This land is whose land?

Should endangered species be saved at all costs? Join the debate as Congress decides whether to make major changes in the Endangered Species Act.

Yshmael Garcia woke up to the sounds of a crackling blaze at 3 o'clock in the morning on October 27, 1993. As Garcia and his family escaped, they watched a ferocious brushfire bum their house to the ground. "We lost everything," Garcia says.

Today Garcia is still fuming. He believes he lost his home and possesions just to save a rat. The Stephen's kangaroo rat, which lives on Garcia's land, is protected by the Endangered Species Act. Passed by Congress in 1973, the Act makes it a crime to "harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect" any species listed as endangered or threatened with extinction. Though Garcia wanted to plow his land to build a fire barrier, the Act prevented him from doing so because those actions might destroy the rats' habitat.

While most people agree on the importance of protecting the whale, the buffalo, or sea turtle, the debate heats up over what some call "less important" species. "To lose all our land [to save] a small rat just doesn't make sense," Garcia says.

Some people say the Endangered Species Act has gone too far. Congress is even debating whether to renew the Act--or give people more freedom in the way they use their land.

What do scientists have to say? Should every endangered species be protected at all costs? Or can we afford to lose some species?

ONE BIG PUZZLE

Most scientists contend that each plant and animal species fits like a puzzle piece in a large, complex ecosystem (a community of living things interacting with each other and their environment). "It's not just one spider or one plant that's at stake," says biologist James Reddell. Each species depends on others for survival.

For instance, several species of mussels (clamlike critters) living in Alabama rivers depend on algae for food. When the state built darns to generate electricity, the rivers overflowed to form lakes, which flooded the mussels' algae supply.

Now some of the mussels are endangered. That threatens other species in the ecosystem--the birds and raccoons that eat mussels and the fish that rely on mussels to filter pollutants from the water. If one piece of the puzzle is missing, says Randall Haddock, a biologist in Birmingham, Alabama, the whole ecosystem could fall apart.

Other scientists argue that we can't afford to lose any species because of the medical cures they might provide. "One third of all prescription medicine today is derived from plants and other natural sources," says Dr. Kevin Browngoehl, a physician in Pennsylvania. He uses one drug--an extract from the endangered rosy periwinkle plant--to treat young cancer patients.

ENDANGERED CURES

But scientists have studied "only 5 percent of the world's plants" for medicinal uses, Browngoehl says. "Just think what is still out there!" If species go extinct, those potential cures for AIDS and other life-threatening diseases may never be discovered.

Some scientists say we're losing species at an alarming rate of 274 per day. Many biologists agree that human activities--such as overhunting, deforestation, and polluting the environment--are driving up extinction rates. Since humans are causing many extinctions, they argue, we should save as many species as we can.

BALANCE

But even some ardent supporters of the Endangered Species Act say we can afford to lose some species. Extinction is a natural part of life, says David Jablonski, a biologist at the University of Chicago.

More than 99 percent of all living things that have appeared on Earth have become extinct, he says.

Many of those species, such as the dinosaurs, were extinct long before humans ever existed. A catastrophic event (like a comet crashing into Earth) probably killed off the dinosaurs, Jablonski says. But he admits that even in environmentally stable times, it's natural for some species to survive and others to perish.

WHICH TO SAVE?

So how do we decide which species to save? Yshmael Garcia says the Stephen's kangaroo rat, for one, shouldn't receive such a high level of protection. Some species that are close relatives of the rat are thriving in California. Garcia and others wonder: Is it worth it to save one species of rat? Or insect? Or plant?

What do you think? Can we afford to lose some species? Or should every species and habitat be protected no matter what? If so, should property owners be paid back for the land they set aside to protect endangered species? Read what some of your peers think (p. 16). Then debate and decide. Let members of Congress know what you think as they debate this issue. Write:

The Honorable U.S. Senate Washington, DC 20510

The Honorable U.S. House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515

Check your library to find out the names of your Senators and Representatives.