Among the Endangered Species Act's successes has been the recovery of the bald eagle. How successful will the act be in the future?/Rebecca Latson file

Political attacks and funding woes have at times hamstrung the Endangered Species Act over the past 50 years, and yet the key legislation for the conservation of species has endured and recorded remarkable successes.

Bald eagles can still be seen wheeling overhead in skies across the country, the gray wolf has been returned to Yellowstone National Park, California condors stretch their considerable wings over canyon country, and black-footed ferrets can be found in the Plains. The bog turtle is hanging on, as is the Florida panther, and desert bighorn sheep.

"The Endangered Species Act as it was written clearly is our best tool for doing what it does: prevent the extinction of our species and recover them to the point where they no longer need the protections of the Act," said Lindsay Rosa, vice president of conservaton research and innovation for Defenders of Wildlife and co-author of the organization's report on the current state and future of the act.  "It is a success. Over 95 percent of the species that were listed under the Endangered Species Act and are afforded its protections are still with us here today, which is an impressive feat for for this law."

And yet, the Earth's biodiversity is in crisis. The 2022 State of the Birds report from Cornell University declared the loss of nearly 3 billion birds in the United States and Canada over a 50-year period dating to 1970. While Florida panthers have rebounded from an estimated 20-30 individuals in the 1970s, the species nevertheless just might be the most endangered mammalian species in North America, with a current population of around 200. Last fall the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, which administers the ESA along with the National Marine Fisheries Service, declared that 21 species — birds, fish, mussels, plants, and even a bat — were extinct.

Political Interference

Challenges faced by plant and animal species continually arise, and the ESA is often viewed as the savior in that it was designed to dictate protections for species in danger of going extinct.

When Congress passed the act in 1973, language on the opening pages of the legislation stated that various "species of fish, wildlife, and plants in the United States have been rendered extinct as a consequence of economic growth and development untampered by adequate concern and conservation…other species of fish, wildlife, and plants have been so depleted in numbers that they are in danger of or threatened with extinction. . . these species of fish, wildlife, and plants are of esthetic, ecological, educational, historical, recreational, and scientific value to the Nation and its people. The United States has pledged itself as a sovereign state in the international community to conserve to the extent practicable the various species of fish or wildlife and plants facing extinction..."

That pledge has been tested over the years, including recent years when Congress saw many attempts to weaken the ESA. During the past decade some members have tried to prohibit ESA listing of the greater sage-grouse through riders attached to appropriations bills. They did it again in the House with the chamber's latest approach to funding government with language that bans the Interior Department from using any of its budget to "issue a proposed or final rule" extending ESA protection to the greater sage-grouse. The GOP-led House also added language to the appropriations bill to remove ESA protections for the gray wolf, to block Interior funding to pay for "an environmental impact statement for, or to implement, administer, or enforce, the North Cascades Ecosystem Grizzly Bear Restoration Plan," and to direct the Interior Department to remove ESA protections from the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem grizzly bear population.

Other sections of the bill would block or hinder protections for the North Atlantic right whale, the Northern long-eared bat, and the Lesser prairie chicken.

In a brand new publication from Defenders of Wildlife, The Endangered Species Act: The Next 50 Years and Beyond written by Rosa and her colleague, Andrew Carter, the two point out that "In 2019, the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) listed land-use change, climate change, pollution, species exploitation and invasive species as the five direct drivers of global biodiversity loss."

Perhaps politics should be included as a sixth driver.

"Science is what's supposed to be at the core of [the ESA's] decision-making and not politics," said Rosa during the Traveler's weekly podcast. "I think it's a key part of the Endangered Species Act and definitely what has led to the recovery of these species. It's the science and the understanding of the threats and the biological and ecological needs of these species. And understanding when they need to be listed and protected certainly also should be based on the science and not on the politics. But it is something that we have seen that there are certain certain figures, and obviously there have been certain actions in this past year, to try and repeal or prevent some of those species from getting the proper protections that they need."

"You look at the Greater sage-grouse," added Carter, "that rider has been added for approximately 10 years. And we see the Greater sage-grouse has declined during that time period. We see what the cost of this political interference can be."

During President Trump's term his administration actively worked to weaken the ESA, passing regulations that both reduced the amount of habitat that could be protected for threatened and endangered species and which allowed for economics to come into play when decisions are made.

"When you weaken the Endangered Species Act, and those regulations tried to weaken some really fundamental parts of it, the species are always going to feel the harm," said Carter. "I think we've seen that over the past several years. And we've seen how those regulations have kind of limited what the Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service can do when they're trying to protect the species."

The Agencies' Role

Beyond politics, Rosa and Carter maintain that federal agencies, including the National Park Service, have not fully lived up to the ESA's Section 7(a)(1) requirement that federal agencies actively work to recover threatened and endangered species. Specifically, they referenced a 2021 report from Defenders that found that very few federal agencies had developed recovery programs under this secction.

"It's something we identify in our report as something that's critically important moving forward. When Congress passing dangered Species Act in 1973, it was a revolutionary act in a lot of ways," Carter said. "One of the revolutionary parts was this idea that it's not just specific agencies who are responsible for protecting threatened and endangered species and recovering them. It's the entire government. This is an important mission, it requires, and Congress mandated an all-of-government approach.

"You take an agency like the National Park Service, which has probably around 600 species, threatened and endangered species, on national park lands," he continued. "The National Park Service does do recovery work, but we'd like to see that work expanded. We'd like to see collaboration between different agencies expand. A lot of land-management agencies, the Bureau of Land Management, the Forest Service, they have a lot of impact on the species that are on the lands they manage. And we would really like to see a more ambitious, more coordinated, a better-funded attempt to fulfill that 7(a)(1) obligation. The obligation to use your agency authorities to recover species, not just protect them, but recover them."

In spite of the funding issues, political attacks, and overwhelmed agencies, the two remain optimistic that the ESA will continue to help species recover in the decades ahead.

"I think, based on what we've learned from the past the past 50 years, these major conservation accomplishments that the ESA has set us up for and has achieved, you look at the trends, they're based on being centered in best available science. They're based on collaborative efforts to recover these species across conservation organizations, government agencies and departments, academic who hold a lot of that Western knowledge and, of course, tribes who hold some of that Traditional Ecological Knowledge," said Rosa. "And going forward, I think more of that, making the most of some of this new science to fill in the information gaps, this technology to make our conservation efforts more strategic and effective, and bringing it all together from the local level up in these collaborations, that's what's going to make conservation most effective and in the implementation of the Endangered Species Act.

"Of course, funding is part of that as well. We're not going to be able to move forward if we don't have the resources to really ensure that the ESA can realize its goals as intended over 50 years ago now," she said. "But I think these components together are what need to be built to continue to strengthen our nation's strongest tool for preventing extinction."

Traveler postscript: To hear the entire interview with Drs. Rosa and Carter, download National Parks Traveler Podcast Episode 257: The Future Of The Endangered Species Act.