The Science and Politics of Listing

The process to list an endangered species is an attempt to determine if an animal or plant should be added to the ESA so that it will entitle to the full range of protections. The protections prohibit the killing, harming or otherwise "taking" a species. Moreover, critical habitat that contains features essential for the conservation or the future recovery of the species can be designated and be put under special management and protection.

This job of listing species was delegated to the Director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) from the Secretary of the Interior. There are two ways to list a species: (1) through petition, (2) through assessment. The petition process is open to public so any interested party can request to add or remove a species from the ESA. The assessment process is done by FWS biologists in determining if a species is qualified under the defined criteria.

According to the FWS publication, the following are the determining factors:
1. the present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of the species’ habitat or range
2. overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes
3. disease or predation
4. the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms
5. other natural or manmade factors affecting the species’ continued existence

The above criteria applied to both the petition and the assessment processes, and scientific information is essential in providing answers to four out of the five factors listed above. Objective information like the taxonomy, historic and current range, population information, habitat requirements is relatively easy to obtain and usually does not generate much controversies.

On the contrary, the other set of information such as a summary of the threats faced by the species, a determination and/or designation of critical habitat, examples of available conservation measures, and a preview of actions that would be prohibited can result in normative judgments and opinions. Therefore, during the public review period, most of the debates are concentrated in the different interpretation of what the actual threats are, what (if any) should be done for the species and how.

A peer review process is also required to ensure that the best scientific data are used. FWS contracts several peer reviewers to check for scientific accuracy of the documents and to make sure “good science” is part of the listing process.

Once a species is listed, the critical habitat designation is the most controversial item in the recovery plan. The ESA authorizes land purchases or exchanges for critical habitat, empowers federal agencies to carry out conservation programs in those areas and imposes fines on violators (including landowners of the critical habitat) whose actions pose any threat to the listed species.

As of 2/23/2008, there are 607 animal species and 744 plant species listed as threatened or endangered in the U.S. Among them, 508 species are listed with critical habitat.

The break down of the annual rate of listing by administration is roughly as follows: Nixon (7), Ford (21), Carter (33.75), Regan (35.5), George H. W. Bush (67.75), Clinton (58.25), George W. Bush (8 as of 12/31/2007). Based on this trend, there is no clear indication as to whether a Republican or a Democratic president is more supportive of species and habitat protection. However, it is obvious that George W. Bush is way far behind than his predecessors on the subject.