Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
T. Tear, J. Scott, Patricia Hayward, B. Griffith (1995)
Recovery Plans and the Endangered Species Act: Are Criticisms Supported by Data?Conservation Biology, 9
J. Clarke, D. McCool (1996)
Staking out the terrain : power and performance among natural resource agencies
Benjamin Simon, C. Leff, Harvey Doerksen (1995)
Allocating scarce resources for endangered species recoveryJournal of Policy Analysis and Management, 14
Julie Miller, Michael Scott, Craig Miller, L. Waits (2002)
The Endangered Species Act: Dollars and Sense?, 52
Andrea Easter-Pilcher (1996)
Implementing the Endangered Species Act Assessing the listing of species as endangered or threatenedBioScience, 46
B. Czech, P. Krausman, R. Borkhataria (1998)
Social Construction, Political Power, and the Allocation of Benefits to Endangered SpeciesConservation Biology, 12
A. Dobson, J. Rodríguez, W. Roberts, D. Wilcove (1997)
Geographic Distribution of Endangered Species in the United StatesScience, 275
R. Carroll, C. Augspurger, A. Dobson, J. Franklin, G. Orians, W. Reid, Richard Tracy, D. Wilcove, John Wilson (1996)
Strengthening the Use of Science In Achieving the Goals of the Endangered Species Act: An Assessment By the Ecological Society of AmericaEcological Applications, 6
Daniel Rohlf (1991)
Six Biological Reasons Why the Endangered Species Act Doesn't Work—And What to Do About ItConservation Biology, 5
P. Ehrlich, E. Wilson (1991)
Biodiversity Studies: Science and PolicyScience, 253
B. Baker (1999)
Spending on the Endangered Species Act—too much or not enough?BioScience, 49
D. Goodman (1987)
Viable Populations for Conservation: The demography of chance extinction
T. Eisner, J. Lubchenco, E. Wilson, D. Wilcove, M. Bean (1995)
Building a Scientifically Sound Policy for Protecting Endangered SpeciesScience, 269
M. Soulé (1987)
Viable Populations for Conservation: List of contributors
T. Foin, S. Riley, A. Pawley, D. Ayres, T. Carlsen, P. Hodum, P. Switzer (1998)
IMPROVING RECOVERY PLANNING FOR THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIESBioScience, 48
H. Pulliam, B. Babbitt (1997)
Science and the Protection of Endangered SpeciesScience, 275
M. Restani, J. Marzluff (2001)
Avian Conservation under the Endangered Species Act: Expenditures versus Recovery PrioritiesConservation Biology, 15
B. Simoneit, R. Hites (1997)
No such correspondence.Science, 277 5329
C. Mann, M. Plummer (1995)
Noah's Choice: The Future of Endangered Species
B. Babbitt (1995)
Science: opening the next chapter of conservation history.Science, 267 5206
D. Wilcove, M. Mcmillan, Keith Winston (1993)
What Exactly Is an Endangered Species? An Analysis of the U.S. Endangered Species List: 1985–1991Conservation Biology, 7
S. Pimm, J. Diamond, T. Reed, G. Russell, J. Verner (1993)
Times to extinction for small populations of large birds.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 90 22
J. Scott, C. Kepler, C. Riper, S. Fefer (1988)
Conservation of Hawaii's Vanishing Avifauna Hawaiian birds provide one of the best, and most spectacular, showcases of divergent evolutionBioScience, 38
J. Scott, B. Csuti, J. Jacobi, J. Estes (1987)
Species RichnessA geographic approach to protecting future biological diversityBioScience, 37
J. Sidle (1998)
Arbitrary and Capricious Species ConservationConservation Biology, 12
R. Lande (1988)
Genetics and demography in biological conservation.Science, 241 4872
Forum Funding Extinction? Biological Needs and Political Realities in the Allocation of Resources to Endangered Species Recovery MARCO RESTANI AND JOHN M. MARZLUFF ur nation’s endangered species require AN EXISTING PRIORITY SYSTEM, WHICH Oimplementation of scientifically based recovery actions SHOULD GUIDE THE FISH AND WILDLIFE to attain sustainable population sizes and to avert extinc- tion. Crafting recovery approaches is often politically con- SERVICE IN ENDANGERED SPECIES RECOV- tentious and scientifically challenging, but it proceeds rea- sonably well through the writing of legislated recovery plans. ERY, IS INEFFECTIVE, AND CURRENT Implementation of planned recovery strategies, however, is much more difficult because it often curtails resource use by SPENDING PATTERNS DECREASE LONG- humans and requires adequate funding. Implementation de- TERM VIABILITY OF ISLAND SPECIES cisions ultimately are made by the US Fish and Wildlife Ser- vice (FWS) and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), both of which are tasked with administering the Endangered Species Act (ESA). However, many stakeholders with con- flicting goals, differing reward structures, and varying routes of influence are wedded to implementation decisions (Figure Marco Restani (e-mail: restanim@rocky.edu) is an assistant profes- 1). Those stakeholders—a public composed of resource users sor in the Department of Biology, Rocky Mountain
BioScience – Oxford University Press
Published: Feb 1, 2002
Read and print from thousands of top scholarly journals.
Already have an account? Log in
Bookmark this article. You can see your Bookmarks on your DeepDyve Library.
To save an article, log in first, or sign up for a DeepDyve account if you don’t already have one.
Copy and paste the desired citation format or use the link below to download a file formatted for EndNote
Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
All DeepDyve websites use cookies to improve your online experience. They were placed on your computer when you launched this website. You can change your cookie settings through your browser.