Proposal

Dude, I hope this came out alright. I was dealing with uncertainty at every turn. Bon Soir!

English 505
Justin Blumberg
Proposal

I have chosen to pursue a rhetorical analysis of the Endangered Species Act (ESA), its purposes, and its benefits and its criticisms. The ESA was passed into law in 1973 with the intent that it would preserve those species of life that were in the most need for species survival. The benefits and successes of the ESA have competed with the controversies and oppositions that have developed because of it. It is a very complicated issue to unpack, one that has influential roots back to the earliest days of the US nation, including cultural implications founded by Native Americans, early European settlers, immigrants, myth and folklore, environmental concerns, religion, commerce and economies, the rights of citizens and landowners, corporate concerns, and of course, the ‘rights of nature.’ The ESA was born out of a collective national insight into the need for the government and the citizenry to take an active role in the stewardship of the animal and plant species of the country.

I believe that the best course of action for this paper would be for me to explore the document that makes up the Endangered Species Act, and use whatever insights I may glean to establish a backdrop for further discussion. The breadth of the potential areas of rhetorical exploration makes me hesitant to take on a line of discussion that would prove to be too winding and thorny. It might be more useful for our purposes for me to focus my attention on the nature of the ESA and its causes and effects on the wildlife it serves and the causes and effects of the country it imposes itself on. There is great support for the ESA where people of all kinds, from government officials, environmentalists, scientists, and landowners believe there is a need for human intervention in the preservation of our natural resources – and would even claim that there is need for the ESA, and, as such, the Fish & Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service (FWS/NMFS), to be granted greater powers. On the other hand, opponents of the ESA would argue that the ESA has too much power as it is, and is not serving the benefit of the human population in this country.

Opposing argumentation like this could be enough to frame my paper but I feel like it would be best if I included analysis and discussion of the ESA as a whole. I would like to specifically touch on: What is the Endangered Species Act? How does the ESA work? Include discussions on the listing and delisting process; discuss the support and opposition arguments toward the ESA; and possibly include as an example a particular animal or case as support.

What Is The ESA?

The Endangered Species Act was born out of earlier attempts by the US government and its citizens to preserve wildlife, plant species, and habitat. It is a federal law, passed in 1973, which “bans the hunting or killing of endangered species and protects against significant habitat loss” (Salzman 277). The idea behind the law was to establish an institutional, wide ranging means for wildlife conservation. It was out of a growing national consciousness of the beauty, usefulness, and preciousness of the natural world which prompted the creation of this unique and influential law. Let us now look at some of the text that comprises the ESA.

The following is an excerpt from the Endangered Species Act Section 2:

(a) FINDINGS. – The Congress finds and declares that –
(1) various species of fish, wildlife, and plants in the United States have been rendered extinct as a consequence of economic growth and development untempered by adequate concern and conservation;
(2) other species of fish, wildlife, and plants have been so depleted in numbers that they are in danger of or threatened with extinction;
(3) these species of fish, wildlife, and plants are of aesthetic, ecological, educational, historical, recreational, and scientific value to the Nation and its people;
(4) the United States has pledged itself as a sovereign state in the international community to conserve to the extent practicable the various species of fish or wildlife and plants facing extinction,…

The language in this text can be interpreted as an appeal to reason. There does not appear to be any overly demonstrative, or emotionally provocative language. It seems to me that it is written very clearly, succinctly and directed toward a large audience – speaking for a specific group of persons residing in a speech community that can understand the reasons for the Act. Despite the structure of the document being of a specific discourse community it still serves its purpose of explaining Congress’ rationale for the ESA.

I will follow next with an explanation of how the ESA works and an analysis of another section the ESA document.

How Does The ESA Work?

The ESA is enforced by two separate federal agencies who share administrative responsibilities. “The Fish & Wildlife Service (FWS) within the Department of the Interior is responsible for protecting terrestrial and avian species and freshwater fish. The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) within the Department of Commerce takes responsibility for maritime species, including anadromous fish such as salmon” (Salzman 280). Either the FWS/NMFS can, of their own initiative, place a species on the endangered species list, or it may receive petitions from outside organizations or individuals.

These decisions are based on scientific data that are taken into consideration by the Department of the Interior. Whether a species is in danger of extinction and therefore should be listed, or if it is determined that populations of listed species has risen to healthy, recovered levels then that species can be removed from the list. Below is a section of the ESA document that details further how decisions to list a species are made.

SEC. 4
(a) GENERAL – (1) The Secretary shall by regulation promulgated in accordance with subsection (b) determine whether any species is an endangered species or a threatened species because of any of the following factors:
(A) the present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range;
(B) overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes;
(C) disease or predation;
(D) the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms;
(E) other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence…

Again, with the document here we have an instance of rational appeal. The need for articulation is apparent in that this document is spelling out for the reader or interpreter the process for determining what is an endangered or threatened species. There isn’t an argument here to be won or lost, but a presentation of a structure, an ideal, or a belief which needs to be received and understood by all relevant entities which would read this, or be prosecuted because of this.

Now that the ESA is presented and explained enough for our purposes I think it would be best to conclude the paper with a discussion of the benefits, or successes of the Act in contrast with its oppositions. I believe that the controversies that have dogged the ESA from its beginning provide an opportunity to analyse the rhetoric used by those on either side of support for the ESA.

Arguments In Support Of And Against The ESA

Much of the proponents for the ESA are made up of a wide-ranging cross-section of the US population, which include government officials, private citizens, landowners, environmentalists and scientists. There are numerous reasons for why persons choose to support the ESA and want to help it thrive. Some reasons include: belief that it is humankind’s natural position to be steward of the natural world; an intellectual understanding of how all of life fits together in a larger ecosystem – how all of life is, ultimately, interdependent; an emotional connection to the natural world and wildlife – the thought of impermanence is scary; the empathy for a fellow living creature suffering is strong and influential. These are persons who see the value in maintaining a healthy natural environment where all of nature’s creatures can co-exist to the other’s benefit.

Considered of great value with this is biodiversity “which constitutes the overall community of organisms within a habitat and the physical conditions under which they live” (Salzman 279). By having biodiversity we humans can benefit from “detoxification and decomposition of wastes, purification of air and water, generation and renewal of soil and soil fertility, pollination of crops and natural vegetation, control of harmful agricultural pests, support of cultural activities, and provision of aesthetic beauty and pleasure” (Salzman 280). Obviously, what benefits us makes us more inclined to promote that of which we benefit from. Put more simply, humans will be more supportive of preserving natural habitats if doing so proves a significant value to our lives.

A lot of the opposition seems to stem from persons who see the power of the FWS/NMFS as Big Government interfering with the lives and livelihoods of the citizenry. The ESA has the ability to restrict what landowners can do to or with their land if it is deemed that an endangered species’ habitat might be destroyed thus harming the endangered species. This could effect how a landowner, especially a farmer conducts business. For example, will they be able to till their land or fell trees on their property if doing so destroys habitat? This same power effects the government and corporate businesses too, preventing them from constructing things like dams, shopping centers or other business enterprises if it interferes with the ability of an endangered species to thrive. Moreover, there is concern from hunters and fisherman when they are unable to legally hunt for either personal or commercial purposes.

Through examples of documents and case studies that represent these different opinions about the Endangered Species Act it can make understanding why these arguments work, or if at all. Part of my consideration for this is to focus on Congressional hearings, cases brought to the courts, especially the Supreme Court, and choosing a particular species, for example the Brown Pelican who has had some attention from the FWS/NMFS in the past.

I will try to make the ESA connect to examples of FWS/NMFS in action, and hopefully in doing so I will be able to make connections to my audience. It is important that I am able to discover the rhetorical devices that have helped construct the attitudes behind the ESA and that promote its means and ends to a citizenry with sundry motivations and opinions about conservation or environmental degradation. Though those terms alone could be put under the microscope of rhetorical analysis. Those who oppose the ESA may not like to think that they are somehow ‘evil’ or anti-conservationists, but perhaps are promoting the welfare of the country in a different way. This course of discussion though may be best explored in a different paper. For now, I would like to confine my research to the topics outlined above.



Bibliography
Magoc, Chris J. Environmental Issues In American History: A Reference Guide With Primary Documents. Westport: Greenwood Press, 2006.

Salzman, James, and Barton H. Thompson, Jr. Environmental Law and Policy, 2nd Ed. New York: Foundation Press, 2007.