I can't imagine how anyone could argue with those sentiments - however we know they will, because in the midset of these types, trees are more valuable than people and rights.
Well Gabz, more than that, the ESA is a symbol for steps that the government is taking to look after the environment. As such, many groups find it critically important. It is religious doctrine to many people out there, in addition to the green, environmentalist and animal rights special interests groups out there. Thus, changing it would be a long, hard, costly and difficult uphill battle.
It just reinforces why big acts like that need to be so carefully looked at defined BEFORE they are passed. Or else judiciail activism, and normally on a small scale (local judges, not really the Supreme Court) will turn them into this. Instant quagmirification. Suddenly, you are waist high and wading in a confused and convoluted battle for an outdated act hat must be changed, but whose supporters are afraid it will be replaced by nothing or worse than nothing.