Você está na página 1de 14

Abolish/Reform ESA – Neg brief

ABOLISH/REFORM ESA – NEG BRIEF...............................................................1

SIGNIFICANCE:.....................................................................................................2
1. ESA is better at protecting endangered species than..............................................................................2
A. 99% are still alive, those that are listed tend toward recovery................................................................2
B. ESA has saved 227 species and those that have been lost are not their fault .........................................3
C. Only one species has gone extinct that could have been saved since implementation...........................4

ROBBYN J. F. ABBITT IDAHO COOPERATIVE FISH AND WILDLIFE


COOPERATIVE RESEARCH UNIT, UNIVERSITY OF IDAHO. J. MICHAEL
SCOTT USGS, BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES DIVISION, IDAHO FISH AND
WILDLIFE COOPERATIVE RESEARCH UNIT, UNIVERSITY OF IDAHO
OCTOBER 2001 CONSERVATION BIOLOGY, VOL. 15, NO. 5 “EXAMINING
DIFFERENCES BETWEEN RECOVERED AND DECLINING ENDANGERED
SPECIES”
HTTP://WWW.JSTOR.ORG.PALLAS2.TCL.SC.EDU/STABLE/3061482?
&SEARCH=YES&TERM=RECOVERED&TERM=SPECIES&TERM=DECLININ
G&TERM=ENDANGERED&TERM=EXAMINING&TERM=DIFFERENCES&LIST
=HIDE&SEARCHURI=/ACTION/DOBASICSEARCH%3FQUERY
%3DEXAMINING%2BDIFFERENCES%2BBETWEEN%2BRECOVERED
%2BAND%2BDECLINING%2BENDANGERED%2BSPECIES%26JC
%3DJ100791%26WC%3DON%26SEARCH.X%3D0%26SEARCH.Y
%3D0%26SEARCH
%3DSEARCH&ITEM=1&TTL=7&RETURNARTICLESERVICE=SHOWARTICLE
(CR).........................................................................................................................4
2. ESA is underfunded: explains any lack of success..................................................................................5
A. ESA is underfunded and has never really been fully implemented........................................................5

3. Give ESA more time. The longer that we wait the better that ESA works...........................................5
A. Give it some time: Species are helped more the longer they are on the list...........................................5
B. Increased time on the list will help success rate......................................................................................6

4. 5th amendment violations..........................................................................................................................7


A. Only one time has there been a violation of the 5th amendment............................................................7
C. Only one instance has actually been found to be a taken applicable under the 5th amendment ............8
D. 5th amendment doesn’t apply because plaintiffs can work to use their property, ESA not hard and fast
rule...............................................................................................................................................................9

5. AT: ESA hurts habitats............................................................................................................................10


ESA protects habitats – yay.......................................................................................................................10

6. AT: ESA hurts more than it helps...........................................................................................................10


A. Three times as many species improve vs. worsen................................................................................10
DISADVANTAGES:..............................................................................................11
1. Biodiversity................................................................................................................................................11
Link: ESA is the key to biodiversity..........................................................................................................11
Impact: ......................................................................................................................................................11
A. 57% of top 150 drugs are from biodiversity. Biodiversity key to new drugs.......................................11
B. Between $500-800 Billion dollars in biodiversity markets, and biodiversity solves cancer................12

CP: GIVE MORE FUNDING.................................................................................12


Mandate: Increase funding for recovery of species by $2 Billion dollars a year....................................12

Solvency: Money = Happiness.....................................................................................................................12


A. Direct correlation between recovery funding and success....................................................................12
B. Species with funding are able to recover..............................................................................................13

STUDY METHODOLOGY:...................................................................................14
1. Abbit and Scott .....................................................................................................................................14

ROBBYN J. F. ABBITT IDAHO COOPERATIVE FISH AND WILDLIFE


COOPERATIVE RESEARCH UNIT, UNIVERSITY OF IDAHO. J. MICHAEL
SCOTT USGS, BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES DIVISION, IDAHO FISH AND
WILDLIFE COOPERATIVE RESEARCH UNIT, UNIVERSITY OF IDAHO
OCTOBER 2001 CONSERVATION BIOLOGY, VOL. 15, NO. 5 “EXAMINING
DIFFERENCES BETWEEN RECOVERED AND DECLINING ENDANGERED
SPECIES”
HTTP://WWW.JSTOR.ORG.PALLAS2.TCL.SC.EDU/STABLE/3061482?
&SEARCH=YES&TERM=RECOVERED&TERM=SPECIES&TERM=DECLININ
G&TERM=ENDANGERED&TERM=EXAMINING&TERM=DIFFERENCES&LIST
=HIDE&SEARCHURI=/ACTION/DOBASICSEARCH%3FQUERY
%3DEXAMINING%2BDIFFERENCES%2BBETWEEN%2BRECOVERED
%2BAND%2BDECLINING%2BENDANGERED%2BSPECIES%26JC
%3DJ100791%26WC%3DON%26SEARCH.X%3D0%26SEARCH.Y
%3D0%26SEARCH
%3DSEARCH&ITEM=1&TTL=7&RETURNARTICLESERVICE=SHOWARTICLE
(CR).......................................................................................................................14

Significance:
1. ESA is better at protecting endangered species than....
A. 99% are still alive, those that are listed tend toward recovery
Union of Concerned Scientists quoting letter signed by 1300 biologists, Apr 2009, A Letter from Biologists
on Strengthening Science in the Endangered Species Act,
www.ucsusa.org/scientific_integrity/solutions/big_picture_solutions/2009-esa-scientists-letter.html (CR)
“The Endangered Species Act is one of our most important environmental laws because
of its reliance on robust scientific analysis. According to a May 30, 2005 article in
Science, less than one percent of listed species have gone extinct since 1973, while 10
percent of candidate species still waiting to be listed have suffered that fate. A more
recent comprehensive analysis demonstrates that listed species tended toward recovery
more than not and the more thoroughly the ESA was applied the stronger their recovery.1
In addition to the hundreds of species that the ESA has protected from extinction, listing
has contributed to population increases or the stabilization of populations for at least 35
percent of listed species, and perhaps significantly more, as well as the recovery of such
signature species as the peregrine falcon.”

B. ESA has saved 227 species and those that have been lost are not their fault
Mark W. Shwartz Department of Environmental Science and Policy, University of
California 2008 Annual Review Ecology Evolution and Systematics “The Performance of
the Endangered Species Act”
http://arjournals.annualreviews.org.pallas2.tcl.sc.edu/doi/pdf/10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.3
9.110707.173538 (CR)

“A primary objective of the ESA is to prevent extinction. Using crude estimates of


extinction likelihoods of species considered critically endangered (Mace & Lande 1991),
the ESA may have shielded as many as 227 species from extinction during its first 30
years (Schwartz 1999, Scott et al. 2006). Even the seven extinctions of listed species can
hardly be pinned on the ESA (Abbitt & Scott 2001). The Amistad Gamusia (Gambusia
amistadensis), for example, was a spring endemic fish listed in 1980 by which time its
entire habitat was silt covered and at the bottom of a reservoir (U.S.D.I. 1978). At the
time of listing the species was known only from captivity. With no habitat restoration
possible, the species was declared extinct in 1987. The ESA had no opportunity to help
this species. Other ESA extinctions were in similarly desperate condition upon their
listing.”
C. Only one species has gone extinct that could have been saved since
implementation
Abbit and Scott 2001
Robbyn J. F. Abbitt Idaho Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Cooperative Research Unit,
University of Idaho. J. Michael Scott USGS, Biological Resources Division, Idaho
Fish and Wildlife Cooperative Research Unit, University of Idaho October 2001
Conservation Biology, Vol. 15, No. 5 “Examining Differences between Recovered
and Declining Endangered Species”
http://www.jstor.org.pallas2.tcl.sc.edu/stable/3061482?
&Search=yes&term=recovered&term=species&term=declining&term=endangered
&term=Examining&term=differences&list=hide&searchUri=/action/doBasicSear
ch%3FQuery%3DExamining%2Bdifferences%2Bbetween%2Brecovered%2Band
%2Bdeclining%2Bendangered%2Bspecies%26jc%3Dj100791%26wc%3Don
%26Search.x%3D0%26Search.y%3D0%26Search
%3DSearch&item=1&ttl=7&returnArticleService=showArticle (CR)

“Amid debates for reauthorization and possible revisions to the law is the discussion of
species recovery and removal from the Endangered Species List. The U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (USFWS) defines recovery as "the process by which the decline of a
threatened or endangered species is arrested or reversed, and threats to its survival are
neutralized, so that its long-term survival in nature can be assured" (USFWS 1992). Prior
to 1999, 27 species found in the United States and territories had been delisted (removed
from the list entirely) and eighteen had been downlisted (reclassified from endangered to
threatened) (Noecker 1998). Of the 27 delisted, 7 had gone extinct. Only 3 of these
extinct species were alive after the passage of the ESA and at the time they were listed.
Only 1 of the 7, the Dusky Seaside Sparrow (Am- modramus martitimus nigrescens), is
believed to have been secure enough for recovery to be possible (Mc- Millan & Wilcove
1994). Eleven species have been delisted because additional information was discovered
that rendered their listings unwarranted. Only 3 of the 18 species downlisted have
changed status due to additional information discovered about the species. This leaves 8
species delisted and 15 species downlisted that fit the USFWS definition of recovered.”
2. ESA is underfunded: explains any lack of success
A. ESA is underfunded and has never really been fully implemented

Mark W. Shwartz Department of Environmental Science and Policy, University of


California 2008 Annual Review Ecology Evolution and Systematics “The Performance of
the Endangered Species Act”
http://arjournals.annualreviews.org.pallas2.tcl.sc.edu/doi/pdf/10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.3
9.110707.173538 (CR)

“Since its inception, the ESA has been underfunded. As a consequence, the agencies must
choose to allocate resources among competing needs. Presidential administrations request
budgets; Congress passes budgets; the agencies are forced to implement the ESA with the
resources that they are provided. Incomplete or inefficient ESA implementation can
emanate from any of the aforementioned sources, but more generally represents a failure
of public interest to demand full ESA implementation.”

3. Give ESA more time. The longer that we wait the better that ESA
works
A. Give it some time: Species are helped more the longer they are on the list
Mark W. Shwartz Department of Environmental Science and Policy, University of
California 2008 Annual Review Ecology Evolution and Systematics “The Performance of
the Endangered Species Act”
http://arjournals.annualreviews.org.pallas2.tcl.sc.edu/doi/pdf/10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.3
9.110707.173538 (CR)

“Agency status reports have been cited in asserting both ESA success and failure. These
conflicting interpretations of the same data result from the few simple categories into
which taxa are classified for the purpose of congressional reporting. Male&Bean (2005)
found that slightly more than half of all listed taxa were stable or improving across a 14-
year time window (1988–2002). These researchers noted, however, that reports of
declining taxa (48.2%) far outnumber increasing populations (9.6%). Just over 40% of
taxa were listed as unknown in any given report, and 173 taxa were categorized as
unknown in all reports. Nevertheless, time since listing was associated with positive
population trends (declining to stable or stable to improving). Rachlinski (1997) also
reports that status improves with time and the application of proactive conservation
measures through the ESA (e.g., critical habitat).”
B. Increased time on the list will help success rate
Mark W. Shwartz Department of Environmental Science and Policy, University of
California 2008 Annual Review Ecology Evolution and Systematics “The Performance of
the Endangered Species Act”
http://arjournals.annualreviews.org.pallas2.tcl.sc.edu/doi/pdf/10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.3
9.110707.173538 (CR)

“Further analyzing reports to Congress, Taylor et al. (2005) assert that critical habitat,
dedicated recovery plans, and time predict increased likelihood of improving status
among the over 1000 listed taxa examined from 1990 to 2002. Using logistic regression,
these researchers do not include recovery spending in their analysis. In examining these
data, the researchers defined dedicated recovery plans as those with single species plans.
This analysis reiterates the findings of Boersma et al. (2001), who found that species
listed in multispecies recovery plans were more likely to be declining. The assertion that
multispecies recovery plans are detrimental to recovery progress, however, assumes that
recovering status and the type of recovery plan for species are independent. This
assumption is unlikely to be true. The largest multispecies recovery plans cover a suite of
relatively poorly known species in southern Florida (68 species) and Hawaii (7 plans, 262
species). These are difficult landscapes for recovery given the large numbers of
endangered species, their very small population sizes at the time of listing, and the large
fraction of private lands in both states.”
4. 5th amendment violations
A. Only one time has there been a violation of the 5th amendment
CRS report for Congress January, 2009 Robert Melt Legislative attorney “The
endangered species act and claims of property rights “takings”
http://wikileaks.org/leak/crs/RL31796.pdf [CR]

“To date, only one of the 16 ESA-based takings cases disclosed by research, Tulare Lake
Basin Water Storage District v. United States, has found a taking, and that decision has
been undermined by a later decision of the same judge. But another credible taking
challenge is pending in Casitas Municipal Water District v. United States, now before the
Federal Circuit. Both these cases fall into the “reductions in water delivery or allowable
water diversion” category noted above.”
B. SC ruled that it was constitutional in Babbit v. sweet home
Regulation magazine, Vol. 26, No. 4, Winter 2003-2004 Daniel R. Simmons is the
Director of the Natural Resources Task Force at the American Legislative Exchange
Council. Prior to working for ALEC, he worked for the Mercatus Center and George
Mason University where he was a Research Fellow of Mercatus’ Regulatory Studies
Program. has a B.A. in Economics from Utah State University and a J.D. from George
Mason University School of Law. Randy Simmons Professor Department: Economics and
Finance Ph.D., Political Science, University of Oregon, 1980
Minor Area: Public Choice “The Endangered Species Act Turns 30”
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=505682 [CR]

“Private property There are two key sections in the esa that give the fws the regulatory
authority to regulate private property: Sections 7 and 9. Section 9 prohibits the “taking”
of an endangered or threatened species, where “taking” means “to harass, harm, pursue,
hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in such
conduct.” The fws expansively defines “harm” to include modifying an endangered or
threatened species’ habitat. Regulations based on this definition of harm are controversial
because they are a form of national land-use control. This controversy reached the U.S.
Supreme Court in the 1995 case Babbitt v. Sweet Home. In that case, the Court deferred
to the fws’s interpretation of “harm,” holding that the definition includes habitat
modification.”
C. Only one instance has actually been found to be a taken applicable under
the 5th amendment
Robert Meltz Legislative Attorney American Law Division March 10, 2003 CRS report
for congress “The Endangered Species Act and Claims of Property Rights “Takings”: A
Summary of the Court Decisions”
http://digital.library.unt.edu/govdocs/crs/permalink/meta-crs-8300:1 [CR]
“Much has been written about what impacts on property owners by wildlife protection
laws such as the ESA must, constitutionally, be compensated as “takings.”3 CRS
provided a comprehensive analytic review in 1993 on how the takings issue has played
out under the ESA and other federal and state wildlife protections.4 This new report
simply compiles the ESA takings court decisions to date, with brief comment. Renewed
congressional interest has been prompted by the recent, highly significant decision of the
U.S. Court of Federal Claims in Tulare Lake Basin Water Storage District v. United
States,5 holding that federal water use restrictions imposed under the ESA constituted a
taking. This is the only time that any ESA-mandated measure has been held by a court to
be a taking, and the decision may yet be appealed. Legislative activity may also be
prompted by the ascension to committee leadership posts of Members of Congress with
longtime interest in the private property impacts of the ESA.6”
D. 5th amendment doesn’t apply because plaintiffs can work to use their
property, ESA not hard and fast rule
Robert Meltz Legislative Attorney American Law Division March 10, 2003 CRS report
for congress “The Endangered Species Act and Claims of Property Rights “Takings”: A
Summary of the Court Decisions”
http://digital.library.unt.edu/govdocs/crs/permalink/meta-crs-8300:1 [CR]

Seiber v. United States, 53 Fed. Cl. 570 (2002) Plaintiffs owned a 200-acre tract, almost
all timberlands (the rest, plaintiffs’ homestead). In 1994, Oregon designated 40 acres of
the tract as spotted owl nesting habitat. This designation barred timber harvesting on the
40 acres, unless plaintiffs obtained an “incidental take permit” (ITP)7 under the ESA (the
United States had designated the spotted owl a threatened species). The U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (FWS) found plaintiffs’ ITP application inadequate, but said it was
willing to work with the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs rejected this offer, and the application
was denied. The denial letter indicated, however, that several approvable alternatives
were available to plaintiffs. Again, plaintiffs chose not to work with the FWS, but simply
applied for reconsideration of the denial, which was denied. In 2002, the FWS found that
the owls had moved away, so an ITP was no longer needed to log the 40 acres. The
plaintiffs seeks compensation for a temporary taking, for the period 1994-2002. Held,
because FWS had the discretion and indicated willingness to consider a modified timber
harvest plan, but plaintiffs did not ask the government to exercise that discretion, the
permit denial was not a final decision. Thus, plaintiffs’ taking claim is not ripe. Even if
the claim had been ripe, plaintiffs would have failed. There is no taking by permanent
physical occupation of the owls, since coexistence with the owls did not deprive the
plaintiffs of their right to possess, or control the use of, their property. Nor is there a
regulatory taking, since the 40 acres of timber must be regarded together with the
remainder of the merchantable timber on the tract.
5. AT: ESA hurts habitats
ESA protects habitats – yay
MICHAEL J. BEAN chairs the Wildlife Program of Environmental Defense and is the
author, with Melanie J. Rowland, of The Evolution of National Wildlife
Law. Bioscience, 2006 “The Endangered Species Act under Threat”
http://www.bioone.org/doi/full/10.1641/0006-
3568(2006)056[0098:TESAUT]2.0.CO;2 (CR)

“Current law imposes a qualified prohibition on activities—including development—that


harm endangered wildlife. The qualifier is that developers can obtain permits allowing
their projects to proceed, provided that adverse impacts are mitigated. Mitigation might
take the form of contributing to a fund to acquire and manage habitat elsewhere, leaving a
portion of the developer's land undeveloped, or modifying the timing or scale of
development. This approach has been used widely, and is reflected in a great many
“habitat conservation plans” under which profitable development activities proceed
notwithstanding comparatively modest conservation concessions to mitigate their impact
on endangered wildlife. Creative use of such plans has secured private resources to
establish networks of conserved land within rapidly developing areas.”

6. AT: ESA hurts more than it helps


A. Three times as many species improve vs. worsen
Mark W. Shwartz Department of Environmental Science and Policy, University of
California 2008 Annual Review Ecology Evolution and Systematics “The Performance of
the Endangered Species Act”
http://arjournals.annualreviews.org.pallas2.tcl.sc.edu/doi/pdf/10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.3
9.110707.173538 (CR)

“Extinction prevention, however, is just one of three goals of the ESA (Suckling&Taylor
2006). The second objective of the ESA, species recovery, is difficult to accomplish.
Critics of the ESA point to the paucity of recovered species to suggest failure (Gordon et
al. 1997, Mann & Plummer 1995). One fundamental and simple metric to evaluate
recovery is to examine patterns in changes in species status. The record, although modest
in number, is strongly favored toward recovery rather than extinction. Recovery
outnumbers extinction 14 to 7 among the species delisted because of population change
(U.S.F.W.S. 2008c). Similarly, nearly three times as many species have changed listing
status toward recovery (endangered to threatened, n = 20) compared to those changed
toward extinction (threatened to endangered, n = 7) (U.S.F.W.S. 2008c). These data
suggest that positive outcomes far exceed negative ones. These data do not speak to the
issue of what our expected rate of species recovery ought to be.”
Disadvantages:
1. Biodiversity
Link: ESA is the key to biodiversity
Union of Concerned Scientists quoting letter signed by 1300 biologists, Apr 2009, A Letter from Biologists
on Strengthening Science in the Endangered Species Act,
www.ucsusa.org/scientific_integrity/solutions/big_picture_solutions/2009-esa-scientists-letter.html (CR)

“Many federal agencies do not have the biological expertise to determine the
consequences of federal projects on endangered species, and may have vested interests in
the implementation of a project. The F[ish and ]W[ildlife ]S[ervice] and
N[ational]M[arine]F[isheries]S[ervice] consultations have, for decades, served as
important checks and balances to keep our nation’s biodiversity safe. Consultation creates
a method for informed decision-making that provides better protections for endangered
species and has led to successful mitigation efforts for hundreds of species.”

Impact:

A. 57% of top 150 drugs are from biodiversity. Biodiversity key to new drugs
Georgetown International Environmental Law Review Winter, 2008 ANDREW W.
TORRANCE is an Associate Professor at the University of Kansas School of Law and a
Research Associate at the Biodiversity Institute at the University of Kansas. Dr. Torrance
received his Ph.D. in biology from Harvard University and his J.D. from Harvard Law
School. “An Extinction Bar to Patentability” [Accessed via Lexis Nexis][CR]

“Another study attempting to assess the economic value of biodiversity for


bioprospecting analyzed the sources of therapeutic drugs already on the market in the
United States. n41 This study, the most comprehensive such assessment conducted to
date, concluded that most of the top 150 brand name drugs prescribed in the U.S. in 1993
contain a compound derived from or patterned after a natural chemical. n42 The study
concluded that 57% of the top 150 prescription drugs were derived directly or indirectly
from biodiversity: 23% from animals, 18% from plants, 11% from fungi, 4% from
bacteria, and 1% from marine organisms. n43 Some individual species were found to
provide the source for multiple drugs in the top 150, the most prodigious being opium
poppy (Papaver somniferum) with 15, joint fir (Ephedra sinica) with 11, bread mold
(Penicillium notatum) with 9, a fungus (Cephalosporium acremonium) with 7, Brazilian
fer-de-lance (Bothrops jararaca) and a eubacterium (Streptomyces erythreus) with 4 each,
and human [*247] (Homo sapiens) with 3. n44 Especially when viewed in light of the
huge research and development costs of successfully bringing a new drug to market--
estimated to average $ 300-500 million n45 --these results suggest biodiversity as an
important, even dominant, avenue for the discovery and development of new drugs.”
B. Between $500-800 Billion dollars in biodiversity markets, and biodiversity
solves cancer
Georgetown International Environmental Law Review Winter, 2008 ANDREW W.
TORRANCE is an Associate Professor at the University of Kansas School of Law and a
Research Associate at the Biodiversity Institute at the University of Kansas. Dr. Torrance
received his Ph.D. in biology from Harvard University and his J.D. from Harvard Law
School. “An Extinction Bar to Patentability” [Accessed via Lexis Nexis][CR]
“Biodiversity is a rich source of useful natural biochemicals that possess prodigious
market value. A recent comprehensive estimate placed the annual value of products
derived from genetic resources alone at between $ 500 billion and $ 800 billion. n9
Natural biochemicals derived from biodiversity form the bases for many economically
useful inventions. These include medicinal drugs, botanical medicines, agricultural crops,
crop protectants, ornamental plants, cosmetics, and non-medical industrial products and
processes. As a notable example, almost [*242] three-fifths of the best selling
prescription drugs in the United States are derived from biodiversity. n10 One of the most
famous bioprospecting successes involves the Rosy Periwinkle (Catharanthus roseus), a
flowering plant endemic to the island of Madagascar. Biologist Edward O. Wilson
provides a lyrical account of this plant's remarkable contribution to cancer treatment in
his book, The Diversity of Life: An inconspicuous plant with a pink five-petaled flower,
it produces two alkaloids, vinblastine and vincristine, that cure most victims of the two
deadliest of cancers, Hodgkin's disease, mostly afflicting young adults, and acute
lymphocytic leukemia, which used to be a virtual death sentence for children. n11”

CP: Give more funding


Mandate: Increase funding for recovery of species by $2 Billion dollars
a year....

Solvency: Money = Happiness


A. Direct correlation between recovery funding and success
Mark W. Shwartz Department of Environmental Science and Policy, University of
California 2008 Annual Review Ecology Evolution and Systematics “The Performance of
the Endangered Species Act”
http://arjournals.annualreviews.org.pallas2.tcl.sc.edu/doi/pdf/10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.3
9.110707.173538 (CR)

“Funding for recovery programs had a strong positive effect on continual positive
population trends (Male & Bean 2005). Fish, birds, and mammals were less likely to be
declining than amphibians, reptiles, invertebrates, and plants (Male & Bean 2005). These
improving groups were also those that, on average, were listed earlier and received the
most recovery funding. It is difficult to clearly assert whether it is time, money, or
taxonomy that influences improving status.”
B. Species with funding are able to recover
Mark W. Shwartz Department of Environmental Science and Policy, University of
California 2008 Annual Review Ecology Evolution and Systematics “The Performance of
the Endangered Species Act”
http://arjournals.annualreviews.org.pallas2.tcl.sc.edu/doi/pdf/10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.3
9.110707.173538 (CR)

Male et al. (2006) attempted a more specific analysis using funding to identify the 75 taxa
that received the largest financial support toward recovery, and then searched for
population data on these taxa. These researchers assert that funding endangered species is
successful, based on the evidence that range-wide positive population growth was
observed across a 20-year span (1985 to 2005) for 23 of the 30 species (17 birds, 10
mammals, 2 fish, and a sea turtle) for which data were available. In fact, compound
annual growth rate exceeded 5% for half of the species, suggesting strong positive
performance for many species (Male et al. 2006). This approach of narrowing the search
to compare groups to ask a specific population performance question is promising.”
Study Methodology:
1. Abbit and Scott
Abbit and Scott 2001
Robbyn J. F. Abbitt Idaho Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Cooperative Research Unit,
University of Idaho. J. Michael Scott USGS, Biological Resources Division, Idaho
Fish and Wildlife Cooperative Research Unit, University of Idaho October 2001
Conservation Biology, Vol. 15, No. 5 “Examining Differences between Recovered
and Declining Endangered Species”
http://www.jstor.org.pallas2.tcl.sc.edu/stable/3061482?
&Search=yes&term=recovered&term=species&term=declining&term=endangered
&term=Examining&term=differences&list=hide&searchUri=/action/doBasicSear
ch%3FQuery%3DExamining%2Bdifferences%2Bbetween%2Brecovered%2Band
%2Bdeclining%2Bendangered%2Bspecies%26jc%3Dj100791%26wc%3Don
%26Search.x%3D0%26Search.y%3D0%26Search
%3DSearch&item=1&ttl=7&returnArticleService=showArticle (CR)

“We located documents listing all species that had been downlisted or delisted prior to
1999 (Noecker 1998) and species recently proposed for such action by the USFWS
(1999). In our study, the word species applies to "any subspecies of fish or wildlife or
plants, and any distinct population segment of any species of vertebrate fish or wildlife"
(U.S. ESA of 1973 [as in U.S. 2000]). After we removed all species that were in this
group because of extinction, new information, and taxonomic revisions, 39 species
remained-hereafter referred to as recovered/recovering species-in five taxonomic groups:
birds, mammals, fishes, plants, and reptiles. Three of these 39 species had multiple
recovery regions and recovery plans (Bald Eagle, American Peregrine Falcon, and gray
wolf). Each recovery region was included in our study as a separate entity, based on the
facts that different regions had different recovery objectives and management activities,
and that species in these regions were down- listed and delisted at different times; thus,
the sample size of recovered/recovering species increased to 48 (Ta- ble 1).”