The Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973 is the only law in the federal code that requires the United States to protect and recover "threatened" and "endangered" species. In passing the act, Congress set an extraordinary goal for the nation to "provide a means whereby the ecosystems upon which endangered species and threatened species depend may be conserved [and] to provide a program for the conservation of such endangered species and threatened species."

Congress also mandated that, in determining whether a species should be listed on the federal threatened and endangered species list, such a decision must be made "solely on the basis of the best scientific and commercial data available" -- the potential economic impacts of adding any species to the threatened and endangered species list cannot be considered in the listing decision. Listing a Species as Threatened or Endangered

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and NOAA Fisheries Service jointly administer the ESA (NOAA Fisheries' role is limited to protecting marine animals, and marine and anadromous fishes under the act [e.g., threatened and endangered salmon stocks]).

Species are added to the threatened and endangered species list either by agency action or through citizen petition, although the Fish and Wildlife Service has not listed a species by its own accord in years. Species listings today are driven by citizen petitions. The ESA Petitioning Process

Unfortunately, the citizen petitioning process has devolved in recent years from what Congress intended in the ESA. The Fish and Wildlife Service routinely ignores processing deadlines for citizen petitions or otherwise avoids its responsibilities under the ESA, usually blaming a lack of resources or other, higher priorities for their obfiscation. The Bush Administration has worsened the species listing backlog by intentionally under-funding the FWS species listing budget. State governors have also sought to prevent species listings.

Despite the ESA's prohibition on the consideration of any purported economic impacts of species listings, the Fish and Wildlife Service can hardly avoid the intense pressure from industry, developers, and their allies in Congress not to list a species if doing so might affect development plans (including on public lands) or profit margins. Listing decisions often reflect what's best for resource users, land owners, and politicians, rather than what's best for imperiled species. (See, e.g., the Partnership for the West's campaign against listing sage grouse as threatened or endangered under the ESA.)

One recent tactic employed by industry lobbyists is to claim that the ESA "doesn't work" to recover species, and that any other alternative, including state and local "conservation plans," would be preferable to listing a species under the ESA. See Wall Street Journal Flamboyant bird could have big impact on gas, mining companies .

However, industry claims that the ESA doesn't work simply aren't true. As an act of last resort, the ESA has worked well to prevent species from becoming extinct. Of the 1,297 species listed during the act's 30-year history, only seven have actually become extinct. See John Krist. GOP should back Endangered Species Act. Alameda Times (Feb. 12, 2004) . By contrast, a Center for Biological Diversity report found that:

• 79 percent of all plants and animals that have become extinct since 1973 (year ESA enacted into law) were not listed as endangered species under the law; and
• 77 percent were known to be endangered, but protection was repeatedly delayed, often for ten or twenty years, until the species became extinct.

A coalition of conservation and other organizations released a report in 2004 describing specifically how the ESA has saved 30 high profile and some lesser known species from extinction. And a new article in Bioscience quantifies the effectiveness of the Endangered Species Act, and particularly the importance of critical habitat designations to recover listed species.

The real reason industry and their Congressional allies tout state and local conservation plans over ESA listing is that it allows them to continue to control how (and whether) species recover, making way for continued resource extraction and development as usual. See, e.g., p. 2 Listing Comment Letter

Fortunately, the ESA enjoys overwhelming support from the American public. According to a Decision Research public survey :

There is broad and enduring support for the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Voters will clearly not support significant changes to the Act, as they support its purpose and believe that it has been a success. Despite believing that, in general, government and government regulation are too intrusive, voters support expanded efforts to promote species protections. They believe it is better to err on the side of caution and recognize that the ESA provides a safety net for wildlife, plants, and fish that are on the brink of extinction. Voters further believe strongly that extinction is forever and people must preserve species for future generations.

Key survey findings:

• Nearly all voters (90%) recognize as important that the Endangered Species Act provides a safety net for wildlife, plants, and fish that are on the brink of extinction.
• Understanding the importance of habitat protection, fully 95% of voters agree that one of the most effective ways to protect species is to protect the places they live.
• Most voters are aware of the ESA, and fully 86% of voters nationwide support the Endangered Species Act. Even as 69% of voters agree that government is too intrusive in their daily lives, concerns about species protections trump this anti-government view.
• Fully 90% of voters are responsive to the view that they owe it to their children and grandchildren both to be good stewards of the environment and to avoid causing species to go extinct, as people must leave behind a legacy of protecting species and the special places they call home so that future generations, too, can see animals in the wild.
• Voters view species protection as so important that they are nearly unanimous in their agreement that when the science is uncertain, it is better to err on the side of caution, because once a species goes extinct, it is gone forever. They are also very moved by the view that people have a duty to prevent the extinction of species because once they are gone, we cannot bring them back.
• Specifically, voters express broad support for providing financial incentives to private property owners who conserve habitat for endangered or threatened species.

FWS Factsheet: Listing a Species as Threatened or Endangered

FWS Factsheet: The Petition Process

FWS Factsheet: Policy for Evaluation of Conservation Efforts when Making Listing Decisions

Scientific Societies' Statement on the Endangered Species Act (February 27, 2006)

Government Accountability Office. "Endangered Species: Time and Costs Required to Recover Species Largely Unknown." (April 6, 2006)

Center for Biological Diversity, Critical Habitat Myths and Facts

Government Accountability Office. "Endangered Species: Many Factors Affect the Length of Time to Recover Select Species." (September 2006)