growth forest left in the US is spotted owl habitat, and tons of money goes into legal battles to keep the forest standing. I would be very careful of supporting budget cuts to these umbrella species in favor of smaller, more fragmented projects.
I don’t really disagree, I just wish more people would see the diversity and value of more of the things living around them.
While I’m glad private money is going to protect Spotted Owls and their environment, am I happy federal money is going to kill hundreds of thousands of other owls, plus some Spotted Owls by mistake? Not so much there.
All of this is very nuanced, and I’m glad there are groups and individuals taking on these problems from multiple angles.