Archive | April, 2011

Deer jumping over fence onto a road

Kentucky Governor Proclaims Watch Out for Wildlife Awareness Week

Deer jumping over fence onto a roadWatch Out for Wildlife Awareness Week will take place in Kentucky this September, thanks to Governor Steven L. Beshear’s Proclamation last week!

A car cruises along a winding, tree lined road.  The driver rounds a bend, sees a flash of fur and bright eyes glowing in the headlights. The wheel jerks and the tires screech.

This tragic scenario is becoming all too common on our roads, claiming the lives of millions of animals and hundreds of Americans every year. And the numbers are steadily rising.  While the number of all reported crashes has been holding steady, the number of reported wildlife-vehicle collisions has skyrocketed – now representing one out of every 20 reported motor vehicle collisions, and occurring every 26 seconds.

Kentucky is not exempt from these dangerous collisions. According to a State Farm 2010 study, the likelihood of a specific vehicle striking a deer in Kentucky is 1 in 161. Colliding with a deer or any other animal can also hit your pocketbook.  The average cost per accident is $7,000, adding up to $1 billion per year in property damage. Factoring in resources from law enforcement, emergency services, road maintenance crews and wildlife management personnel, the estimated annual cost to society associated with wildlife-vehicle collisions is nearly $8.4 billion.

In order to increase awareness in each state, the Habitat and Highways program asked governors to officially proclaim Watch Out for Wildlife Awareness Week in their states. This year the awareness week is from September 18-24 and the website, www.watchoutforwildlife.org, features tips for drivers, contact information in the case of a wildlife-vehicle collision, factsheets, multimedia presentations and materials for kids and teachers.

Defenders of Wildlife thanks Governor Beshear for helping us spread the word about these costly and dangerous collisions. For more information on wildlife-vehicle collisions please visit the Habitat and Highways website at www.habitatandhighways.org and the WOW website at www.watchoutforwildlife.org.

Posted in Imperiled Wildlife0 Comments

Experts call for stronger forest rule

In recent weeks, news coverage of the National Forest Management Act planning rule has been increasing as the public comment period comes to a close.  Here are just two excerpts from guest opinion pieces that have been published around the country:

In the Arizona Daily Star, U.S. Representative Raul Grijalva (D, AZ) wrote:

The current rule is built on the notion that the health of our national forests and their waters and wildlife are as important as other uses such as timber harvests. And the way to ensure that the Forest Service lives up to this standard is to require forest managers to protect and maintain healthy watersheds and wildlife populations. When the fish and wildlife are doing well, it means our national forests are being responsibly managed.

The Obama administration’s proposed rule, however, is muddy on which animals – and how many – will be protected and monitored. It also lacks clear direction and binding, enforceable standards to ensure the protection of watersheds and wildlife in our nation’s forests.

Instead, the new rule gives nearly complete discretion to forest managers to decide which animals are deserving of protection and which are not – potentially limiting the role of science and scientific experts in management decisions.

In the Denver Post, scientists Barry Noon and Dominick DellaSala wrote:

The Forest Services’ planning rule sets a bold vision but is short on particulars. It acknowledges the need for public input on forest planning and, because National Forests differ from place to place, maintains that forest plans should reflect some local differences. The agency also recognizes that management decisions need to be grounded in sound science. But the devil is in the details. A closer look reveals that science only has to be considered, not actually used in forest plans. And while forests differ, the rule should ensure that clean drinking water and fish and wildlife have solid protections on all Forest Service lands.

These articles and others (including this N.Y. Times editorial) all come to the same conclusion:  The proposed forest planning rules needs strengthening so that it can effectively protect wildlife, water, and other resources into the future.  Defenders of Wildlife will be submitting detailed comments next month laying out our vision for strengthening the planning rule – look for more information here.

Posted in National Forests, Public Lands0 Comments

Something exciting is happening in the Dominican Republic (and it is not the latest Merengue)

Something exciting is happening in the Dominican Republic (and it is not the latest Merengue)

It is conserving private lands for biodiversity!

Photo of Judy Boshoven at the workshop in the DR

Judy Boshoven, Manager, Living Lands Program with Mr. Jaime David Fernández Mirabal, Minister of the Environment of the Dominican Republic and Ginny Heinsen of Centro para el Desarrollo Agropecuario y Forestal, Inc at the workshop to discuss private lands conservation in the Dominican Republic.

The Minister of the Environment of the Dominican Republic is keen on the idea – so much so that he invited representatives from organizations involved in private lands conservation in their respective countries, including the Living Lands Program of Defenders, to present at a workshop  to conservation groups, environmental agencies, landowners, journalists and business people in Santo Domingo recently.  All involved in planning the event are hopeful that it is the start of something good.

Conservation of biodiversity on private property has taken off in the US over the past 25 or so years, but in Latin America the concept is relatively new.  However, country by country, governments and non-profit conservation organizations throughout Latin America have been working to put the pieces in place to be able to allow private landowners to voluntarily protect the natural resources on their property. Private lands conservation has taken many forms. In the US, the most common form is the conservation easement, which, very simply put, is a legal agreement between a landowner and a land trust or government agency that permanently limits uses of the land in order to protect its conservation values. This concept is not always easily transferable to Latin America.

For one, in the US there are state enabling statutes, as well as strong tax incentives for landowners to donate an easement on their property. To get the federal tax benefits, the conservation easement must be perpetual.  Agencies and land trusts may also purchase the conservation easement (development rights) from the landowner.  In contrast, most Latin American countries do not yet have the legal framework or the incentive programs in place to protect private land at the scale that we have in the US.

But still there has been a growing impetus for private land conservation in Latin America over the past 20 years. Costa Rica and Mexico are among the countries that have led the way. A number of Latin American countries have passed new laws that recognize the creation of private nature preserves.  Nonprofit organizations have inventively used existing laws to create easement between two landowners, but not for traditional purpose of a right of way, but instead to protect the conservation values of the property.

In the US, paying less tax is an attractive incentive for landowners to put their property under a conservation easement. However, tax rates are generally lower in many Latin American countries. Therefore, tax breaks might not be a strong incentive for landowners in Latin America, and governments may be apprehensive about initiating programs for landowners to pay less. Instead, it may be more feasible to create payment for ecosystem services between, for example, private landowners and a water utility or hydro-electric facility.

Another limiting factor is the lack of clear land tenure in the Dominican Republic and in other Latin American countries. In the US, due diligence for a conservation easement project includes a review of the title and a survey of the boundaries of the property.  In the Dominican Republic, as in many Latin American countries, obtaining this documentation may be an insurmountable challenge.

Aside from Merengue, the Dominican Republic has a lot to be proud of – 104 national protected areas covering 25% of the country. Although it will not be an easy mountain to climb, establishing a program to protect biodiversity of private lands will be critical to connecting these public lands into a biologically diverse network.

Posted in Paying for Conservation2 Comments

thumbnail_scorecard_100_1

Federal government sustainability performance scorecards

By: Timothy Male and Noah Matson

On October 5, 2009, President Obama signed Executive Order 13514 committing the federal government to “lead by example” on sustainability issues including energy and water use and solid waste reduction.  As summarized by the press statement accompanying the Executive Order, it “requires Federal agencies to set a 2020 greenhouse gas emissions reduction target within 90 days; increase energy efficiency; reduce fleet petroleum consumption; conserve water; reduce waste; support sustainable communities; and leverage Federal purchasing power to promote environmentally-responsible products and technologies.”

As we have reported in previous blog posts, the Executive Order also included provisions on adaptation.

The Executive Order (E.O.)  is sweeping and complicated, and parts of it read like international climate change negotiations, with each federal agency or department developing its own emissions reductions targets for “class 1, 2 and 3” emissions types.  We’ll define those later – the important thing to know is that the E.O. sets up a whole new infrastructure within the federal government to meet concrete sustainability performance objectives that will greatly reduce the government’s environmental footprint, and through its massive purchasing power, will also influence the broader market.  For this the administration deserves credit. A year and a half later, on April 19, 2011, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) which helps oversee the program, released sustainability “scorecards” for 24 agencies as a measure of performance and progress in meeting sustainability goals as the agencies begin revising their annual sustainability performance plans.

Below we have compiled all of the scorecards into one infographic.

As can be expected from such a sweeping program among such diverse federal agencies as the Department of the Interior and the Social Security Administration, performance is mixed in meeting the President’s sustainability agenda.  Though the administration should be given credit for rating its performance and making that information available to the public, the administration didn’t provide a single display for all the scorecards and their information.  They provide links to each agency’s sustainability website, which of course are all different, and the scorecards on some are hard to find.  The visualization on this site makes it easy to compare agencies’ performance against each other.

Definitions:

“Scope 1, 2, and 3” emissions mean; (i) scope 1: direct greenhouse gas emissions from sources that are owned or controlled by the Federal agency; (ii) scope 2: direct greenhouse gas emissions resulting from the generation of electricity, heat, or steam purchased by a Federal agency; and (iii) scope 3: greenhouse gas emissions from sources not owned or directly controlled by a Federal agency but related to agency activities such as vendor supply chains, delivery services, and employee travel and commuting; Click here for the criteria the federal government used to evaluate success for each category.

Posted in Climate Change, Energy0 Comments

Osprey from New Jersey

Conservation Registry creates meeting ground between conservation and business

Defenders’ Conservation Registry recently teamed up with the Wildlife Habitat Council to create a portal dedicated to the Council’s mission to bring business and conservation together to restore and enhance wildlife habitat. The Wildlife Habitat Council’s corporate partners usually look within their own borders to find conservation and restoration opportunities. However, the Wildlife Habitat Council’s biodiversity and ecosystem-based approach stresses the importance of viewing efforts within the context of regional corridors, conservation priorities, and connectivity. They are using the Conservation Registry to help businesses find opportunities they may not have otherwise have found. In fact, the Council recently helped one of their business partners find a project area in New Jersey. An aggregates company – which provides raw materials for road development such as concrete – was looking for recommendations that would improve their habitat initiatives in the state.

Osprey from New JerseyThe Wildlife Habitat Council searched for opportunities for conservation that complemented other activities already taking place in the area, thus maximizing the positive impact of the biodiversity initiative. The Conservation Registry was able to provide visual context, identify nearby projects and present this data visually. Using the Registry’s mapping tool, the Wildlife Habitat Council commented on how they could click on different map layers to find out where the closest forest lands were, and who owned them, and also find other successful projects in the target area and see who managed them.

This is a prime example of how the Conservation Registry can be used to help find future opportunities for on-the-ground investment that is strategic and collaborative. Rather than accessing six web sites, the Wildlife Habitat Council accessed one, found the information they needed, and helped the company get connected to others in the conservation community.

Posted in In the Field, Paying for Conservation0 Comments

Using Payments for Watershed Services for Conservation

Ecosystem services markets reveal the value of benefits provided by natural systems and provide incentives for landowners to provide more of these beneficial services. Water has emerged as a strong rallying point for the development of ecosystem service payment initiatives. The State of Watershed Payments report released by Ecosystem Marketplace catalogued 288 watershed payment programs and markets across the world. These initiatives focus on getting the beneficiaries of ecosystem services to pay for the services they consume, and incentivizing producers of services to implement practices and strive for outcomes that improve the quality and quantity of water services.

Water markets have been driven by regulatory standards designating acceptable levels of water quality such as the Clean Water Act and financial or in-kind incentives to land managers to adopt practices linked improvements in water quality.  Voluntary programs have been taking hold in the U.S.  The classic example is the New York City and the Catskills watershed program in which the New York City paid upstream farmers in the watershed to acquire land and implement practices to reduce sediment rather than pay for construction of an expensive new water treatment plant. More recently the Cities of Santa Fe and Denver have implemented similar models protecting upstream water supply.

The Santa Fe Municipal Watershed Restoration Project funds costs of land management in the watershed. In an area that is mostly forested, fire was identified as the biggest threat to water quality. The cost to maintain restored forest for 20 years was estimated at $4.3 million, whereas the savings of avoiding a future fire amount to $22 million – you do the math, the forest enhancement clearly saves money for the taxpayers of Santa Fe.

In Denver, Colorado the model was scaled up to include five watersheds encompassing two forests in 2010. Denver Water, the utility company, and the Forest Service entered into a 5-year $ 33 million partnership to implement projects to reduce the risk of wildfire, restoring wild areas and, minimize erosion and sedimentation of reservoirs.

Challenges still remain the biggest among these is the issue of measurable outcomes. While the amount of improvement in water quality from specific practices is not clear, these programs have been able to get around this by basing the value of improved water quality on the land management costs (which were clearly defined). For example, in Santa Fe the program was preceded by an environmental impact assessment in the watershed.

Posted in Uncategorized0 Comments

FWS_Indian Paintbrush

Plant capacity to adapt to climate change

Indian Paintbrush. Photo: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Most models of how climate change affects species apply projected climate conditions to the species’ assumed preferred climate conditions based on its current range.  Move the climate envelope, and it follows that the species will have to track that to survive.  But our understanding of species adaptive capacity, or their ability to change and respond to new climate conditions, is virtually nil for the vast majority of life on earth.

Two recent studies shed some light on this important issue.  Both report on phenotypic changes of plants in response to climate change.  However, they both point to future challenges in planning and adapting to climate change.

The first study, by Nicotra et al. (2010) brings attention to the importance of phenotypic plasticity in the ability of plants to respond to climate change.  Phenotypic plasticity is the mechanism that allows plants to respond to environmental changes, and depends on the genetic arsenal of the plant species.  The paper evaluates current molecular and genetic mechanisms underlying a species’ ability to change relevant to climate change, and the authors argue that, in the context of rapid climate change, phenotypic plasticity can be a crucial determinant of plant responses, both in the short- and long-term.  High levels of genetic variation within natural populations improve the potential to withstand and adapt to environmental changes related to climatic change.

According to the authors, because it is hard to predict patterns of plasticity in key traits in response to climate change, it is important to identify the traits more likely to show relevant responses to changing environmental conditions, and predict what species would likely exhibit those plastic responses.  The traits could then be tested under various climate conditions to determine the actual outcome and extent of plasticity.   Among the various functional traits listed for assessment of plant response to climate change is altering of plant stoma, the little pores in plant leaves that allow gas exchange.

That leads to the second study of this post, by Lammertsma et al. (2011).  The authors describes how nine common plant species found in Florida respond to increased CO2 in the atmosphere by altering the number, structure, and functioning of their stomata.  Plant metabolism and water content is mediated through stomata, and when CO2 concentration in the atmosphere increases, a main response is to change stomata in various ways in order to decrease transpiration and loss of water.  This response has been observed in short term studies in greenhouses and controlled environments, where plants were submitted to increased levels of CO2 and responded in that manner.  However, in this study, the authors show that this type of response can be enhanced by growing leaves with reduced stomatal density and altered stomatal structure.  Furthermore (and more importantly), the response is species specific, and individual plants species alter the number, structure, and functioning of their stomata in different ways to obtain similar metabolic results.  This strongly suggests that plants can and do adapt to changing conditions to optimize their individual survival.  In fact, an accompanying paper by De Boer et al. (2011) states that although the process is likely to be eventually limited by species-specific limits to phenotypic plasticity, their model predicts that adaptation will continue beyond double current CO2 concentrations.

These two papers together describe a scenario where (1) plants will adapt to climate change as much as their plasticity allows them; (2) their plasticity allows them to respond to increased atmospheric CO2 in different ways that lead to the same result, i.e., reduced transpiration; and (3) as a result of increased CO2, plants will be releasing less water vapor in the atmosphere.

The next logic step – if one is thinking in terms of climate change and of global hydrological balance – is that, if transpiration decreases, plants retain more water, and therefore there may be more moisture in the ground.  However, there will also be less plant-released moisture in the atmosphere.  And depending on the location, if there are more drought events and/or less rainfall, that may mean less moisture in the ground eventually.  That in turn can affect the hydrologic cycle and ecosystems in complex and innumerable ways.

What does that mean in terms of conservation and climate adaptation planning?  That one needs to look beyond projections of Global Circulation Models (GCMs), vulnerability assessments, and predicted effects on habitats and species.  Understanding phenotypic plasticity in the context of adaptive capacity is extremely important in climate adaptation planning, and having more scientific resources geared towards species responses to specific climate-related changes might be a wise investment.  The more comprehensive the approach, evaluation, and analysis conducted before the development of adaptation strategies, the more effective they are likely to be.  Incorporating a climate change component in any conservation plan is an important step to ensure comprehensiveness.  Granted, there is a lot of “what ifs”, and it is practically impossible to imagine and address all of them, but if we address as many as we possibly can, we greatly increase the probability of a positive outcome.

These studies provide some hope that climate change is not all doom and gloom, and that given the chance, some species may be able to locally adapt to climate change successfully.  However, as stated in the second study, the adaptive capacity of species will eventually be limited by their available genotypic “tool box”.  And at current rates of change, and without global curbs on greenhouse gas emissions, any adaptive capacity is likely to be exhausted.

Posted in Climate Change3 Comments

5474324308_1931ee7a061

Helping Species Adapt to Climate Change Through Critical Habitat Designations

Western Snowy Plover. USFWS Pacific Southwest Region.

On March 22, 2011, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service proposed to more than double the total acres of critical habitat for the Pacific Coast population of the Western Snowy Plover (Charadrius alexandrines nivosus).  This proposal is important because it marks one of the few situations where the Service is seeking to expand an existing critical habitat designation to help a species adapt to climate change.

The plover forages and nests along coastal and inland beaches.  Its coastal habitat will be degraded and lost to sea-level rise resulting from climate change.  To partially compensate for these losses, the proposed critical habitat rule extends the current critical habitat boundaries further inland where appropriate.  The plover is expected to use these inland areas and adjust its use of nesting habitat.  Some of these inland areas are not currently occupied by the plover, but protecting them helps ensure they can be occupied the future.

I applaud the Service for taking this concrete step to help a species adapt to climate change.  In fact, the new release for the proposed rule states that although the Service’s “policy direction in 2005 emphasized the designation of occupied habitat for critical habitat designations,” the “current policy direction encourages more consideration of the role that unoccupied habitat can provide for the conservation of the species to better support recovery.”  And the proposed rule explicitly acknowledges that “limiting the designation of critical habitat to those areas that were considered occupied at the time of listing is no longer sufficient to conserve the species because…[w]e anticipate a further loss of habitat in the future due to sea-level rise resulting from climate change.”

In December of 2010, the Service responded in a similar manner in its final revised critical habitat rule for the Preble’s meadow jumping mouse (Zapus hudsonius preblei).  There, the revised critical habitat designation was intended to adequately address “likely climate change scenarios by designating critical habitat areas throughout the north-south range of the [mouse] in Colorado that vary in elevation and in stream size.”  Some of these redesignated areas actually exceeded the amount of critical habitat called for in the 2003 preliminary draft recovery plan for the species.

While these recent critical habitat decisions are encouraging, there are several related issues that the Service will need to grapple with in the near future.  First is how to help less mobile species, such as amphibians and certain insects, adapt to climate change.  While birds and large mammals can easily move further inland in response to rising sea levels, less mobile species will likely require more help.  Second is whether the Service should designate critical habitat outside of a species’ historic range, where doing so would help the species adapt to climate change.  Climate change will continue to reshuffle ecosystems dramatically, which means that our notions of where species “belong” may need to shift as well.  Third is whether the Service will find that critical habitat designation is “not prudent” for species for which the prospects of survival and recovery grow increasingly dim.  This is an unfortunate challenge given the magnitude of anticipated climate change impacts.

Finally, it is worth noting the connection between range shifts and the current House bill that California Representative Joe Baca has introduced to delisting certain endangered species.  As discussed in a prior blog post:

  • A second implication [of the bill] is that a species could become a “limited listed species” simply by shifting its range since the time of listing.  Shifts can happen for several reasons, including climate change, stochastic events, and habitat alteration.  For these shifting species, it may not be “reasonably possible” to determine whether they have been extirpated from their range at the time of listing.  As a result, the bill could consign the species to “extinction”—even if they clearly occupy areas outside of their range at the time of listing.

This bill clearly ignores the best available science on climate change in favor of political expediency.

Posted in Climate Change, Imperiled Wildlife2 Comments

Federal Subsidies for Members of Congress

The Environmental Working Group broke its latest story on the 23 Members of Congress (or their spouses) who are recipients of U.S. agriculture subsidies .  Between 1995 and 2009, six Democrats received an estimated $489,000 in payments and 17 Republicans received $5.3 million.

Combining EWG’s report with the Center for Responsive Politics database tracking the personal fortunes of Members of Congress, you can see that there are more than a dozen members with a net worth of more than a million dollars also receiving agriculture subsidies.  Of note, Congresswoman Vicky Hartzler (R-MO) and her husband likely received more than $460,000 in support and Iowa Congressman Tom Latham received $330,000.  Their average net worth was $8.4 million and $5.3 million, respectively.

You can listen to Congresswoman Harzler talk to ABC News about her farm subsidies here .

Posted in Agriculture0 Comments

Baca Bill to Delist Many Endangered Species

Baca Bill to Delist Many Endangered Species

On March 11th, Representative Joe Baca, a California democrat, introduced a bill that would delist many species on the Endangered Species Act (ESA).  Under the bill, ESA protections for these species would automatically expire 15 years after their listing date.  This arbitrary deadline overrides the ESA’s science-based process for delisting species and might doom to extinction the many species that recover slowly.

Delhi Sands flower-loving fly. Copyright Joe Sartore.

The bill stems from many years of tension in southern California between conserving the Delhi Sands flower-loving fly and developing its last sliver of habitat.  The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service listed the species as endangered in 1993, but has acquired very limited information on its population status.  This is because the animal is extremely cryptic and rare.  As a result, the Service has been unable to establish any criteria for delisting it from the ESA.

To Baca, continued listing is a burden.  But instead of working constructively with the Service to improve the status of the flower-loving fly so that it can be delisted properly, Baca has decided to circumvent the ESA’s delisting standards and eviscerate the law.  The bill amends section 4 of the ESA so that all “endangered” species must be considered extinct if they meet several conditions.  One is that the species is listed as “endangered” for 15 or more years.  A second is that the Service has not found a “substantial increase” in the species’ population during the 15 year period.  A third is that the species is a “limited listed species,” which means a species for which it is not reasonably possible to determine whether the species has been extirpated from its range at the time of listing because not “all individuals” of the species were identified at that time.

As an initial matter, it is important to understand some of the ambiguities in the bill, which would affect how broadly it could be applied.  One ambiguity is the requirement for a “substantial increase” in a species’ population, an undefined term.  Another ambiguity comes from the awkward definition of “limited listed species.”  As noted above, the definition refers to the need to identifying “all” individuals of a species at the time of listing.  This requirement seems meaningless because it is nearly impossible to count every individual at that time.

If the bill becomes law, it would have several key implications for conservation.  First, it would create an unrealistic burden of proof for continued protection of many species under the ESA.  The Service does not have enough information on many species to show a “substantial increase” in their populations—even if this increase has actually occurred.  The lack of information is largely attributable to the cryptic nature of many species and the inadequate resources devoted to monitoring and recovering species.  Even if the Service gains the capacity to monitor populations, 15 years is not enough time for many species to show a substantial improvement.  In the case of the flower-loving fly, over 97 percent of its suitable habitat has been destroyed by agricultural, residential, and commercial uses over the last two centuries.  Expecting substantial improvements in 15 years is unrealistic.  The bill exploits all of these weaknesses by creating a burden of proof for continued protection that may be impossible to satisfy for many species.

A second implication is that a species could become a “limited listed species” simply by shifting its range since the time of listing.  Shifts can happen for several reasons, including climate change, stochastic events, and habitat alteration.  For these shifting species, it may not be “reasonably possible” to determine whether they have been extirpated from their range at the time of listing.  As a result, the bill could consign the species to “extinction”—even if they clearly occupy areas outside of their range at the time of listing.

Third, while the flower-loving fly may be an uncharismatic species to some people, the bill would also delist many majestic species that garner greater public appeal.  Examples include the Gulf Coast jaguarundi, Alabama sturgeon, and White sturgeon, all of which the Service has very limited information on.

Alabama sturgeon. Copyright USGS.

Even if the bill does not become law, it raises several key issues about how the ESA has been implemented.  First is the lack of any delisting criteria in the flower-loving fly’s recovery plan.  This deficiency prevents the public from seeing “an end in sight,” contributing to the resentment that motivates anti-ESA legislation.  Second is that the flower-loving fly has not benefited from enough conservation measures.  This is largely a function of inadequate funding, a problem that surfaces with depressing regularity for most ESA species.  To the bill’s credit, it recognizes that simply stopping development is insufficient to recover the flower-loving fly, which also requires proactive recovery measures.  Third is the absence of monitoring and population data for the flower-loving fly.  This is not a problem limited to cryptic species; the Service does not have these data for many easier to detect species as well.  As we all examine ways to improve the ESA, we should be cognizant of these issues that are likely to inspire other efforts to undermine the world’s most comprehensive and effective law for protecting imperiled wildlife.

Posted in Imperiled Wildlife0 Comments


dotWild is the blog of scientists and policy experts at Defenders of Wildlife, a national, nonprofit membership organization dedicated to the protection of all native animals and plants in their natural communities.

www.defenders.org