The Endangered Species Act (ESA) was introduced with the aim of saving species that were on the brink of extinction.
Via funding, the ESA encourages states to participate in the recovery and protection of endangered species.
States Species Conservation Committees (SCC) have been supporting endangered species conservation within states by building confidence with other participants in the initiative.
Landowners have been expected to collaborate with state and federal agencies on endangered species protection.
The primary support for the rehabilitation and protection of endangered species in the United States have been funds given by the federal government and grants.
The conservation and preservation of endangered species of fish, wildlife, and plants in the United States has been highly promoted by the enactment and implementation of Endangered Species Act (ESA).
Evidence of Bias
There is bias in the article in terms of illustration of the role of ESA in promoting the protection and recovery of endangered species of animals, fish, and plants from extinction while other species that are threatened by human activities are ignored.
Text by Gibbs and Currie 2012
The key facts in the article are:
Funding has been used as one of the tools in promoting recovery efforts for endangered species
Endangered Species Act (ESA) was formed for the purpose of promoting efforts of protecting endangered species.
Most of the federal funds for protection of endangered species were allocated to designation of habitats and recovery of ESA-listed species
There was a slight improvement in recovery efforts as a result of the implementation of the recovery tools.
Despite the implementation of many tools to protect endangered species, these tools have not been effective in promoting their recovery.
Evidence of Bias
There is a bias in terms of focusing only on the limitations of the tools during protection of the endangered species with little focus on the positive impacts such as the number of species that have been recovered as a result of using the tools.
Evaluation of uses of English in the Two texts
There is greater use of political and legal English in the article by Arha and Thompson Jr, (2012) compared with that by Gibbs and Currie (2012) which mainly uses scientific English in illustration of its arguments. In the article by Arha and Thompson Jr, (2012), words such as great interest in the Congress are used to illustrate the role of political factors in implementation of ESA. On the other hand, the article by Gibbs and Currie (2012) uses words such as correlation which enable understanding the impact of ESA in conservation of endangered species. References
Arha, K. and Thompson Jr, B.H. eds., 2012. The endangered species act and federalism: Effective conservation through greater state commitment. Routledge.
Gibbs, K.E. and Currie, D.J., 2012. Protecting endangered species: do the main legislative tools work?. PLoS One, 7(5), p.1-7.
If you like this sample, we will email it to you with pleasure!