BACKGROUND:

The Endangered Species Act (ESA) is a federal land use statute that directly affects tens of millions of acres of private property. Enacted in 1973, the law was designed to protect threatened and endangered species by identifying species in these categories and then improving their status through critical habitat designation, if deemed necessary, until each species no longer is threatened or endangered. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (F&WS) within the U.S. Department of Interior implements the land-based creatures, flora and fauna provisions of the ESA, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s National Marine Fisheries Service in the U.S. Department of Commerce administers the living marine resources and anadromous species (salmon) along with their critical habitats. In 1982, Congress amended ESA by directing that listings may be based solely on the “best scientific and commercial evidence available.” Economic consequences may not be considered.

Unfortunately, only 12 of the 1,304 species listed have been recovered, according to the Fish & Wildlife Service, and none of those recovered was due solely to the ESA. Further reading shows that only 30 percent of species are “stable” and only 9 percent are “improving.”

With a recovery rate of .01 percent, it is clear the Act is failing the species that need it most. Further, the absence of clear scientific standards has hindered revival efforts and promoted litigation over recovery. Finally, an adversarial relationship has developed between the government and private property owners, leading to charges of heavy-handed tactics by the government and hindering cooperative efforts to save endangered species. Clearly, after 30 years, the Act needs to be updated.

Despite Republican-controlled attempts to update the ESA during the 109th Congress, changes to the ESA were not proposed by the Democrat-controlled 110th Congress.

TALKING POINTS:

• NSSGA supports a scientifically- based program that takes a common-sense approach to protecting endangered species while recognizing private property rights and the need for continued economic growth.
• There is significant evidence that the process of determining which species should be protected has lost its integrity and resulted in listings that are not supported by science. Through the use of sound scientific techniques, listings and other determinations will be more effective in preserving and recovering species.
• Listings, designations of critical habitat, and the development of necessary recovery plans, often are not accompanied by adequate public notice and opportunity for comment. The Act should provide for earlier and more meaningful opportunities for citizens to participate, more citizen involvement in recovery plans, and a more prominent role in the consultation process.
• ESA mandates have severely restricted the use and value of privately owned property. When severe restrictions occur without compensation by the federal government, the Act shifts to individual citizens the costs and burdens that should be shared by all citizens. The ESA must be modified to compensate land owners justly in a timely fashion when private property is preserved in a habitat conservation plan.
• The ESA offers landowners few incentives to protect species on their property. The Act should provide incentives wherever possible to conserve habitat and to provide regulatory certainty to property owners who voluntarily participate in conservation plans.
• After three decades of .01 percent recovery rate, the government needs to review how it handles ESA cases. By changing the approach the government takes to saving and preserving endangered species from adversarial to one of cooperation and inclusion, we can expect more species to be saved and a higher regard for the law by the public in general.

Updated: November 2008