This definition does not require the data to be subjected to scientific scrutiny. Since the decision to list a species often results in severe land use restrictions and costly recovery measures, the listing decision should be based on sound, peer reviewed science, not whatever information is available at the time of a listing decision. Improving the ESA means relying on better information on species populations and threats to their survival. More scientific data should be obtained through surveys and research from public and private sources before listings occur. All data used in the decision process should be open and available to the public for comment.
Many people have valuable knowledge about the plants and animals in their communities.
There is ample evidence to support claims that some listings have been politically motivated to stop development activities, rather than to add protections to species truly in danger of extinction. We need to create special teams with local input to advise the Secretary of Interior on biological, economic and intergovernmental considerations in developing recovery strategies. Improving the ESA means achieving a reasonable balance between our conservation needs and the social and economic needs of people. We have an obligation to spend money on species conservation, but that does not mean that it should be spent foolishly or ineffectively. The ESA must be improved to prevent overzealous bureaucrats from imposing unnecessary and burdensome costs on local governments and private citizens, and wasting taxpayers money.