October 281, 2007 - In the eyes of many, a successful milestone was reached when Secretary of the US Department of the Interior Dirk Kempthorne announced on June 28, 2007(www.fws.gov/midwest/eagle/), that the bald eagle, after facing near extinction during the mid-1960s, had been removed from the threatened and endangered species list. In fact, the Yellowstone grizzly bear and the Great Lake wolves have also been delisted within the past year. While it is the best year for delisting since the 1973 enactment of our current version of the Endangered Species Act, in theory a good thing, many wish more progress were being made to restore threatened and endangered species. The US Fish and Wildlife Service reports they have delisted 39 species in the 50 states since the creation of the Endangered Species Act. Of those, only 15 recovered, while nine went extinct and 15 others were removed for various reasons. Approximately 1,300 species remain and the list grows every year. Some see the few species that have been recovered as a sign of failure while others see any delisting as good news and an indication that programs are working. When considering the ever growing list, blame flows quickly: environmentalists have been prone to feel things are taking too long and to sue the government for inaction and government officials charge they can do nothing more toward the conservation effort because of the time and resources that are eaten up by court actions. Seems we are caught in a catch-22 with habitat shrinking, human populations and their concomitant land usage rising, and those in control warring over what must be done. Let’s consider the larger picture.
The reasons that precipitate a listing are often complex and, once on the list, Herculean efforts may be required before restoration and removal from the list can be accomplished. All three of the species previously listed present similar and unique aspects to the story of near extinction and the struggle for restoration. Many factors led to the demise of the grizzly: the economic conditions that prompted the Homestead Act of 1862 and the subsequent settlement of the West, cattle prices of the 1880’s & 1890’s that led to the break up of the larger and slightly more friendly cattle ranches (giving way to larger numbers of people and smaller homesteads), the advent of the railroad that would bring in people and take cattle to the market, and the inevitable war between the bruin and the livestock industry (Brown, 1996). Similar conditions, coupled with an ingrained fear of predators, led to the decline of many North American predators; wolves and eagles included. There are many stories of the “big bad wolf” and his aggressiveness toward man and yet there is not one documented killing of a human by a non-rabid wolf since the arrival of Europeans on this continent (Coleman, 2004)! There are even local folktales (I have encountered two such sagas) concerning eagles having snatched unattended babies. Because these explanations revolve around humans, they are not easy to resolve for various, often ethical, reasons.
Ethics and man’s use of the environment often entangle and there are many environmentalists that find cause to argue against delisting any of these species (www.emagazine.com/view/?2110&src). Delisting lifts bans on various forms of protections for habitat, including the more rigid restrictions on logging, road-building, and petroleum development on public lands. These restrictions often present problems for endangered species while aiding human enterprise. This is especially problematic for wildlife when coupled with urban sprawl and other increased forms of land usage consistent with a burgeoning human population. Due to the “fragile” nature of these populations, many feel we are playing with fire when we lessen protection in any fashion. For instance, because these animals are what biologists describe as K-selected species, i.e. animals with low reproductive rates, having long maturation periods for only a few offspring that must be cared for over a relatively long period of time, needing large areas for specific habitat, many have felt that these animals may be “set up” for still more problems as a species. Indeed, recent studies, augmented with computer analyses designed to explore the effective population size for the grizzly, have suggested they may face future crises. The six relatively small breeding populations in the contiguous US are confronted with a potential problem revolving around inbreeding and loss of genetic variability resulting in a loss of fitness. Consequently special management techniques, such as transporting males from one population to another to simulate natural immigration, may be necessary to maintain viable populations. With these types of problems in the making, many feel any delisting may have been premature or even unethical.
Where do we draw the line with respect to human property needs and rights versus the habitat needs and intrinsic value of the creatures within the great outdoors? Grizzly bear and wolves do present some problems for expanding human populations but the root cause for every single factor which threatens the bald eagle, the grizzly, the wolf and numerous other endangered forms of animal and plant life is our own species. Our ever burgeoning human population requires that more and more of our natural habitat and natural resources become subject to the needs of humankind. Most often these needs require habitat modification to such an extent that other species are denied the basic necessities for life. We create the crisis with the demand we place upon this planet. In addition, habitat reduction is not the only danger we present to God’s earth and its creatures. We also create noxious chemicals that serve our ends but may do considerable damage to earth’s ecology. The chemical that has done untold damage to raptor populations when washed into our rivers and lakes is incorporated into the tissue structure of the plants and animals of these aquatic environments. DDT accumulates in fish and when consumed by eagles it (or perhaps its metabolite DDE) interferes with calcium deposition within eggshells and the result is that incubation leads to breaking of the eggs. The result was, before the banning of DDT by the US Environmental Protection Agency in 1972, a rapid decline in bald eagle numbers. It is generally acknowledged that banning DDT brought back the bald eagle as well as the peregrine falcon, and the brown pelican to boot. So in the present, as concerns endangered species, refuges have been formed, protective measures put into place, and DDT banned. Mission accomplished! Reason has prevailed, or has it? Is it that simple? Can we simply make animals and plants as intrinsically valuable as human beings? Should we maintain space for bears at the expense of human necessity? Should we ban chemicals that destroy one form of life while protecting another, especially if that “other” is human?
We have indeed witnessed a valiant effort from governmental and private sectors to save a number of species from extinction in this country and across the globe. Our American symbol of freedom, with which we began this conversation, seems to have been a major beneficiary of our efforts but the road to protecting our precious natural resources can be a crooked and difficult one filled with ethical potholes. This is especially true when something good for mankind conflicts with the good for some other of God’s creatures. Let’s forsake the “space” arguments for a moment as they may not be so pressing and look at the more noxious example. For all the evil DDT does to raptor populations, it is a cost effective and efficient insecticide for combating mosquito populations. In addition, it is not particularly toxic, as insecticides go, to humans. This has led the World Health Organization (2006) to call for the use of DDT to aid the 500 million humans which contact malaria yearly. It is estimated that 1.5 to 2.7 million, mostly children, die every year from Plasmodium falciparum, which is carried by the Anopheles mosquito. The majority of these cases is in Sub-Saharan Africa and is linked to the poverty of the region as well as to mosquitoes. The Holy Bible has much to say about the treatment of the poor and the helpless. No disease kills more children in Africa…not even AIDS. While DDT has a more pronounced effect on raptors than some other species of birds, it is quite likely that environmental damage will be done in those countries that have lifted their bans in favor of sparing human life. The question becomes, should we protect the “environment and its creatures” or “man”? Needs of men may be categorized along several levels …emotional, economic, aesthetic, but surely survival ranks as a top priority. Suddenly our God-ordained role as steward to this planet weighs heavy. From the Christian perspective, what should be done?
As Christians we must consider what Jesus would espouse on this modern dilemma. I believe that appreciation for the context and meaning of scripture illumines a timeless veracity of God’s intended purpose and plan for humankind upon this planet. Rather we have been directed to serve and preserve; the Hebrew phrase in Gen. 2:15 often rendered “till and keep” could be “serve and preserve”. What we routinely call nature is in fact creation and is something of which we have been placed in charge. It is not our own to abuse or destroy but is simply “on loan” to us. It is clear from many Biblical texts that God loves the world that He created: Deut 11:10-12 requires a sabbatical for the land, Matt clearly illustrates that He knows when even a sparrow falls, John 3:16 states that God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son; however, often even within the same context and or sentence, God places a greater value on the souls of men than on the remainder of creation. Jesus indicates in Matt 10:3 that we have greater value than a sparrow and the “whosoever” in Rev 22:17 is obviously directed at humanity. These scriptures, and many others, express God’s love for His creation and, in keeping with His numerous exhortations encouraging us to accept servanthood, place humans in the role of stewardship. In short, we are directed to care for the land that in turn is to sustain us. God clearly intended us to serve both. Leadership weighs heavy as we attempt to equably divide the ever decreasing resource base. Yet, harmony must be reached rather than breached.
Should we celebrate the delisting of the eagle, the grizzly and the wolf? I think we should rejoice over every step that is taken in the proper direction. Are the problems we have witnessed with these species merely individual or representative of waves of a coming tide? I fear that without God’s guidance the tide is upon us. While it is a daunting task, the answer to the earth’s problems, at least from the Christian perspective, is to find the road back to God’s command to “tend the garden” while loving others as we do ourselves. When conflict develops between the command to serve and preserve the land versus the welfare of humanity, I believe that our Lord would want us to put man first. However, He will assuredly hold us accountable for having exhausted all avenues possible to serve every aspect of creation before one is sacrificed for the other. Now is the time to begin dealing with local, national and international problems that threaten God’s earth and His people. Godly management is the key. Great wisdom, His wisdom, will be needed.
LITERATURE CITED
Brown, David E. 1996. The Grizzly in the Southwest. University of Oklahoma Press.
Coleman, Jon T. 2004. Vicious: Wolves and Men in America. Yale University Press.