Endangering Species
July 1, 2005
The aim of the 1973 Endangered
Species Act is to recover plants and animals
threatened or endangered with extinction. Does
it work? Thirty-two years and hundreds of
millions of dollars later, it would be nice to
know.
So kudos to Representative
Richard Pombo, who ordered a comprehensive
review of the law from the House Resources
Committee, which he chairs. Mr. Pombo has long
argued that the species act is broken in a way
that not only renders it incapable of conserving
plants and animals but also puts unnecessary
burdens on private landowners. It turns out he
was right.
The House report was compiled
almost entirely from official records, including
from the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service and the
National Marine Fisheries Service, which makes
it difficult for critics to argue it's a
political hit job. Of the nearly 1,300 domestic
species on the endangered list, the law has
managed to "recover" a grand total of 10. That's
a success rate of less than 1%.
Supporters of the law would say
that species recovery is slow work that has to
be measured over a long period -- say, 100
years. But even the trends don't look good. A
mere 36% of listed species are considered stable
or improving. And even this 36% is nothing to
celebrate, given that in many cases the only
reason a species is deemed on the mend is
because officials overstated the problem in the
first place.
When the plant, Johnston's
frankenia, was first listed, it was thought to
have dwindled to about 1,500 specimens. Oops,
someone miscounted. There are close to nine
million, which explains why Fish & Wildlife is
now proposing to remove the plant from the
endangered list. Of the 10 officially
"recovered" species, six were subject to
erroneous original data.
These errors have real
financial consequences -- in particular for
other species recovery. Government resources are
finite, and every dollar spent on an erroneous
listing is one less that could go to a species
in need.
Take the Preble's meadow
jumping mouse, which Fish & Wildlife also wants
to de-list due to mistaken scientific data. An
economic assessment that accompanied the
"critical habitat" designation for this
perfectly healthy animal estimated taxpayer and
private costs would total $79 million to $183
million over 10 years.
Unlike other environmental
laws, the Endangered Species Act doesn't require
quality, peer-reviewed science in its listings.
And since getting species on the list is often
the simplest way for environmental groups to
pursue other agendas -- such as tying up private
land and blocking development -- they churn out
dubious studies at the speed of procreating
rabbits. Fish & Wildlife currently has 283
species that are candidates for listing -- which
would cost $150 million to add. The agency's
entire listing budget for fiscal 2004 was $12.1
million.
Another problem is that the law
doesn't allow for real priority setting. Call it
the Lake Wobegone effect for species. In a
statistic that defies logic, more than 92% of
listed species have been accorded priorities
that put them in the upper half of Fish &
Wildlife's priority ranking system -- i.e., they
are all a top priority. This makes it impossible
to focus on species truly in need.
Mr. Pombo has been trying to
get species act reform rolling in the House, but
Democrats don't want to amend a law that gives
so much power to their green-lobby benefactors.
One fix would be for Republicans on the Rules
Committee to make appropriations money
contingent upon reauthorizing the law, thereby
forcing a debate. Mr. Pombo asked for such a
ruling a while back, but his colleagues lacked
the nerve. So the federal government will
continue to enforce a law that costs more than
it should and still doesn't protect the truly
endangered.
