John Yearwood, a rancher in Williamson County, is fighting the federal government over the Endangered Species Act. His ranch is home to the Bone Cave Harvestman spider, which has been listed as an endangered species since 1988. Yearwood is concerned that, if he disturbs the spider’s habitat, he will incur the wrath of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. And his fears are well-founded.
The Endangers Species Act of 1973 (ESA) was signed by Richard Nixon with the intent of protecting species threatened with extinction. In Tennessee Valley Authority v. Hill (1978), Supreme Court ruled that “the plain intent of Congress in enacting” the ESA “was to halt and reverse the trend toward species extinction, whatever the cost.” The federal government has taken that ruling literally, protecting animals and plants no matter the cost to human well-being.
More than 75 percent of endangered species live on private land for at least a portion of their lives. An individual can be fined $100,000 and receive one year in jail for harming a single protected plant or animal, even if he does so unknowingly. And those same penalties can be applied simply for damaging the habitat of an endangered species.
The ESA places nature above human flourishing. Yearwood cannot use a portion of his property for fear of being thrown in jail. The well-being of a spider takes precedence over the well-being of humans.
Yearwood is challenging the legality of the Fish and Wildlife Service’s enforcement of the ESA. While this certainly proper, his argument would gain power if he defended his moral right to use his property as he deems best. The government should be challenged, not just on legal grounds, but also on moral grounds.
If we do not challenge the moral premise underlying the ESA and other environmental regulations, we are sabotaging our freedom to create and use the values that human life requires. And that means endangering the human species.