Measuring progress in US endangered species conservation

Ecology Letters

Volumn 8, Issue 9, 2005, Pages 986-992

  Male, Timothy D ^a   Bean, Michael J ^a  

^a ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE FUND   (United States)

Author keywords

Biodiversity; Conservation; Endangered species; Endangered Species Act; Funding; Recovery

Indexed keywords

CONSERVATION STATUS; ENDANGERED SPECIES; ENVIRONMENTAL LEGISLATION; SPECIES CONSERVATION;

NORTH AMERICA; UNITED STATES; WESTERN HEMISPHERE; WORLD;

EID: 24344490206     PISSN: 1461023X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1461-0248.2005.00806.x     Document Type: Article

References (28)

1. Abbitt, R.J.F. & Scott, J.M. (2001). Examining differences between recovered and declining endangered species. Conserv. Biol., 15, 1274-1284.
2. Bean, M.J. (1998). The endangered species act and private land: four lessons learned from the past quarter century. Environ. Law Rep., 27, 10701-10710.
3. Boersma, P.D., Karieva, P., Fagan, W.F., Clark, J.A. & Hoekstra, J.M. (2001). How good are endangered species recovery plans? Bios, 51, 643-649.
4. Clark, J.A., Hoekstra, J.M., Boersma, P.D. & Kareiva, P. (2002). Improving U.S. endangered species act recovery plans: key findings and recommendations. Conserv. Biol., 16, 1510-1519.
5. DeShazo, J.R. & Freeman, J. (2003). The congressional competition to control delegated power. Tex. Law Rev., 81, 1443-1520.
6. Foin, T.C., Riley, S.P.D., Pawley, A.L., Ayers, D.R., Carlsen, T.M., Hosum, P.J. et al. (1998). Improving recovery planning for threatened and endangered species. Bios, 48, 177-184.
7. Miller, J.K., Scott, J.M., Miller, C.R. & Waits, L.P. (2002). The endangered species act: dollars and sense? Bios, 52, 163-168.
8. Owens, B. (2004). Colorado's New Approach to Endangered Species: Save the Animals, not the Bureaucrats. Center for the New American Century, http://www.cnaconline.org/ESA_Final.pdf [accessed on 11 July 2005].
9. Pombo, R.W. (2004). The ESA at 30: Time for Congress to Update and Strengthen the Law (Committee Report, US House of Representatives Committee on Resources, 2004, http://resourcescommittee.house.gov/issues/more/esa/whitepaper. htm [accessed on 11 July 2005]).
10. Possingham, H.P., Andelman, S.J., Burgman, M.A., Medelin, R.A., Master, L.L. & Keith, D.A. (2002). Limits to the use of threatened species lists. Trends Ecol. Evol., 17, 503-507.
11. Rachlinski, J.J. (1997). Noah by the numbers: an empirical evaluation of the endangered species act. Cornell Law Rev., 82, 356-389.
12. Restani, M. & Marzluff, J.M. (2001). Avian conservation under the endangered species act: expenditures versus recovery priorities. Conserv. Biol., 15, 1292-1299.
13. Restani, M. & Marzluff, J.M. (2002). Funding extinction? Biological needs and political realities in the allocation of resources to endangered species recovery. Bios, 52, 169-177.
14. Schwartz, M.W. (1999). Choosing the appropriate scale of reserves for conservation. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst., 30, 83-108.
15. Scott, M.J. & Goble, D.D. (2005). A database for the ESA. Bios, 55, 299.
16. Simmons, R.T. & Frost, K. (2004). Accounting for Species, the True Costs of the Endangered Species Act. Property and Environment Research Center, Bozeman, MT.
17. Simon, M., Leff, C.S. & Doerksen, H. (1995). Allocating scarce resources for endangered species recovery. J. Policy Anal. Manage., 14, 415-432.
18. Taylor, M.F., Suckling, K.F. & Rachlinski, J.J. (2005). The effectiveness of the endangered species act: a quantitative analysis. Bios, 55, 360-367.
19. Tear, T.H., Scott, J.M., Hayward, P.H. & Griffith, B. (1995). Trends and prospects for success of the endangered species act: a look at recovery plans. Conserv. Biol., 9, 182-195.
20. Thomas, C. (2004). Endangered Species Act Needs Reform. Office of Senator Craig Thomas, press release 23 August 2004.
21. US Fish and Wildlife Service (1983). Endangered and Threatened Species Listing and Recovery Priority Guidelines. US Government Printing Office, Washington, DC (Code of Federal Regulations, title 50, 48 43098 1983).
22. US Fish and Wildlife Service (1990a-2002a). Recovery Report to Congress Fiscal years 1990, 1992, 1994, 1996, 1997-1998, 1999-2000, and 2001-2002. US Government Printing Office, Washington, DC. http://endangered.fws.gov/recovery/ index.html [accessed on 11 July 2005].
23. US Fish and Wildlife Service (1990b-2002b). Federal and State Endangered and Threatened Species Expenditures. US Government Printing Office, Washington, DC (1989-2002, http://endangered.fws.gov/pubs/expenditurereports.html [accessed on 11 July 2005]).
24. US Government Accountability Office (1988). Endangered Species Management Improvements could Enhance Recovery Program. US Government Accountability Office, Washington, DC, USGAO Report No. GAO/RCED-89-5.
25. US Government Accountability Office (2002). Endangered Species Program Information on How Funds are Allocated and What Activities are Emphasised. US Government Accountability Office, Washington, DC, USGAO Report No. GAO-02-581.
26. US Government Accountability Office (2005). Fish and Wildlife Service Generally Focuses Recovery Funding on High Priority Species, but Needs to Periodically Assess its Funding Decisions. US Government Accountability Office, Washington, DC, USGAO Report No. GAO-05-211.
27. Vaughn, C.C. & Taylor, C.M. (1999). Impoundments and the decline of freshwater mussels: a case study of an extinction gradient. Conserv. Biol., 13, 912-920.
28. Wilcove, D.S., McMillan, M. & Winston, K.C. (1993). What exactly is an endangered species? Conserv. Biol., 7, 87-93.