Obama Restores Endangered Species Protections--To a Degree

As was reported in various places yesterday, Obama has overturned one of Bush's most infuriating midnight regulations, which made a mockery of the already-not-strong-enough Endangered Species Act by removing the requirement of independent scientific reviews of federal projects that could impact protected animal and plant species. Actually, the Los Angeles Times explains, "technically, the president did not overturn the Bush rule, which would require a lengthy process. Instead, he issued a memorandum instructing agencies to exercise the consultation option in every instance, until the Interior and Commerce departments can reconsider the Bush rule change."

So Obama has effectively reinstated that 30-year-old requirement, as expected, and animal advocates and environmentalists are relieved. I admit that I roll my eyes when I see Ken Salazar standing proudly next to Obama during a conversation about animal and environmental protection when the Secretary of Interior is a hunter and hunting advocate, among other issues; I am always dismayed, for example, by the way so many express concern, respect, and even awe for endangered (or not) "wild" or exotic species while they simultaneously support or even participate in the killing of domestic (and/or more plentiful) animals via hunting or animal-eating. But Salazar is the guy Obama picked, and I suppose it could be worse, considering the last administration's record.

Nevertheless, though Obama deserves praise for this move and for any future moves that strengthen animal protections, he also holds firmly to some unfortunate rhetoric:

For more than three decades, the Endangered Species Act has successfully protected our nation's most threatened wildlife, and we should be looking for ways to improve it - not weaken it. Throughout our history, there's been a tension between those who've sought to conserve our natural resources for the benefit of future generations, and those who have sought to profit from these resources. But I'm here to tell you this is a false choice. With smart, sustainable policies, we can grow our economy today and preserve the environment for ourselves, our children, and our grandchildren.

For as long as we're talking about protecting animals and their habitats in the context of how that benefits us--for as long as we are referring to animals as "natural resources" that we want to preserve for our future human generations to enjoy (and this is the prevailing rhetoric in today's society), we're not as serious as we need to be about respecting and protecting those animals' best interests. We have to start acknowledging that they have the right to exist simply because they have the right to exist and that they aren't here for our enjoyment.

Much of the time, when people talk about "preserving" animals and habitats for future generations' enjoyment, they're talking about preserving hunters' chances to enjoy killing those animals, something I obviously find perverse, but even when we're talking about enjoying animals in other ways and citing that enjoyment as the reason we must protect them, we still have a problem. They are not ours. They are not here to serve our purposes. And we have to get to a point of understanding that if we're ever going to stop exploiting, endangering, and killing them. As long as animals' worth is defined according to--and respect and protection of them is based on--what we can get from them, how cute and fuzzy they are, or how much we like them, they will always be in danger.

Further Reading

LA Times: Obama Overrides Bush Rule on Endangered Species Act

Environment News Service: Obama Restores Scientific Consultation to Endangered Species Act

-----

Image of Northern Spotted Owl: Brett Cole, Wild Northwest