Six Biological Reasons Why the Endangered Species Act Doesn't Work—And What to Do About It

Abstract

Lawpluys an important role in shaping lund management decisions. The success of efforts to conserve biodiversity thus depends to a large degree on how well scienttfic knowledge is translated into public policy. IJnfortunute(y, the Endangered ,Ypecies Act, the IJnited States's strongest Iegul tool for consm!ing hiOdilJerSlt~, contuins serious biological flaws. The statute itselx us well us agency regulutions and policies that implement the luu: include proitisions that fail to account accurately ,for important biologicul concepts such us ecosystem conservation, patch dynumics, and the probabilistic nature of stochustic threats to a species'pc.rsistence. Moreover, the procedures of federul agencies charged with implementing the Endungwed Species Act in some cases make it difficult for interested outside reviewers to evaluate the agencies' scientific findings and methodologp. However, the Endangered Species Act also gives interested indiiiiduals and groups seueral opportunities to provide input into the process of managing threatened and endangered species. Consmiation biologists should practice focused advocacy 19-y taking advantage of such opportunities to steer law in u more biologically sound direction.Resumen: Lus lqws juegun un p p e l importunte a1 dark ,formu u las deci.$iones sohre el man+ de la tima El exito de 10s esfiwrzos puru conseruur la biodiversidad depende en huenu purte de yue tun hien seu truducido el conocimiento cient<fico dentro de lus reglumentaciones publicus. Desafortunudamentev el Actu sohre lus Especies en Peligro, la heirumientu mds fuerte dentro de 10s Estudos IJnidospara conservur la biodiversidu4 contiene serius faltus biokjgicus. El estututo en si mismo, asi como Ius reguluciones de lus agencius -1' 10s reglumentos que implementun lu ley, incluyen uspectos que,fullun puru tomur en cuenta certerumente importantes conceptos biol6gicos como la conservaci6n de 10s ecosistemus, lu dindmicu de ecosistemus frugmentudos y la nutitrulezu prohubilisticu de amenazus a1 m a r en contra de la existenciu de unu especie. Por otru purtq los procedimientos de l m ugencius federales a curgo de implementar el Acta de 1u. s Especies en Peligro, en algunos cusos, hacen dificil la intervencih de revisores externos interesados en evaluar 10s halluzgos y metodolgius cientiyicas de la agencius. Aun mi, el Actu de Ius Especies en Peligro d q a los indiiiiduos y g mpos interesudos, vurius oportunidades para ofrecer impulsos durunte el proceso del munejo de lus especies umenazdus y en peligro. Los hidlogos de la consertiucicin deben de enfocar su upoyo a1 tomar ilentuju de estas oportunidades para orientar a Iu I t y en una direccirin que contenga buses biologie m sdlidus.

Design of a naturalized flow regime—an example from the Lower Missouri River, USA

“…Hence, the design was narrowly focussed on issues related to the endangered species. Although the Endangered Species Act has been frequently criticized for its narrow focus, it has also been recognized as the dominant law in the USA for species conservation (Karr, 1990;Rohlf, 1991;Clark et al, 2002), and the LMOR experience is therefore not unusual.…”

Spatial-Temporal Dynamics of China’s Terrestrial Biodiversity: A Dynamic Habitat Index Diagnostic

“…Efforts to reduce this rapid biotic impoverishment have been carried out by many countries in terms of enacting, or planning to enact, legislation for the identification, protection, and recovery of endangered species [5,[7][8][9]. The Chinese government has initiated several environmental programs to increase its commitment to environmental protection, including the National Forest Conservation Program (NFCP, 2000; see [10]) and the Grain-to-Green Program (GTGP, 1999; see [11]).…”

Funding Extinction? Biological Needs and Political Realities in the Allocation of Resources to Endangered Species Recovery

“…The public also believes that rarity of a species and its ecological importance should direct conservation (Czech et al 1998). Despite this agreement, many people-scientists, government officials, the public-question the effectiveness of the endangered species program (Rohlf 1991, Tear et al 1995, Carroll et al 1996, Easter-Pilcher 1996, Foin et al 1998, Restani and Marzluff 2001, in part because approximately 1 percent of listed species receive almost 50 percent of available recovery funds each year (Simon et al 1995, USDOI 1992, 1994. In 1988, the US General Accounting Office (GAO) formally criticized the FWS for not following its own priority system (USGAO 1988).…”