Search Our Essay Database

Essay Instructions: Write a paper about the history, present status, and future of the Endangered Species Act. You may choose to argue for its reform or revocation, as long as your work is supported by scientific literature and cited as such. You must present evidence to support your conclusion(s). ***I am specifically interested in how Gray Wolf hunting in states where their populations are in great abundance is outlawed because populations are so low in other states that the species still needs to be protected overall. This is particularly frustrating to ranchers and devastating to wild game populations in states where gray wolf populations are booming. Montana had sanctioned hunts a couple years ago but that has been stopped federally now. It may be important to have provisions in the endangered species act that allows for population management instates where the species is flourishing beyond the need for protection and to the point of becoming a nuisance to other species. This is a change to the regulation that I would like to see. Please write to this topic of the endangered species act if you can.

The paper should be at least ten pages in length. It must be double-spaced, with one inch margins and 10 or 12 pitch font. It must include a proper Literature Cited section that lists all documents you actually have used in the paper. And, most importantly, you must use proper citations (APA format) throughout your paper, especially wherever you quote, near quote, or paraphrase material from a source, and wherever you introduce an idea that came from your research. This paper will be submitted to Turnitin.com to be checked for plagiarism.

Essay Instructions: Topic: The Intervention of Technologywith Endangered Species

- this is for a course that discusses the effects of society, technology & culture
- APA format
- 10 pgs of text minimum
- all resources must be referenced even links of websites that may have been used. professor wants to make sure that info can be found again if necessary
- bibliography page
- titled paragraphs for each subtopic discussed
There are faxes for this order.

Essay Instructions: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-animal/

I categorize an elephant herd (endangered species) as "morally considerable" agent. Morally considerable means extrinsically or instrumentally valuable member of a species or larger bio-community and deserves "humane" treatment, although rights are weaker than agents and patients and may be sacrificed to "higher" purposes or protected for human benefit. Prepare a two-page reportto support my reasoning that these elephants are "morally considerable agents.

I provided a link above for reference and need one more article or website that offers scientific, medical or ethical expertise relevant to this judgment of the moral status.

Essay Instructions: If possible, restrict sources to only those that can be accessed by the web. More details will be provided in


As mentioned in the lecture, in 1973, construction of the Tellico Dam on the Little Tennessee River was order halted by a federal court over a controversy surrounding a newly discovered species of perch called a snail darter. In the decades leading up to the Tellico Dam controversy, the value of dam building was largely unquestioned. However, as attitudes toward dams and the environment changed in the early 1970s, the dam building era came to a close. It is now thought that too many dams were built and there is talk of decommissioning many dams throughout the country. The Tellico Dam lawsuit continues to be one of the most famous environmental controversies in history.
The lawsuit, Tennessee Valley Authority v. Hill, 437 U.S. 153 (1978), required the United States Supreme Court to interpret the Endangered Species Act.

The Court summarized the case as follows:
The Endangered Species Act of 1973 (Act) authorizes the Secretary of the Interior (Secretary) in 4 to declare a species of life "endangered." Section 7 specifies that all "Federal departments and agencies shall, . . . with the assistance of the Secretary, utilize their authorities in furtherance of the purposes of [the] Act by carrying out programs for the conservation of endangered species . . . and by taking such action necessary to insure that actions authorized, funded, or carried out by them do not jeopardize the continued existence of such endangered species and threatened species or result in the destruction or modification of habitat of such species which is determined by the Secretary . . . to be critical." Shortly after the Act's passage the Secretary was petitioned to list a small fish popularly known as the snail darter as an endangered species under the Act. Thereafter the Secretary made the designation. Having determined that the snail darter apparently lives only in that portion of the Little Tennessee River that would be completely inundated by the impoundment of the reservoir created as a consequence of the completion of the Tellico Dam, he declared that area as the snail darter's "critical habitat." Notwithstanding the near completion of the multimillion-dollar dam, the Secretary issued a regulation in which it was declared that, pursuant to 7, "all Federal agencies must take such action as is necessary to ensure that actions authorized, funded, or carried out by them do not result in the destruction or modification of this critical habitat area." Respondents brought this suit to enjoin completion of the dam and impoundment of the reservoir, claiming that those actions would violate the Act by causing the snail darter's extinction.

In other words, the Secretary of the Interior identified the snail darter as an endangered species, and the area immediately downstream of the Tellico Dam was critical habitat for the snail darter. Under the Endangered Species Act, federal agencies are required to ensure their actions do not destroy or modify critical habitat.
Environmentalists argued the Endangered Species Act prevented completion of the dam, despite the facts that construction on the dam began before the Act was passed, the snail darter was not listed until after construction was underway, and over $100 million had been spent on the dam, which was about 80% complete. Relying on the language of the Endangered Species Act, the Supreme Court ordered construction on the dam enjoined, stating that the Act did not make any exception for a project that was underway before Congress passed the Endangered Species Act. The Court also stated the in adopting the Act, Congress clearly intended to halt and reserve the trend, whatever the cost. The Court simply refused to “ignore the plain meaning of plain language.” In response to the Court’s decision in TVA v. Hill, Congress amended the Endangered Species Act to exclude the Tellico Dam.

1. Do you agree with the Court’s decision, based upon the language of the Endangered Species Act quoted above? That is, did the Endangered Species Act preclude construction of the dam? Should the ESA have precluded construction of the dam? Was Congress right to amend the ESA to permit the dam to be built?

2. Consider the goals of the Act. Should there be a hard and fast rule in these situations, or should agencies be permitted to engage in a cost-benefit analysis? Why or why not? If agencies had discretion to engage in cost-benefit analysis, wouldn’t all proposed projects be completed?

3. When should environmental or aesthetic values give way to other values, such as resource development for energy development? Where should the line be drawn?




There are faxes for this order.