But to function effectively, the review system needs to be much different from the one used widely in academia today. In the meantime, traditional peer review is being applied on an ad hoc basis to important endangered species and habitat conservation issues, leading to contentious outcomes. In the rush to implement a popular policy, we are setting a precedent that is only institutionalizing our confusion. This includes reviews of HCPs, which are agreements between government agencies and private landowners that govern the degree to which those owners can develop, log, or farm land where endangered species live. There is widespread distrust of the regulatory agencies involved in ESA and dissatisfaction with their administration of the act.
Many groups believe that agencies are making the wrong decisions.
Disagreements among interested parties often end up in litigation, where judges, not scientists, make rulings on scientific merit. Most decisions to list species in the West, including those involving the northern spotted owl, marbled murrelet, and bull trout, have been made after lawsuits. Many organizations see science as a way of reducing litigation. After all, judges are not scientists or land managers and are apt to make the wrong technical decision. Court actions are costly.