Search

Identifying species at risk of extinction is essential for effective conservation priority-setting in the face of accelerating biodiversity loss. However, the levels of risk that lead to endangered or threatened listing decisions under the United States Endangered Species Act (ESA) are not well defined. We used a Bayesian population modeling approach to estimate levels of risk consistently for 14 marine species previously assessed under the ESA. For each species, we assessed the risks of declining below various abundance thresholds over various time horizons. We found that high risks of declining below 250 mature individuals within five generations matched well with ESA endangered status, while number of populations was useful for distinguishing between threatened and 'not warranted' species. The risk assessment framework developed here could enable more consistent, predictable, and transparent ESA status assessments in the future. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Rapid change in wildlife populations can challenge managers to promote species conservation while maintaining public support for wildlife. Wolf management during recolonization in Wisconsin, United States demonstrates the complexities of inconsistent management authority, public attitudes, and illegal killing of wolves. State management authority to control depredating wolves oscillated during a period of intense sociopolitical conflict over wolf status under the federal Endangered Species Act. We demonstrate that swings in wolf status led to inconsistent management authority, declining local public support for wolves, and possibly the unintended backlash of more illegal kills and a legislatively mandated public wolf hunt. A new Wildlife Management Matrix illustrates an idealized relationship between lethal control options and perceptions of wildlife. Moderating the sociopolitical drivers of swings in policy over short periods is essential to allow wildlife managers greater flexibility in achieving species-specific goals. To our knowledge, this research provides the first demonstrated link between illegal wildlife killing and management authority under the Endangered Species Act, and suggests that illegal behavior may be moderated with responsible and effective wildlife management programs. We recommend states avoid prescriptive harvest legislation, and we suggest a more incremental shift from federal to state management authority. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Many species listed under the US Endangered Species Act (ESA) face continuing threats and will require intervention to address those threats for decades. These species, which have been termed conservation-reliant, pose a challenge to the ESA's mandate for recovery of self-sustaining populations. Most references to conservation-reliant species by federal agencies involve the restoration of population connectivity. However, the diverse threats to connectivity faced by different species have contrasting implications in the context of the ESA's mandate. For species facing long-term threats from invasive species or climate change, restoration of natural dispersal may not be technically feasible in the foreseeable future. For other species, restoration of natural dispersal is feasible, but carries economic and political cost. Federal agencies have used a broad definition of conservation reliance to justify delisting of species in the latter group even if they remain dependent on artificial translocation. Distinguishing the two groups better informs policy by distinguishing the technical challenges posed by novel ecological stressors from normative questions such as the price society is willing to pay to protect biodiversity, and the degree to which we should grow accustomed to direct human intervention in species' life cycles as a component of conservation in the Anthropocene Epoch. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The United States conserves imperiled species with the Endangered Species Act (ESA). No studies have evaluated the ESA's coverage of species on the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List, which is an accepted standard for imperiled species classification. We assessed the ESA's coverage of IUCN-listed birds, mammals, amphibians, gastropods, crustaceans, and insects, and studied the listing histories of three bird species and Pacific salmonids in more detail. We found that 40.3% of IUCN-listed U.S. birds are not listed by the ESA, and most other groups are underrecognized by >80%. Species with higher IUCN threat levels are more frequently recognized by the ESA. Our avian case studies highlight differences in the objectives, constraints, and listing protocols of the two institutions, and the salmonids example shows an alternative situation where agencies were effective in evaluating and listing multiple (related) species. Vague definitions of endangered and threatened, an inadequate ESA budget, and the existence of the warranted but precluded category likely contribute to the classification gap we observed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Concerns over red wolf (Canis rufus) extinction caused by hybridization with coyotes (C. latrans) led to the capture and removal of remnant wild wolves from southwestern Louisiana and southeastern Texas, United States, during the 1970s. Here we show that despite decades of unmitigated hybridization, and declaration of endangered red wolves as functionally extinct in the wild, red wolf mitochondrial or nuclear DNA ancestry persists in ∼55% of contemporary wild canids sampled in southwestern Louisiana. Surprisingly, one individual had 78–100% red wolf ancestry, which is within the range for 75% red wolf, red wolf backcross, or putative red wolf, depending on estimation method. Our findings bolster support for designation of red wolves as a distinct species, demonstrate a critical need for the United States Government to consider adopting an existing but unimplemented hybrid policy, and suggest that immediate reassessment of canid management and taxonomic designation in southwestern Louisiana may be warranted. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Recovery planning is an essential part of implementing the U.S. Endangered Species Act (ESA), but conservationists and government agencies recognize challenges with the current planning process. Using data from all U.S. domestic and transboundary ESA‐listed species, we quantify the completeness, timeliness, age, and other variation among ESA recovery plans over the past 40 years. Among eligible listed taxa (n = 1,548), nearly one‐fourth lack final recovery plans; half of plans have taken >5 years to finalize after listing; half of recovery plans are more than 20 years old; and there is significant variation in planning between agencies, and among regions and taxonomic groups. These results are not unexpected given dwindling budgets and an increasing number of species requiring protection, but underscore the need for systematic improvements to recovery planning. We discuss solutions—some already underway—that may address some of the shortcomings and help improve recovery action implementation for threatened and endangered species. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The absence of a rigorous mechanism for prioritizing investment in endangered species management is a major implementation hurdle affecting recovery. Here, we present a method for prioritizing strategies for endangered species management based on the likelihood of achieving species' recovery goals per dollar invested. We demonstrate our approach for 15 species listed under Canada's Species at Risk Act that co‐occur in Southwestern Saskatchewan. Without management, only two species have >50% probability of meeting recovery objectives; whereas, with management, 13 species exceed the >50% threshold with the implementation of just five complementary strategies at a cost of $126m over 20 years. The likelihood of meeting recovery objectives rarely exceeded 70% and two species failed to reach the >50% threshold. Our findings underscore the need to consider the cost, benefit, and feasibility of management strategies when developing recovery plans in order to prioritize implementation in a timely and cost‐effective manner. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We used data from a 2014 survey (n = 1,287) of U.S. residents and recent polls to assess how public support for the U.S. Endangered Species Act (ESA) changed over time, and whether protecting controversial species affects support for the law. We assessed support for the ESA, trust in the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), and attitudes toward wolves across three regions with different experiences in conserving gray wolves through the ESA. We found: (a) ∼4 in 5 Americans support the ESA, whereas ∼1 in 10 oppose; (b) support for the ESA remained stable over the past two decades; (c) strong majorities (>68%) of individuals identifying with 8 special interest types support the ESA; and (d) no differences in support for the ESA, attitudes toward wolves, or trust in the FWS across regions. Results suggest that protecting species—even controversial predators—does not weaken support for protective legislation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]