Endangered Species Act: Endangered?

There is no question that human beings now dominate this planet; we possess the technologies and abilities to shape and alter our planet on a tremendous scale. With such power there are also consequences; with every building we erect, road we pave, and car we drive human beings affect the environment around us in a permanent way. Our insatiable desire to spread and grow as a species has let us spread ourselves faster than nature can handle. We clear forests, destroy habitats, hunt, and pollute far quicker than the animals living in these environments can respond and adapt to these stresses. As a result, many of these animals cannot handle the strain we have placed upon them and quickly die out into extinction. Fortunately, many conscientious individuals noticed this terrible predicament that faces many animals in the wild and quickly began to enact laws to protect them from extinction. The preeminent of these laws was the Endangered Species Act (ESA) which was passed in 1973 and set up regulations that were meant to help protect species that were in danger of extinction. At the time, it was hailed as a great governmental step towards environmentalism; however, as history progresses, time has revealed flaws in the ESA and some do not believe the ESA to be legislation that is capable to withstand the test of time. One of these individuals, Ike C. Snugg, postulates that the ESA is no longer effective and is in need of dire reform. In his article, “The Endangered Species Act Must Be Reformed,” Ike C. Snugg attempts to convince the American people that the ESA is ineffective legislation and is in need of some major overhaul by using, analogy, word connotation, fallacies, irony, logical and emotional appeals.

One of the first clever tactics that Snugg uses to convince his audience is the use of analogy. Snugg begins his article with the passage, “Kings, queens, feudal lords, and dictators used to decide who, if anyone, could use which resources for what purpose, at what price, and to what extent.” Through this statement Snugg is creating an indirect analogy between the ESA and the kings and dictators of the past. Snugg uses this technique because, in general, American society frowns upon the concept of kings and dictators. These authoritative rulers and their policies are seen as restrictions to basic liberties and freedoms that every American holds dear to their hearts. By using this analogy at the beginning of his article, Snugg immediately causes his reader to associate the ESA with the concept of kings and dictators. This causes the reader to pass judgment on the ESA at once by placing their ill feelings about kings and dictators as being restrictive and outdated directly onto the ESA and its policies. By discreetly causing the reader to place feelings of resentment onto the ESA through the use of analogy Snugg is able to cleverly induce his reader to begin to see the ESA in a negative light.

Another tool in Snugg’s arsenal rhetorical arsenal that he uses is word connotation. In one loaded passage Snugg proclaims, “[The] ESA penalizes land owners for having endangered species on their property. The penalty [. . .] translates into draconian land-use restrictions, extortionate permit requirements, red tape, lost income, lost opportunities . . .” In one passage Snugg is able to deftly peg a myriad of negative connotations onto the ESA. For example, the words penalize and restriction both have extremely negative meanings to most people and they are usually correlated with punishments and limitations. Thus the reader sees the ESA as legislation that is filled with punishments and limitations. Snugg also utilizes the charged meanings of the words draconian and extortionate. Draconian gives the meaning of harshness and cruelty and when it is used in conjunction with the word extortionate, which has the meaning of unjustly taking money, create a very negative portrayal of the ESA in the readers mind. Snugg is able to convince the reader that the ESA is sub-par piece of legislation through his use of very negatively charged words.

The extreme environmentalist resistance to the drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska is foolish, and the drilling in ANWR can be accomplished with minimal environmental impact with substantial economic gain.