Introduction
The ESA (Endangered Species Act) is a landmark and visionary legislation that was enacted in 1793 and provided the foundation for the protection, restoration, and the enhancement of the United States' natural resources as well as the environment. Furthermore, we can state that the ESA is the last line of defense in the protection of flora and fauna that face extinction. Huma activity has always been a threat to the loss of biodiversity, and the ESA is responsible for protecting the remaining species of flora and fauna in their natural habitats. However, the role of the federal government is not just in protecting the endangered species but all the species of plants, animals, and habitats within its borders. Since its implementation in 1973, the ESA has been offering strong protection provisions for the listed endangered and threatened species and has helped in the recovery of hundreds of species, such as the gray whale and the bald eagle.
The effectiveness in the conversation of biodiversity largely depends on the state government laws that have been designed to protect biodiversity. Also, achieving the goals of the legislation depends on the social and political forces that affect its implementation. Both public and political opposition can promote the efforts to weaken the legislation or prevent its enforcement and implementation (Gibbs & Currie, 2012) . To that effect, we examine the strengths, weaknesses, and support for the U.S Endangered Species Act as well as the impacts the Trump administration has on the legislation.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
In 1973, congress passed the ESA so that it could provide the conversation that conversation of species with bipartisan support, replacing two prior laws that were deemed inadequate for the protection and conversation of species (Gibbs & Currie, 2012) . The ESA acknowledged that various species were "rendered extinct as a consequence of economic growth and development" and pursued to provide a means of mitigating the circumstances. However, upon the passing of the legislation, it became clear that the provisions of the act on economic opportunities could be controversial. Since its passage, the ESA has been the point of convergence in conflicts pitting the conservation of species against economic interests. The ESA became to be one of the most controversial pieces of environmental legislation in the U.S (Gibbs & Currie, 2012) . where proponents claim on the effectiveness and success because it has saved a lot of biodiversity from extinction while others question its effectiveness on the conversation of species on private lands.
Effectiveness of the ESA
Past administrations have used the ESA in developing creatives solutions and innovative strategies in the protraction of species while allowing various projects to move forward where its impacts can be mitigated and harm to species minimized. Today, the EAS protects more than 1,600 plant and animal species and its territories in the U.S. Less than 1 percent of the species under the protection of the ESA have gone extinct while an estimated 291 species that were facing extinction have been prevented (Gibbs & Currie, 2012) . Though not 100 percent effective, this demonstrates that the ESA has achieved its purpose in stopping the loss of species. If it were not for the ESA, species such as the Hawaiian monk seal, the back-footed ferret, the yellowfin madtom, and the California condor would have likely been lost. The listed plants and animals have had their populations stabilized due to the intervention of the ESA though they may not have fully recovered (Greenwald et al., 2019) . Numerous studies have found out that the listed plants and animal populations under the protection of the ESA have stopped declining though none specifies the exact number of species. According to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, more than 1,300 species of wildlife, plants, and fish have been protected by the ESA, while only ten species have gone extinct (Greenwald et al., 2019) .
There have been efforts by both public and private entities to remove grizzly bears and wolves from the list of endangered species protected by the ESA as their populations are above the recovery targets which is a clear indication that the piece of legislation has worked and the management of these species must be handed back to the federal government (Greenwald et al., 2019) .
Controversies surrounding the ESA
More than 40 years after its implementation, the ESA has received support and opposition in equal measure. The ESA is regarded as the "crown jewel" and a vital tool in the protection of biodiversity while its opponents claim that the ESA has imposed an unreasonable financial burden on the society while delivering few benefits. Forty-seven years after its creation, the ESA was designed not to be evaluated, and the complex nature of both biological and political factors are affecting its implementation (Greenwald et al., 2019) . The nature of the ESA is nonrandomized, thus making the measuring of its efforts on specifies recovery difficult.
The ESA works because it has a solid background that is founded on science. Moreover, because of the ESA's reliance on science, the U.S. Congress wants to weaken its foundation based on a series of bills that have been proposed. The ESA was passed into law by a Republican president, Richard Nixon, based on the rapid loss of species such as the American alligators and the grizzly bears and faced little objection when the House voted for it 390 to 12 (Greenwald et al., 2019) . The first controversy surrounding the ESA was halting the completion of the Tellico Dam in Tennessee after the ESA listed the snail darter. The supreme court ruled that the provisions of the act did not provide any exception for projects that would eliminate the existence of a species. The solution for this was for congress to pass a law that provided the exception and was signed into law by President Jimmy Carter, and this established that environmental votes did not have to fall along political lines. The Snail darter were moved and transplanted in other streams, and the construction of the dam did not cause its extinction even though the population of the snail darter was still threatened (Greenwald et al., 2019) .
In 1990, the law also faced controversy in the west when many rural timber jobs were lost in the west because spotted owls were listed as an endangered species by the ESA. It was noted that the listing of the spotted owns did not protect the groves of forests on public lands that were also important to other animals such as the salmon and the trout. Another controversy over the ESA was the 1995 reintroduction of wolves into Yellowstone National Park and their rapid expansion. In 1872, the introduction of mass culling programs resulted in a successful extirpation by 1972 as there was no legal protection for any of the existing wildlife within Yellowstone. This forced the removal of gray wolves from the park, which in trunk led to the increase in elk population that resulted in overgrazing, which led to the widespread loss in several plant species causing adverse effects on other animals as well as land erosion. After the reintroduction, the wolves multiplied and thinned the elk population bringing about the trophic cascade.
Ecologists claim that the reintroduction of wolves is yet to restore the ecosystem because trees are not sprouting out from every corner of the park (Taylor e t al., 2005) . The willows are yet to return in most spots of the park. To maintain the ecosystem at equilibrium, the willows need the beaver to help in keeping streams from eroding while the beavers need the willows to build their dams. Ecologists and researchers are of the notion that maintaining a balanced ecosystem is more stringent than the mythology surrounding the reintroduction of wolves in Yellowstone when considered at the expense of scientific understanding (Taylor et al., 2005) .
The Trump administration and the ESA
In its more than 45-year history, the ESA has been responsible for the preservation and recovery of America's most treasured plants and animals. President Trump's administration has been working on improvements and drastic changes in how the provisions in the ESA are to be applied. Ecologists and environmental enthusiasts claim that the revisions are aimed at weakening the protection of threatened species and will allow local and federal agencies to conduct economic analyses when deciding whether to protect a species or not (Moag & Martin, 2019) . The Trump administration also states that the improvements will help in easing the burden of regulations and, in turn, increase transparency into the determination of whether a species warrants protection. These policies have come under sharp scrutiny by critics and ecologists, saying that the revisions on the provisions of the ESA will cripple the organization's ability to protect plant and animal species that are under threat from increased human development and climate change (Friedman, 2019) .
David Bernhardt, Trump's Secretary of the Interior, a pioneer for the revisions stipulated in the ESA, says that the regulations of the act are being used as an effective roadblock to limiting land use and economic development. Bernhardt also claims that the ESA has failed in all its attempts to protect threatened species and is being misused by lobbyist groups and the federation government to shut down development projects and place limitations on land use (Moag & Martin, 2019) . Bernhardt is a former lobbyist for the gas and oil industry, and by weakening the act, he is removing the strict regulations that protect threatened species and their habitats from the extraction of fossil fuels. Congressman Rob Bishop supports the revisions to the ESA as he says that the provision listed in the act is preventing his home state of Utah from economic development as part of San Juan county is considered to be rich in gas and oil resources. Congressman Bishop also accuses the ESA of relying on flawed or manipulated scientific research as many species have been listed erroneously as engaged in the act (Moag & Martin, 2019) .
Environmental activists are of the notion that the Trump administration is focused on reducing the cost the ESA spends on protecting endangered species and their habits and other businesses, especially the energy business. The Republican party also claims that the policies stipulated in the act more focused on preventing economic development than protecting the environment. Revisions on the ESA will make it hard to protect plants, animals, and wildlife from imminent threats posed by the effects of climate change (Moag & Martin, 2019) . The new rules are making it easier for the removal of species from the endangered list and move them a step below the endangered. This will make it easier for the federal government and regulators to conduct economic vulnerability assessments when deciding whether a species warrants protection.
According to research conducted by the United Nations (U.N.), more than one million of the estimated eight million plant and animal species are on the verge of extinction within decades. The findings of the report also show how human activities have affected the environment, from the shifting in seasons to the prevalent use of plastics and other contaminants in water. The report by the U.N provides a comprehensive review of the damage that people are inflicting on the earth, and it warns that nature is declining at very unprecedented rates, and this will put humans at risk. According to Audrey Azoulay, the director-general of UNESCO, the efforts contained in protecting biodiversity are synonymous with protecting humanity (Moag & Martin, 2019) . This is contrary to the ideology of the Trump administration that the protection of biodiversity is a hindrance to economic prosperity. Leaving the environment affected is affecting the health of ecosystems on which all the species on earth depend on. This means that the Trump administration is eroding the very foundations that our health, livelihoods, food security, economies have been built upon (Friedman, 2019) . Ecologists have expressed the concerns that the revisions proposed by the Trump administration stop the protection of the country's threatened species and weaken the ability of the ESA to address climate change issues. The changes to be adopted by the Trump administration are part of a more significant effort to dismantle the protections of the ecosystem while disregarding science when making decisions that are vital to the environment (Friedman, 2019) .
My Opinion
The last major updates to the Endangered Species Act were made more than 30 years ago in 1982 and provisions of the act have not significantly been updated since then. The act has played a vital role in the protection and balancing of the needs of the animal and plant species against the regional, local and national drivers of change, development and resource extraction. A lot has changed since the enactment of the ESA into law, and I support the proposal to update the ESA but not based on the revisions proposed by the Trump administration. The ESA is broken, but it is effective in performing its functions. One of the shortcomings of the ESA is that it puts the responsibility of protection onto individual species of animals and plants and not directly on the ecosystems on which they depend. The ESA has also strived to educate the public on how to protect the ecosystems, how they work as well as how they are affected by the removal of a particular species.
The proposed changes by the Trump administration allows regulators to weigh the economic benefits of the protecting a particular species without considering the effects of climate change. The revisions will also make it impossible to list species that are currently facing anthropogenic threats, which will lead to the loss of biodiversity in some of the states. The best possible salutation for environmentalists and researchers to avoid the revisions by the Trump’s administration is to challenge the regulatory changes in court. I tend to disagree that the recovery of a few listed species is a sign of failure. This is a misrepresentation of the available information by the Trump administration. There is evidence more species have been preserved as a result of protection than decline. There have been debates on the performance of the ESA on how it helps species recover, but there is no proven scientific benchmark on how species are supposed to respond to protection.
Evaluating the success of the ESA based on how many species have been delisted is a politically motivated choice. The is not a clear definition provided by the ESA of the recovered or endangered and therefore assessing its performance becomes difficult because of the lack of uniform recovery criteria. However, the delisting criteria by the ESA is subject to interpretation and can be viewed as a recovery success or as a politically motivated decision. More than 80 percent of the species listed by the ESA are on private lands in the western United States. In this regard, the landowners should play a vital role in the protection of biodiversity. Threatened species that are entirely on public land have more chances of survival than species with mixed or private ownership.
The effectiveness of the ESA can be improved by having detailed recovery plans, the prompt listing of endangered species and the protection of critical habitats. Politicians and private landowners should not be concerned about how many endangered species have recovered, as this is seen as a weak way to measure its effectiveness but to the extent on which the provisions of the ESA are moving threatened species towards recovery. After researching the ESA, I believe that when an endangered species is listed longer and is subject to regulation, the higher are the chances for the species to improve regardless of the critical habitat and the recovery plan. Based on this, the ESA should list threatened species in the shortest time possible so as to enable their recovery.
Enough evidence suggests that the listing program under the ESA is underfunded, which has undermined the recovery of imperiled species. The annual listing rates by the ESA are declining, and these are likely to contribute to the low population sizes experienced at the time of the listing, which then slows down the rate of recovery and also makes the recovery process more expensive.
In conclusion, enough evidence proposes that if effectively implemented and adequately funded, the ESA can work to protect imperiled species from both public and private lands with minimal or no impacts on their commercial use. It is unethical for the Trump administration to let plant and animal species go extinct. The U.S. can strive to protect the endangered species better as well as maintaining the economic needs of politicians and private landowners. Many Americans believe the protection of endangered species is essential as well as the protection of biodiversity from the effects of climate change and unhealthy human practices. The ESA has been successful in the protection of threatened species, and therefore, it should retain its position as the cornerstone of environmental law in the United States. Forty-seven years later, the ESA remains under threat, and it is the responsibility of the lawmakers to make sure that it is in the interest of the public that threatened ecosystems and wildlife that they depend on should be protected.
The earth currently is facing irreversible destruction of species and their natural habitats due threats from climate change, pollution, population growth and habitat loss. The ESA was built on the tenets of science and science should be the primary focus and influence in all our policy decisions irrespective of your political affiliation. If we let politics decide the critical aspects of our daily lives, then we are headed in the wrong direction. Science should be used as the backbone in the making of public policy decisions to ensure that workers safety, public health, food safety and environmental protections have a strong foundation on the best independent technical and scientific information.
References
Friedman, L. (2019). U.S. Significantly Weakens Endangered Species Act . New York Times. Retrieved 6 March 2020, from https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/12/climate/endangered-species-act-changes.html .
Gibbs, K., & Currie, D. (2012). Protecting Endangered Species: Do the Main Legislative Tools Work?. Plos ONE , 7 (5), e35730. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0035730
Greenwald, N., Suckling, K., Hartl, B., & A. Mehrhoff, L. (2019). Extinction and the U.S. Endangered Species Act. Peerj , 7 , e6803. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.6803
Moag, J., & Martin, C. (2019). The White House Announced Plans to Gut the Endangered Species Act—Now What? | Adventure Journal . Adventure-journal. Retrieved 6 March 2020, from https://www.adventure-journal.com/2019/08/the-white-house-announced-plans-to-gut-the-endangered-species-act-now-what/ .
Taylor, M., Suckling, K., & Rachlinski, J. (2005). The Effectiveness of the Endangered Species Act: A Quantitative Analysis. Bioscience , 55 (4), 360. https://doi.org/10.1641/0006-3568(2005)055[0360:teotes]2.0.co;2
