New Study: Half Of U.S. Endangered And Threatened Species Showed Stable Or Improving Trend, 1988 - 2002
August 11, 2005
(August 11, 2005 – Washington) A peer-reviewed analysis, posted online this week by the scientific journal Ecology Letters, concludes that more than 50% of U.S. species listed as endangered or threatened under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) before 2000 and almost two-thirds of species listed for 13 or more years have stabilized or are improving. Further, species whose recovery efforts received significant funding are more likely to be improving.
“The Endangered Species Act is doing its job,” said Dr. Tim Male, senior ecologist at Environmental Defense and one of the study’s two authors. “When given the resources they need, species are fighting their way back from the brink.”
The article, authored by Male and Environmental Defense Wildlife Chair Michael Bean, will appear in the September printed issue of Ecology Letters. The article can also be downloaded here in PDF format [http://www.backfromthebrink.org/inthespotlight.cfm?subnav=story&ContentID=4716] or viewed at Ecology Letters’ website – subscription required [http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/toc/ele/0/0].
The study combined 14 years of U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS) and National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) data from Reports to Congress on species’ status to get a single measure of each species’ recovery progress. This approach also allowed an examination of which variables might explain differences in recovery status. A key variable was government funding per species.
“These recoveries are happening not by accident, but because we are spending time and money to help these species,” Male said. “Species that received more funding are doing better than those that get little, and there is a shocking number of species that is being left out in the cold when it comes to funding.”
USFWS and NOAA report spending $1.6 billion on recovery efforts for individual species between 1989 and 2002, but 20 species (less than 0.2 % of those examined) received 52% of that funding. Meanwhile, an average of 275 species – 1 out of 4 examined - each received less than $1,000 a year in funding.
“How the ESA is implemented is critical,” Male said. “If Congress and the Administration would provide more funding and direct it more efficiently, the Act would be far more successful in recovering endangered species.”
The study provides a timely rebuttal to claims by some in Congress that the ESA has been a failure because more species have not been removed from the endangered list. Congressman Richard Pombo (R-CA) has drafted legislation that may be introduced this autumn and that would cripple many recovery efforts across the country.
This study follows two other Environmental Defense analyses that directly counter Congressman Pombo’s and other ESA critics’ faulty assumptions about the Act’s effectiveness. Click here to download PDF reports [http://www.backfromthebrink.org/inthespotlight.cfm?subnav=story&ContentID=4467].
“The loudest ESA critics define all progress short of complete recovery and delisting as failure,” said Michael Bean. “Such an all-or-nothing assessment classifies the 50% of now stable or improving species as failures, and ignores 30 years of improvement.”
By such a flawed standard, the bald eagle, which has rebounded from fewer than 400 breeding pairs in the lower 48 states in the 1960s to more than 8,000 breeding pairs today, would be considered a failure since it has not yet been removed from the list of threatened species.
“An approach that recognizes only two categories for each listed species—success or failure—doesn’t address the complex reality of wildlife recovery,” Bean said.
The following table shows the percentage of endangered species currently found in each state that had a net stable or improving status, nationally, between 1988 and 2002.
Rank | Best 25 States | % Endangered Species Stable or Improving* |
1 | Maine | 100.0% |
2 | Rhode Island | 83.3% |
3 | North Dakota | 80.0% |
4 | New Hampshire | 71.4% |
4 | South Dakota | 71.4% |
6 | Montana | 70.0% |
7 (tie) | Alaska | 66.7% |
7 (tie) | Colorado | 66.7% |
7 (tie) | Nebraska | 66.7% |
10 | Wisconsin | 64.3% |
11 (tie) | Massachusetts | 63.6% |
11 (tie) | Wyoming | 63.6% |
13 | Oklahoma | 62.5% |
14 | Arkansas | 61.5% |
15 (tie) | Idaho | 60.0% |
15 (tie) | Louisiana | 60.0% |
15 (tie) | Minnesota | 60.0% |
15 (tie) | New Mexico | 60.0% |
15 (tie) | Vermont | 60.0% |
20 | West Virginia | 58.8% |
21 | Iowa | 58.3% |
22 | Michigan | 57.9% |
23 | Missouri | 54.5% |
24 | New York | 50.0% |
24 | Washington | 50.0% |
Rank | Worst 25 States | % Endangered Species Stable or Improving* |
50 | Pennsylvania | 20.0% |
49 | Maryland | 26.7% |
48 | Indiana | 29.2% |
47 | Alabama | 29.3% |
46 | Hawaii | 29.9% |
45 | California | 33.0% |
43 (tie) | New Jersey | 33.3% |
43 (tie) | Tennessee | 33.3% |
42 | Texas | 33.8% |
41 | Oregon | 36.7% |
40 | Virginia | 37.3% |
39 | South Carolina | 37.9% |
38 | Georgia | 38.0% |
37 | Ohio | 38.1% |
36 | Florida | 38.6% |
35 | Kentucky | 39.5% |
34 | North Carolina | 40.0% |
33 | Mississippi | 42.3% |
30 (tie) | Connecticut | 44.4% |
30 (tie) | Delaware | 44.4% |
30 (tie) | Utah | 44.4% |
29 | Kansas | 45.5% |
28 | Nevada | 46.9% |
27 | Illinois | 48.0% |
26 | Arizona | 48.9% |
* Only includes species listed before 2000 and for which a status (improving, declining, stable) was reported in at least one report to Congress. Whales, seals and species reported as “unknown” are not included.