Avian Conservation under the Endangered Species Act: Expenditures versus Recovery Priorities

Avian Conservation under the Endangered Species Act: Expenditures versus Recovery Priorities Abstract: Budget constraints require the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to prioritize species for recovery spending. Each listed species is ranked according to the degree of threat it faces, its recovery potential, and its taxonomic distinctness. We analyzed state and federal government expenditures for recovery of threatened and endangered birds (n = 85 species) from 1992 to 1995 to determine if the priority system was being followed. Although recovery spending correlated with priority rank, priority rank explained <5% of the variation in spending. A small number of the same moderately ranked species dominated expenditures each year (41–79% of total annual budgets). Species with wide distributions, high recovery potential, and captive breeding programs received the most funding, and more funding than their priority ranks dictated. Island species received significantly less funding than expected based on priority rank. Twelve species, 10 of which resided on islands, received <$5000 at least once from 1992 to 1995. Recovery spending was unrelated to degree of threat, taxonomic distinctness, and migratory status. There also was no relationship between land‐purchase expenditures and priority ranks. To improve the relationship between recovery spending on threatened and endangered birds and their priority rank, significant changes need to be made within the private sector ( less litigation and special‐interest lobbying ), U.S. Congress (increased budget and reduced earmarking ), and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (restructuring of regional offices and increased accountability). http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Conservation Biology Wiley

Avian Conservation under the Endangered Species Act: Expenditures versus Recovery Priorities

Conservation Biology, Volume 15 (5) – Oct 20, 2001

Loading next page...
 
/lp/wiley/avian-conservation-under-the-endangered-species-act-expenditures-Y2eAPhuZkV
Publisher
Wiley
Copyright
Copyright © 2001 Wiley Subscription Services, Inc., A Wiley Company
ISSN
0888-8892
eISSN
1523-1739
D.O.I.
10.1111/j.1523-1739.2001.00186.x
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Abstract: Budget constraints require the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to prioritize species for recovery spending. Each listed species is ranked according to the degree of threat it faces, its recovery potential, and its taxonomic distinctness. We analyzed state and federal government expenditures for recovery of threatened and endangered birds (n = 85 species) from 1992 to 1995 to determine if the priority system was being followed. Although recovery spending correlated with priority rank, priority rank explained <5% of the variation in spending. A small number of the same moderately ranked species dominated expenditures each year (41–79% of total annual budgets). Species with wide distributions, high recovery potential, and captive breeding programs received the most funding, and more funding than their priority ranks dictated. Island species received significantly less funding than expected based on priority rank. Twelve species, 10 of which resided on islands, received <$5000 at least once from 1992 to 1995. Recovery spending was unrelated to degree of threat, taxonomic distinctness, and migratory status. There also was no relationship between land‐purchase expenditures and priority ranks. To improve the relationship between recovery spending on threatened and endangered birds and their priority rank, significant changes need to be made within the private sector ( less litigation and special‐interest lobbying ), U.S. Congress (increased budget and reduced earmarking ), and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (restructuring of regional offices and increased accountability).

Journal

Conservation BiologyWiley

Published: Oct 20, 2001

References

  • Biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities.
    Myers, Myers; Mittermeier, Mittermeier; Mittermeier, Mittermeier; Da Fonseca, Da Fonseca; Kent, Kent
  • Limitations of captive breeding in endangered species recovery.
    Snyder, Snyder; Derrickson, Derrickson; Beissinger, Beissinger; Wiley, Wiley; Smith, Smith; Toone, Toone; Miller, Miller
  • Management costs for endangered species.
    Wilcove, Wilcove; Chen, Chen

You’re reading a free preview. Subscribe to read the entire article.


DeepDyve is your
personal research library

It’s your single place to instantly
discover and read the research
that matters to you.

Enjoy affordable access to
over 18 million articles from more than
15,000 peer-reviewed journals.

All for just $49/month

Explore the DeepDyve Library

Search

Query the DeepDyve database, plus search all of PubMed and Google Scholar seamlessly

Organize

Save any article or search result from DeepDyve, PubMed, and Google Scholar... all in one place.

Access

Get unlimited, online access to over 18 million full-text articles from more than 15,000 scientific journals.

Your journals are on DeepDyve

Read from thousands of the leading scholarly journals from SpringerNature, Elsevier, Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford University Press and more.

All the latest content is available, no embargo periods.

See the journals in your area

DeepDyve

Freelancer

DeepDyve

Pro

Price

FREE

$49/month
$360/year

Save searches from
Google Scholar,
PubMed

Create folders to
organize your research

Export folders, citations

Read DeepDyve articles

Abstract access only

Unlimited access to over
18 million full-text articles

Print

20 pages / month

PDF Discount

20% off