The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Tarnished Gold: The Endangered Species Act at 50
My article surveying the effectiveness of the ESA is now in print as part of an FIU symposium.
The FIU Law Review has just published my article Tarnished Gold: The Endangered Species Act at 50. Here is the abstract:
The ESA is arguably the most powerful and stringent federal environmental law on the books. Yet for all of the Act's force and ambition, it is unclear how much the law has done much to achieve its central purpose: the conservation of endangered species. The law has been slow to recover listed species and has fostered conflict over land use and scientific determinations that frustrate cooperative conservation efforts. The Article aims to take stock of the ESA's success and failures during its first fifty years, particularly with regard the conservation of species habitat on private land. While the Act authorizes powerful regulatory tools for species conservation, there are serious questions as to whether such tools are the most effective means of conserving species and the habitats on which they rely. Given that most species rely upon private land for their survival, the Act's ability to foster private land conservation is will affect the law's overall success.
This article is based upon a presentation that I made at the 2nd Annual Environment Forum: Science and Public Choice, sponsored by the Environmental Finance and Risk Management Program (EFRM) of Florida International University's Institute of Environment on March 8, 2023. The same issue of the FIU Law Review features other articles on environmental law and policy from the interdisciplinary symposium, including the transcript of remarks by Bret Stephens and articles by Matthew Burgess, Michael Buschbacher, Henrique Schneider, Nancy McLaughlin, Mario Loyola and Joanne Spalding and Andres Restrepo.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
‘slow to recover’
‘most species rely upon private land’
This sounds like an argument not that it’s ineffective, but that it’s not a panacea.
"Not a panacea" means that it's successful somewhere even if not everywhere. Is there any causal evidence clearly showing that it's ever worked?
Still waiting for a constructive alternative.
Property tax deduction for every mating/nesting pair you can document on your land, with an additional deduction for each young one you can document being there.
Rule being that you have to let the wildlife people (state or Fed) go verify if they want to, but automated cameras with GPS tags are good enough that you can get pictures of the Bald Eagle nest (without disturbing it).
And things like Ladyslippers, you can definitely photograph.
Even if this was a Federal refundable credit, it would work.
It would likely be far more effective to have incentives for people to save species rather than the current stick-based approach.
The most species-destructive practice ever invented, GMO agriculture, continues its essentially unregulated increase across private lands throughout the nation. What would be your suggestion for an incentive-based policy to constrain it?
There have been many alternatives proposed. There are many alternatives in practice in other jurisdictions. Not all of them work - but neither is this one. Doubling down on a failed practice will not suddenly make it start working. It's time to try something different.
It's actually the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 (16 U.S.C. 703-712) but it is why we have such a problem with both NONMIGRATORY Canada Geese and Black Back Gulls today.
Only NF&W folk can shoot either -- and these birds are destroying the ecosystem. The gulls have acidic feces that kills all the trees they roost on, and they eat all the little endangered sand birds. The geese are no better except that they foul public drinking water supplies and bring down jetliners. (Remember "Miracle on the Hudson"?)
There is no way to remove species from the protected list.
I was going to give normal my tree hugger response, but I noticed that your correctly named a species of gull, and did not say "seagull" as the less informed tend to do. So you get a pass.
The abstract needs a proofread and edit. There are multiple errors (an extra “much” in the second sentence; an out-of-place “is” near the end; etc.).