Date: August 10, 2016
Source: University of
Missouri-Columbia
The Endangered Species Act (ESA)
was enacted by Congress in 1973 to protect species threatened with extinction.
To receive protection, a species must first be listed as endangered or
threatened in a process that is administered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service. A two-year timeline for the multi-stage process, which starts with
submission of a petition and ends with a final rule in the Federal Register,
was established in 1982 by a Congressional amendment to the ESA. Now, a new
study from the University of Missouri found that many species are encountering
much longer wait times before receiving the endangered designation. Scientists
studying the ESA believe that delays could lead to less global biodiversity.
"While the law lays out a
process time of 2 years for a species to be listed, what we found is that, in
practice, it takes, on average, 12.1 years," said Emily Puckett, who
recently received her doctorate in the Division of Biological Sciences in the
MU College of Arts and Science. "Some species moved through the process in
6 months but some species, including many flowering plants, took 38 years to be
listed -- almost the entire history of the ESA."
Findings are based on an analysis
of 1,338 species listed for protection under the ESA between January 1974 and
October 2014. Researchers analyzed the amount of time it took each listed
species to move through the listing process. Researchers also analyzed whether
a species grouping influenced how quickly or slowly it moved through the
process. They found that vertebrates, including reptiles, fish, birds,
amphibians and mammals had a significantly shorter wait time than did
invertebrates and flowering plants. According to the authors, the finding
suggests a bias in the listing process that contradicts the policies of the
ESA.
"While the Service can account
for species groups in its prioritization system, it's not supposed to be
mammals versus insects versus ferns but, rather, how unique is this species
within all of the ecological system," Puckett said. "However, our
findings suggest some bias that skews the process toward vertebrates."
The delays in listing have real
world consequences for endangered species. In the study, the authors cite
previous studies that document species that went extinct due to a delay in the
process. Likewise, a species that gets listed quickly and has a conservation
plan put in place to protect it may have a chance to even bounce back. For
example, the island night lizard was listed in 1.19 years, whereas the prairie
fringed orchid took 14.7 years to be listed. The lizard has since recovered and
been removed from endangered status; the orchid is still considered threatened.
"The whole point of putting
species on the list is they already have been identified as threatened or
endangered with extinction," Puckett said. "Without being on the
list, we run the risk that these populations will go locally or globally
extinct and there will be nothing to save."
The study, "Taxa,
petitioning agency, and lawsuits affect time spent awaiting listing under the
U.S. Endangered Species Act," appears in the early online edition of the
journal Biological Conservation. The study was supported in part by a
University of Missouri Life Sciences Fellowship and by The Institute for Bird
Populations. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does
not necessarily represent the official views of the funding agencies.
Story Source:
The above post is reprinted from
materials provided by University of Missouri-Columbia. Note: Content may be
edited for style and length.
Journal Reference:
Emily E. Puckett, Dylan C.
Kesler, D. Noah Greenwald. Taxa, petitioning agency, and lawsuits affect time
spent awaiting listing under the US Endangered Species Act. Biological
Conservation, 2016; 201: 220 DOI: 10.1016/j.biocon.2016.07.005
Posts
