Recovery Plans and the Endangered Species Act: Are Criticisms Supported by Data?

Recovery Plans and the Endangered Species Act: Are Criticisms Supported by Data? To address recent criticisms of the recovery process of the U.S. Endangered Species Act and to search for ways to improve recovery efforts, we evaluated all recovery plans approved by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service as of August 1991. As expected with rare species, we found an overall lack of detailed biological information presented in recovery plans. Information on species’ distributions was most common, being mentioned in 88% of the original recovery plans, while information on species’ abundance, population demographics, and dynamics (in descending order) was much less available. Biological information tended to be sparsely distributed among taxonomic groups. We found that threatened and endangered species were at risk of extinction, yet differentiation between threatened and endangered species’ status in the wild and their recovery goals was not evident. Based on criteria developed by Mace and Lande (1991) (and depending on choice of minimum criteria), population‐based recovery goals set in recovery plans, if achieved, would not improve the level of endangerment for 60–73% of vertebrate species. With few exceptions, a taxonomic bias was detected in the recovery process that favored animals over plants, vertebrates over invertebrates, and birds and mammals over fish and herpetofauna. The average time in years between listing and original recovery plan approval, however, was significantly shorter for plants (4.1) than animals (11.3), and for invertebrates (6.3) than vertebrates (9.4). It took an average of at least five years between each step in the recovery plan process (from listing to recovery plan approval and subsequent revision). Only 3.5% of the species in recovery plans were identified as keystones, and little recent emphasis has been placed on recovery plans covering multiple species. Finally, though public education was recommended frequently (92%) in recovery plans, public attitude assessment was virtually ignored (<2%). We suggest possible explanations for some of these findings, discuss the implications in light of the Endangered Species Act reauthorization, and present recommendations for future recovery plans and conservation strategies. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Conservation Biology Wiley

Recovery Plans and the Endangered Species Act: Are Criticisms Supported by Data?

Loading next page...
 
/lp/wiley/recovery-plans-and-the-endangered-species-act-are-criticisms-supported-f07X73qJS9
Publisher
Wiley
Copyright
Copyright © 1995 Wiley Subscription Services, Inc., A Wiley Company
ISSN
0888-8892
eISSN
1523-1739
DOI
10.1046/j.1523-1739.1995.09010182.x
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

To address recent criticisms of the recovery process of the U.S. Endangered Species Act and to search for ways to improve recovery efforts, we evaluated all recovery plans approved by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service as of August 1991. As expected with rare species, we found an overall lack of detailed biological information presented in recovery plans. Information on species’ distributions was most common, being mentioned in 88% of the original recovery plans, while information on species’ abundance, population demographics, and dynamics (in descending order) was much less available. Biological information tended to be sparsely distributed among taxonomic groups. We found that threatened and endangered species were at risk of extinction, yet differentiation between threatened and endangered species’ status in the wild and their recovery goals was not evident. Based on criteria developed by Mace and Lande (1991) (and depending on choice of minimum criteria), population‐based recovery goals set in recovery plans, if achieved, would not improve the level of endangerment for 60–73% of vertebrate species. With few exceptions, a taxonomic bias was detected in the recovery process that favored animals over plants, vertebrates over invertebrates, and birds and mammals over fish and herpetofauna. The average time in years between listing and original recovery plan approval, however, was significantly shorter for plants (4.1) than animals (11.3), and for invertebrates (6.3) than vertebrates (9.4). It took an average of at least five years between each step in the recovery plan process (from listing to recovery plan approval and subsequent revision). Only 3.5% of the species in recovery plans were identified as keystones, and little recent emphasis has been placed on recovery plans covering multiple species. Finally, though public education was recommended frequently (92%) in recovery plans, public attitude assessment was virtually ignored (<2%). We suggest possible explanations for some of these findings, discuss the implications in light of the Endangered Species Act reauthorization, and present recommendations for future recovery plans and conservation strategies.

Journal

Conservation BiologyWiley

Published: Feb 1, 1995

There are no references for this article.

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