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.
Yeah, it all goes to the tastiest ones.
I take it this is mostly sarcastic, but it can work if people treat it seriously.
People’s desire to hunt, eat, and wear the alligator are what saved it from going extinct in North America.
No, I meant it. Salmon and steelhead trout are named in the article.
about half goes toward recovery of just two types of fish: salmon and steelhead trout along the West Coast.
Deviation from the norm will be punished unless it is exploitable.
It’s just capitalism being capitalism. We’re worried about those ones because we eat them, we don’t give a fuck about total ecosystems.
Just do what I do and give it straight to the animals you want. Yesterday I gave a bluejay a dollar and I think he used it on birdseed.
I used to give money to deer and raccoons, but then I saw they just spent it all on cigarettes.
Saving a specific creature is probably not as effective as saving a specific ecosystem anyway. What are you accomplishing saving an animal without saving its food or what it needs for shelter?
I’ve become an advocate of old growth forest through my contributions to !superbowl@lemmy.world and I get it’s a tough sell to say, no, spend money to preserve old broken and rotting, bug filled trees, but for animals like owls that must use natural shelter or old nests of other creatures, that’s what they need. Newly placed forests are monoculture deserts that don’t have the variety and structure to harbor life. It takes 100+ years of returning back to the wild to support much life. Until then, they’re only take guys for cutting down again.
The same applies to grasslands and wetlands, etc. These environments are of limited use to us, but they’re essential to the plants and wildlife. How do you sell people on sponsoring a marsh instead of a fluffy panda?
I’m still hopeful for the future of these places, but I fear we’re going to see a lot more failure first.
People are too eager to build. I live near an entire city built on a fucking natural floodplain and they’re shocked, shocked I tell you, when the damn city floods once a fucking year.
On the plus side, a lawsuit was recently won that showed that a Trump-era rule that allowed logging in old growth forests in Washington and Oregon was against Federal Law and has been rescinded.
I hear ya. My town is essentially built on former swampland, and the flooding is getting worse each year.
It’s good to see some victories on presenting y habitat, but it’s crazy the damage we’ve caused so far. Through deforestation and climate change, the feds are planning to shoot 500,000 Barred Owls to try to save the Spotted Owls this year alone. I’ll take a win where I can find it though. 😔
There are activists who feel the way you do- that working to save a single species is misguided and there is no point in trying to save it if you destroy the ecosystem in which they live.
Nothing lives on its own. We’re all interdependent on the monocellular creatures on up. We’ve shown time and time again we’re unsuccessful at dictating what nature should do for us, we’d best just leave as much of it alone as possible. Heck, it’s even free to just not do anything bad!
deleted by creator
Loaded headline. Really, it should read that protection if endangered species is in desperate need of more funding. Right now, it reads like a strawman that there’s only this zero-sum answer, and more money all together couldn’t possibly be an option.
