What's Wrong With The Endangered Species Act

I hope you are doing well. My name is and I am a student at Southern Illinois University. I am writing to you in regards to your article written about the Endangered Species Act called Bad for Species, Bad for People: What’s Wrong with the Endangered Species Act and How to Fix It. Although I might agree with some of the claims you have made, I find myself disagreeing with a majority of the statements made throughout the article. I feel as if you kept your argument very one sided and overlooked both sides of the story whilst not stating all the facts that you argued.

The Endangered Species Act (ESA) was enacted in 1973 to replace an earlier act in the 1960s. The act’s purpose is to protect and prevent plants, animals, and the ecosystem from

One claim that really stuck out throughout the entirety of the essay was the penalization and discrimination land owners receive under this act. Throughout the article, Seaholes heavily focuses on the “land-use control provisions” and how the Act effects public and private landowners. Seaholes claims that stripping the ESA’s land-use controls would create a solution to this problem, when in fact it will do nothing but create a less stable environment to those endangered animals and produce more bad than good. Land-use control is very important because not everyone has the same idea when it comes to needs, interests, and lifestyles. So, stripping away land use control will affect the sustainability of endangered animals in a number of ways. Taking away land use controls would affect our environmental values. Land owners would have complete control over the destruction of native wildlife and habitat, control over how and where they remove their waste, and control over the endangered animals that may live on the property. Giving land owners complete land control would also effect and decrease

There are have been a very large amount of animals who have been saved by this act. In Seaholes article he claims that “almost all of the species listed under the ESA are not extinct” and that the animals listed aren’t actually endangered. I completely disagree with this claim for a number of reasons. One reason I disagree is that, this act is the only one of its kind. Protecting plants and wildlife is a very big job so, without it, there would be no preservation for our ecosystem whatsoever. Extinction is real and once they are gone they are gone. Another reason why I disagree with Seaholes is because there are numerous cases of different animals, fish, and plant being save by the Endangered Species Act. For example, some very well-known animals saved by the ESA would be the American grey wolf, the alligator, and the grizzly bear, just to name a few. Before the grizzly bear was on the Endangered Species List, it was rumored that there were to be only about eight hundred to one thousand bears left in the United States. The ESA took action and created a recovery plan to save the grizzly bears as they do for every animal that is placed on the list. Now, there are over fifty thousand grizzly bears in the United States. Once the animal is delisted, it will be monitored to make sure they stay unthreatened. The grizzly bear is just