The Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973 is by far the most contentious environmental statute enacted during the Nixon administration. Its mandate to not only protect imperiled plants and animals, but to conserve their critical habitats clashes with the goals of wealthy landowners, industrialists, and commercial developers. The act has always had its opposition and the petition to weaken it has always been strong, but with the shifting political agendas of the Bush administration, a new brew of legislation threatens to severely cripple the power of the ESA and eventually do away with the landmark law.

Currently over 1,200 U.S. species and 550 foreign species are listed as either threatened or endangered. Once listed, some of the most significant protection comes from protecting "critical habitats" - the homes of the animals enlisted. The act also requires the development and implementation of recovery plans, which identify a wide range of actions to help recover a species. These can include reintroduction of a species into formerly occupied habitats; land management; landowner agreements that preserve or enhance habitats; captive breeding; habitat restoration; population assessments; research, and public education. Since enacted, the law has played a major role in preventing the extinction of hundreds of species of plants and animals in the United States. 99% of the species listed remain on the planet today and 68% are either stable or improving.

Designated the "Threatened and Endangered Species Recovery Act of 2005," the draft bill would impose a bureaucratic overlay to reduce the effectiveness of the ESA. Essentially, the bill changes the mission of the act by redefining critical habitat, cutting scientists out of important wildlife decisions, and undercutting the use of the best science in accessing species’ protection. It would also weaken enforcement of the act by narrowing the reach of the law in controlling agencies like the Forest Service, and allowing exemptions of federal actions which are currently subject to review. Even more dramatic is the section of the bill that obligates a "sunset clause," meaning all provisions of the ESA will be removed by October 2015, essentially killing the act itself.

Habitat degradation is the primary reason for most species becoming endangered yet this new legislation places major restrictions on mapping the territory that is essential for the recovery of endangered species. It restricts critical habitat to areas currently occupied by a species and doesn’t allow inclusion of its historic range. It also short changes the long term goals of complete recovery of a species by settling for the lesser goal of keeping the current rate of decline from getting any worse.

Despite the aggressive nature of legislation, these recent attacks on the 32 year old law may not have the impact that was expected. Advocates of the ESA are fighting back to strengthen and maintain protection for endangered species. In 2003, a national campaign was created with the aim of defending the ESA. Designated the Unified Endangered Species Campaign, the working group consists of 6 environmental groups who are committed to preserving America’s natural heritage. They are: the Center for Biological Diversity; Earthjustice, Endangered Species Coalition; National Wildlife Federation; Natural Resources Defense Council; and Sierra Club. The campaign also works to support the efforts of hundreds of other nonprofit organizations working on Endangered Species issues.

The Endangered Species Coalition has been touring the critical habitats of many endangered species around the country and inviting reporters to attend to bring attention to the current political situation. Included in their tour was a visit to the Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary here in Massachusetts Bay in May. They used the trip to demonstrate the success of the ESA, interviewing CORE researchers about the recovering whale populations in the Atlantic and the significance of the sanctuary designation back in 1992. They also emphasized the recovered Pacific gray whale population as an example of the law’s success. Hopefully, through extensive grassroots work, education, discussions with lawmakers, and the dissemination of information, the campaign will ensure that the Act itself as well as the species it protects, can be passed on safely into the future.

In 1973 the people of this country took arms in a battle to create the ESA and the people won. Today that victory is being challenged and for those who still believe in those goals, the onus is on us to fight again and carry forth that same dedication in protecting the essential landmark law that so many daringly fought to create.

The nor’easters that hit in mid-May of 2005 may have been bad for whale watching but scientists believe they were good for stirring up lots of nutrients. Unfortunately, this stirring may have contributed to the spread of the worst red tide outbreak in New England in decades. The outbreak began in the Gulf of Maine in May and spread to Massachusetts and Cape Cod Bays. While this meant bad news for shell fishermen from Maine to Cape Cod, CORE interns seized the opportunity to educate the public about red tide.

Red tide is a common name for a phenomenon where phytoplankton or unicellular algae grow rapidly forming dense sometimes visible patches near the surface of the water. Contrary to its name, a red tide may color the water red, brown, pink, violet, orange, yellow or green depending on the color of the phytoplankton. Red tides are commonly caused by types of phytoplankton known as dinoflagellates and diatoms.

Not all phytoplankton blooms are harmful but the name "red tide" is used to refer to ones that are. Scientists prefer the term "harmful algal blooms." What makes red tides harmful is that some species of phytoplankton produce biotoxins, which are naturally occurring toxins. At low levels these toxins are harmless, but during a red tide bloom the biotoxin reaches high levels that can be toxic to both marine life and humans. We are potentially exposed to these toxins by eating shellfish. Shellfish are filter feeders, which filter the plankton out of the water and concentrate the biotoxins in their bodies. People are warned to stay away from shellfish during red tides, including mussels, oysters, and clams (scallops and lobsters are OK because we don’t eat the bodies).

The red tide that was affecting New England waters this summer was caused by a dinoflagellate called Alexandrim fundyense. This particular species of phytoplankton produces a biotoxin by the name of saxitoxin which is responsible for Paralytic Shellfish Poisoning. Paralytic Shellfish Poisoning or PSP can cause tingling or numbness in the face, nausea, vomiting and diarrhea. In severe cases there can be muscular paralysis leading to difficulty breathing and possibly even death.

Yes, red tides can affect marine mammals, specifically whales, although the one we are experienced in 2005 does not. Whales feed either directly on plankton or fish that feed on plankton, passing the biotoxins on up the food chain. There are known cases of whale deaths being linked to biotoxins produced by phytoplankton. For example, in 1988, brevetoxin, produced by the dinoflagellate Gymnodinium brevis, was thought to be the cause of the deaths of several hundred Atlantic bottlenose dolphins and almost 30 humpback whales. Whales are thought to be particularly susceptible to biotoxins for two reasons. First, during a dive the blood is concentrated in the heart and brain and away from the liver and kidney where the toxins could be excreted. Second, even a slight period of disorientation, caused by the toxin affecting the nervous system, can be enough to keep a whale from surfacing for a breath, causing it to drown.

As for the red tide in the Gulf of Maine, according to scientists from Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute (WHOI) who were monitoring the status of the outbreak, the levels of the harmful algae in Massachusetts Bay decreased and slowly shellfish beds were reopened. This was certainly good news to shellfishermen who lost an estimated $3 million per week due to the closures.