How to Save Our Wild Ones: Prioritizing Conservation under the ESA

Abstract

Jon Mooallem‘s Wild Ones1 focuses on the survival of three conservationreliant species: the polar bear, the whooping crane, and the Lange‘s metalmark butterfly. Mooallem examines the taxing, time-consuming, and, in some cases, perpetual endeavor of keeping these species alive. As climate change exacerbates the threats they face, their survival depends on the Endangered Species Act‘s (ESA) ability to keep up with climate change modifications to habitat and food resources. Towards that end, the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) (collectively ―the Services‖) have proposed several changes to the definition of ―critical habitat‖ under the ESA.2 Unfortunately, these changes will not be sufficient on their own. Thus, this review argues that when implementing the ESA in the face of environmental stresses, the Services should distribute resources according to each species‘ relative importance in its ecosystem. This conservation approach will allow the government to save more species by prioritizing those whose survival is vital to many others. The species Wild Ones examines underscore the point: of the three, only the polar bear plays an important role in its ecosystem.