ABSTRACT
The paradox referred to by Mealey and Thomas (2002) is that the alteration of ecosystems, seemingly contradictory to ecosystem and species preservation, may nevertheless be necessary if some protected species are to be preserved. The US Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA) and the federal agencies administering it can and have blocked both acceptance of this paradox and of the management it requires. This obstruction finds its justification in laws, regulations and federal court decisions and in agency policies and culture that are
narrowly precautionary. In its current application, this highly restrictive form of precaution demands no action that would change the environment unless there is certainty that no immediate harm will result. This principle has manifested itself in the short-term, risk-averse policies adopted by the implementing federal agencies. Practitioners often ignore, without inquiry, the potential long-term harm from inaction in the short term and fail to take management actions needed for long-term ecosystem maintenance. Ironically, this excessively precautionary approach has contributed to the long-term decline of the very resources the law is intended to protect: hence our chapter title. We write to document this irony and offer options for a broader, less restrictive concept of precaution that honours the paradox and defeats the irony.
