Humans might act like we have the right of way when it comes to the traffic of life, but we certainly weren't here first and just because we can flush a toilet doesn't mean we deserve real estate more than any other critter who walks, slithers or hops across the planet. The Supreme Court is about to hear a case not pushing for frog protection but for protections be revoked in Louisiana and Mississippi. Of the 6,000+ acres being protected, over 1,000 are personal property of unoccupied frog habitat.
According to the Center for Biological Diversity, the owners of the land, who use it for timber production, would not see an economical drop from the protections issued on the land. Frog recovery in the area, on the other hand, is crucial, with populations depending on the protection offered in order to safely not only maintain but hopefully grow their numbers.
Do you think the protection of frog habitat is important enough to see the Supreme Court? How do you think they should rule?