Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

The Endangered Species Act: Dollars and Sense?

The Endangered Species Act: Dollars and Sense? Forum The Endangered Species Act: Dollars and Sense? JULIE K. MILLER, J. MICHAEL SCOTT, CRAIG R. MILLER, AND LISETTE P. WAITS revious analyses of the US Endangered Species Act The proportion P (money spent divided by money re- P(ESA) have attempted to identify limitations in the re- quested in the recovery plan) was calculated to control for the covery process (Rohlf 1991, Miller et al. 1994, Tear et al. 1995, inherent large variability in recovery costs between species (e.g., Easter-Pilcher 1996, Foin et al. 1998). Some have argued that $4,076,000 requested in 1995 for grizzly bears [Ursus arctos] meager funding is a factor inhibiting the overburdened en- versus $34,000 requested in 1995 for Dudley Bluff ’s blad- dangered species recovery program, while others contend derpod [Lesquerella congesta]). The median values of P were that the program is overfunded and not cost effective (Bean used to control for outliers. 1991, Clark 1994, Miller et al. 1994, Baker 1999). Yet few The median P was plotted for species in each of four sta- analyses have attempted to study the influence of funding on tus categories: improving, stable, declining, and uncertain. We recovery; the shortage of such analyses is due in part http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png BioScience Oxford University Press

The Endangered Species Act: Dollars and Sense?

Loading next page...
 
/lp/oxford-university-press/the-endangered-species-act-dollars-and-sense-3goi7L6TCk

References (20)

Publisher
Oxford University Press
Copyright
© 2002 American Institute of Biological Sciences
Subject
Departments
ISSN
0006-3568
eISSN
1525-3244
DOI
10.1641/0006-3568(2002)052[0163:TESADA]2.0.CO;2
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Forum The Endangered Species Act: Dollars and Sense? JULIE K. MILLER, J. MICHAEL SCOTT, CRAIG R. MILLER, AND LISETTE P. WAITS revious analyses of the US Endangered Species Act The proportion P (money spent divided by money re- P(ESA) have attempted to identify limitations in the re- quested in the recovery plan) was calculated to control for the covery process (Rohlf 1991, Miller et al. 1994, Tear et al. 1995, inherent large variability in recovery costs between species (e.g., Easter-Pilcher 1996, Foin et al. 1998). Some have argued that $4,076,000 requested in 1995 for grizzly bears [Ursus arctos] meager funding is a factor inhibiting the overburdened en- versus $34,000 requested in 1995 for Dudley Bluff ’s blad- dangered species recovery program, while others contend derpod [Lesquerella congesta]). The median values of P were that the program is overfunded and not cost effective (Bean used to control for outliers. 1991, Clark 1994, Miller et al. 1994, Baker 1999). Yet few The median P was plotted for species in each of four sta- analyses have attempted to study the influence of funding on tus categories: improving, stable, declining, and uncertain. We recovery; the shortage of such analyses is due in part

Journal

BioScienceOxford University Press

Published: Feb 1, 2002

There are no references for this article.