In my random roaming on the internet, most specifically my rather critical viewing of wikipedia, I have noticed something interesting. Actually a few things. First of all, the number of species categorized by the experts as some variety of "endangered" is staggering. Secondly, how loose the criteria for that categorization are. Third, how dishonest some of those classifications can be.

Let me show the dishonesty first.

Big predators, at least those who don't hunt in packs, tend to be both solitary and territorial. Which means that even were man to vanish from the face of the Earth there would probably be no more than a dozen snow leopards, for example, in several hundred square miles. Given their relatively limited range and their habits, even without humans around the number of snow leopards, Bengal tigers and other large solitary predators would almost certainly be low enough to call them "endangered".

So, why is that deceptive? Because whenever a creature is endangered it is implied that man is to blame. Either directly through hunting, indirectly through loss of environment or even more indirectly through "global warming". However, in the case of this group, and many others, their low numbers are simply a function of their natural territorial behavior. And others as well, thanks to small ranges, low number of offspring, or strong natural predators, can be naturally uncommon, yet will be treated implicitly as if they risk extinction due to some human action.

And there are other problems when dealing with creatures with such low number in the wild. For instance, should a disease strike, or some other tragedy such as a harsh winter or a loss of their favorite prey bring their numbers down, we will be bombarded with reports that the species is "on the verge of extinction", accompanied by statements that "only X are left", conveniently omitting the small number that existed prior tot he tragedy. It is a remarkably dishonest way to argue for their protection.

And even more dishonest approach is to use subspecies. Often times when we are told, "X only exists in a small patch of land in Oregon" or something similar, what we are not told is that a nearly identical subspecies thrives in massive numbers all over the Pacific northwest. It is only this specific subspecies which is confined to a very limited range and thus suffers from low numbers.

Not only is it dishonest, but it may be scientifically invalid, as some subspecies listed as extremely endangered are not recognized as subspecies by all scientists, so it is possible that we are protecting simply a unique coloration or other physical feature rather than a real subspecies.

Even if it is a valid subspecies with some slight genetic variation form its fellows, we have to wonder how much harm is done if the "brown eared wood rabbit" vanishes so long as the "brown and white eared wood rabbit" exists in the same area. I have argued before that extinction is a natural process, but even if I am wrong and we want to preserve all species, one has to ask if the disappearance of a very slightly different subspecies qualifies as "extinction", in anything more than a very technical sense.

None of this would matter at all were it not for the intrusion of government. Were this merely a technical debate about the terminology of biology, I might still weigh in, as I am prone to do so, but it would not matter quite as much. But as the question of what qualifies as endangered can cause people to lose property rights and cost taxpayers millions of dollars, the question becomes an urgent one.

If we are going to persist in the misguided policy of the Endangered Species Act, we really need to reconsider what we mean by both endangered and species.

ADDENDUM

In truth, the way we have chosen to protect endangered species may prove counter productive.

I have yet to hear of any formal reports, but I have heard anecdotal stories of farmers in the US shooting a variety of endangered bird species rather than losing control of their farm land to the government. It only makes sense, as even if caught, the penalty for killing an endangered bird is less costly than the loss of one's entire property should one be found alive there.

And that, ironically, may be the outcome of our excessive protection of endangered species. By stripping land owners of rights without any compensation upon the sighting of an endangered species, we may, rather than protecting them, be hastening the demise of various species.

POSTSCRIPT

I am as kind hearted and fond of creatures as anyone, perhaps more. I am not happy to see any species die off. On the other hand, it seems that stripping people of their rights to protect a subspecies is a recipe for disaster. If we want to protect these species, the answer is to privately buy up their habitats and protect them. Or, if we argue the government must do it, then have the government compensate these people, rather than just take their property from them.

But, then again, for some this argument is not about protecting species at all. For some, though certainly not for all, the endangered species act is about stopping development more than it is about protecting animals. And that is the true tragedy for those who care about these animals. The laws designed to protect wild creatures are being misused by those who would stop progress, and, though the laws themselves are doing more harm than good, those who back them do not care, as protecting animals was not their primary aim anyway.

And for those who doubt this is the truth, I need only point out how the polar bear listing is being argued not in terms of benefiting the bears, but how their listing can be used to fight "global warming". Does that sound as if anyone is actually interested in helping polar bears? Or are they simply the cute face being put on a naked power grab by the greens?