Question

Conclusion about endangered species i

Answer 1

The Endangered Species Act is a wonderfully idealistic law that was apparently written by people who had absolutely no idea about how society works. The law's goals are so noble and uplifting that few could disagree with them. Yet the law's means for achieving those goals are doomed to the same failure as prohibition, the "war on drugs," or any other command-type law.

When the act's authors decided to design the law around a command structure instead of incentives, they built three major flaws into the 

Answer 2

The Endangered Species Act is a wonderfully idealistic law that was apparently written by people who had absolutely no idea about how society works. The law's goals are so noble and uplifting that few could disagree with them. Yet the law's means for achieving those goals are doomed to the same failure as prohibition, the "war on drugs," or any other command-type law.

When the act's authors decided to design the law around a command structure instead of incentives, they built three major flaws into the Endangered Species Act:

First, the law fails to correct any of the misincentives in traditional U.S. wildlife law that discourage landowners from protecting wildlife habitat.

Second, the law for the most part fails to stop federal subsidies that harm wildlife and completely fails to give public land managers adequate incentives to protect species habitat;

Finally, although biodiversity is supposed to benefit all, the law imposes most of the costs of saving many species on a few private landowners. We might be able to overlook the unfairness of this law if it worked to save species--but instead it promotes antagonism towards wildlife and the general idea of an Endangered Species Act.