{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.039663461538461536, 'fraction_numerical': 0.03245192307692308, 'mean_word_length': 5.08029197080292, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Perspectives from the Field: Three Endangered Species Acts: The Costs to Biodiversity Conservation

Many consider the 1973 Endangered Species Act (ESA) to be the workhorse of environmental protection in the United States (US). The 1973 ESA was passed by Congress with nearly unanimous support and was part of President Richard M. Nixon's far-reaching environmental agenda. Much has changed in ESA political and public support. In 2010, the Western Governors Association referred to the “nonsensical policy” in implementing the ESA (Silva, 2010), and Congress delisted a population segment—the western gray wolf ( Canis lupus )—by amendment (US House of Representatives, 2011, p. 290). It is nothing short of astonishing to compare how different the discussion was at the genesis of the three ESAs as compared to now (Doremus, 2010).