If you could catch a glimpse of any wild animal, a bottom-feeder in the depths of a muddy river wouldn’t bring as much cachet as an eagle soaring in the sky or a wolf moving mysteriously through rugged woodlands.

But the pallid sturgeon has a few things going for it, starting with longevity.

The species has existed since the days of dinosaurs and, in fact, still looks like something from “Jurassic Park,” with its flattened, shovel-shaped snout and slender tail armored with bony plates instead of scales.

The sturgeon may have spent thousands of years lurking in the bottom of the Missouri River, but it rose to prominence when it was listed as an endangered species in 1990.

This endangered status sparked intense efforts to save a species that few modern humans have ever seen.

Critics argue that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has turned the Missouri River into a pallid sturgeon laboratory, to the detriment of farmers and property owners along the river.

This is a popular view, but blame really rests on the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, which dictates the Corps of Engineers’ actions in an attempt to save the pallid sturgeon and other endangered species.

Now, the Department of the Interior intends to inject some sanity into the nation’s premier wildlife conservation law.

The agency proposed a revision to the Endangered Species Act, including a directive to look at economic costs when considering whether a species merits protection.

Howls of protest followed, as if bald eagle barbecues and grizzly bear coats are next.

This is the kind of hyperbolic exaggeration that makes it hard to get anything done in Washington.

A similar extreme position infuses gun debate, where any suggestion of control is dismissed immediately as a first step toward a totalitarian government confiscating firearms.

It seems like quite a leap, but at least gun owners have the Constitution in their back pockets. A statute, like the Endangered Species Act, is more easily amended.

With this in mind, Missouri’s lawmakers, farmers and property owners should closely watch these proposed changes, given how efforts to save the pallid sturgeon led to a changed river that’s now more prone to serious flooding.

A change in the Endangered Species Act might not affect river management, since economic costs would not be weighed retroactively.

That’s good news for the bald eagles and the grizzly bears, but it still gives a ray of hope to those who have seen how much damage this bottom-feeding fish has caused along the Missouri River.

A common-sense revision doesn’t have to be a wholesale destruction of a law intended to save animals. Sometimes, hyperbole is as bad as a lie.

Copyright St. Joseph News-Press. Reprinted with permission.

About opinions in the Missourian: The Missourian’s Opinion section is a public forum for the discussion of ideas. The views presented in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Missourian or the University of Missouri. If you would like to contribute to the Opinion page with a response or an original topic of your own, visit our submission form.

Recommended for you

Join the conversation

When posting comments, please follow our community guidelines:
• Login with a social account on WorldTable.
• Don't use obscene, profane or vulgar language or engage in personal attacks.
• Stay on topic. Don’t hijack a forum to talk about something else or to post spam.
• Abuse of the community could result in being banned.
• Comments on our website and social media may be published in our newspaper or on our website.