Socioeconomics and the Recovery of Endangered Species: Biological Assessment in a Political World

Murphy et al. (1994) recently articulated 12 reasons for a strong and effective Endangered Species Act (ESA). At the same time, they pointed to the threats facing reauthorization of the ESA. These conflicts between conservation mandates and the political climate bring us to the sticky question: What role should politics play in endangered species management? The ESA states that the determination of a species' status as threatened or endangered is to be made "solely on basis of the best scientific and commercial data available .. . " (ESA ? 4(b)( 1 )(A), emphasis added). In addition, recovery plans are to provide "objective, measurable criteria" by which a species could be delisted (ESA ? 4(f)(1)(B)(ii)). However, the strict emphasis on biological criteria to establish recovery goals can result in goals that are not necessarily achievable, practical, politically acceptable, or even expedient. While it is inevitable that politics, economics, psychology, and sociology also play a role in establishing and implementing recovery plan goals for endangered species, it is not clear how these "nonbiological" concerns should be incorporated into the biological decision making process. A conflict of opinion has emerged from this uncertainty, whereby some argue for incorporating socioeconomic and political realities into recovery goals, while others urge species recovery based strictly on biological criteria. In addition, lack of distinction between "political" and biological goals has been suggested as a reason for setting low recovery goals (Tear et al. 1993). Similar debates have surfaced with such high-profile species as the Northern Spotted Owl (Thomas & Verner 1992; Yaffee 1994), the Red-cockaded Woodpecker (McFarlane 1992), and the Dusky Seaside Sparrow (Walters 1992). This issue over how to incorporate biological and nonbiological factors may also lie at the center of the current debate over whether to accept or reject the 1993 revision of the grizzly bear recovery plan. All involved in the conservation of endangered species would agree on the most basic of points: recover the species rather than compromise its chances for survival. Common ground must be sought between the opposing points of view that pit biological estimates of viability against the constraints of social, political, and economic realities. Toward that end improvements have been made in the recovery process evident in the 1988 "recovery plan amendments" (Fitzgerald 1989) and policy guidelines (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1990a). The following suggestions are based on the premise that the separate but relative influences of biological and socioeconomic factors should be explicitly stated when a species' probable path to recovery is estimated. Recovery plans are supposed to provide estimates of the time and expense of achieving recovery (USFWS 1990a). We recognize that forecasting the future of any species is a difficult task. However, some guidelines for making informed predictions have emerged from population viability analysis (PVA) which may help improve the process. We start with the suggestion that recovery goals be considered for both the shortand long-term. Establishing a specific time frame for each of these levels will vary among and within taxonomic groups. For example, large mammal recovery efforts might target 1020 years for the short-term and 100 years or so for long-term goals, while much shorter intervals might be more applicable for invertebrates. Second, the recovery team will need to agree on some acceptable probability of persistence for each time period in order to evaluate and compare recovery options. In addition to the traditional extinction threshold of zero individuals, we recommend that other threshPaper submitted May 21, 1994; revised manuscript accepted August 26, 1994.