Wildlife Archives

The recent turmoil in Nepal has done no favors to the greater one-horned rhinoceros. It seems that Maoist rebels managed to bluff off conservation groups but then failed to protect the charistmatic and valuable megafauna themselves as poachers slipped in and nearly exterminated the herd in short order. More details can be found here http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5459509.

The National Center for Public Policy Research and Capital Research Center held a briefing on the Endangered Species Act on Capitol Hill today.

The National Center issued this press release afterward:

"Improve the ESA by Protecting Private Property Rights" Say Panelists at Capitol Hill Briefing on the Endangered Species Act

Washington, D.C. - At a standing room-only briefing on Capitol Hill today, several leading policy organizations advised that strong property rights protections should be included in any Endangered Species Act reform effort.

The lunch briefing was sponsored by The National Center for Public Policy Research and the Capital Research Center.

Pointing out that over 99 percent of the species listed as endangered or threatened under the ESA have failed to recover, and the devastation the Act has inflicted on private property owners, regional economies and public works projects, panelists at the event stressed that protecting property rights would not only bring relief to American landowners, but would also better protect species.

"While the Endangered Species Act has failed miserably at saving rare plants and animals, it has excelled in making life miserable for many in the human population," said Peyton Knight, director of environmental and regulatory affairs for the National Center, and a panelist.

"ESA-related costs are paid in an inequitable way," added Knight. "Although Congress determined in 1973 that the preservation of endangered species was in the interest of the U.S. as a whole, Congress did not arrange for the nation as a whole to bear the costs of recovery. Instead, these costs are largely borne by the private landowners on whose property rare species are found, regardless of the ability of any particular landowner to bear these costs."

Approximately 90 percent of all endangered or threatened species habitat is found on non-federally owned land.

The ESA's structure works against its success. The law pits species against landowners -- often the very owners of the land on which rare species live. This adversarial relationship works against the interests of both and often is referred to as the "perverse incentive" problem within the Act, because those who harbor endangered species on their property, or merely own land suitable as habitat for such species, can find themselves subject to crippling land use restrictions. To avoid such restrictions and the losses in property values that accompany them, some landowners choose to preemptively sterilize their land to keep rare species away.

"The ESA is bad for people and bad for species. Leading environmentalists, federal and state wildlife officials, and defenders of property rights have all agreed that the ESA is destructive of wildlife and habitat because its perverse incentives -- penalizing good private stewardship -- cause private landowners to be fearful of protecting endangered species," said panelist R.J. Smith, National Center Senior Fellow.

"There has been wide agreement on this for over a decade. Yet few in Congress have demonstrated the courage and statesmanship to cut through this Gordian Knot and reform the ESA so that it will actually protect endangered species by protecting landowners. It's time for a change," added Smith.

The panel, which, in addition to Peyton Knight and R.J. Smith from The National Center for Public Policy Research, included Terrence Scanlon and David Hogberg of the Capital Research Center and Myron Ebell of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, agreed that, at a minimum, the "perverse incentives" problem should be addressed. This can be done by fairly compensating property owners who lose the right to use their land due to restrictions under the Endangered Species Act.

"If the government takes a person's land to build a highway, the property owner is compensated," said Knight. "If the government takes the use of a person's land to protect a rare species, however, the property owner is not compensated. This inequity must be addressed."

Last year, the House of Representatives approved an Endangered Species Act reform bill that promises to provide such restitution to landowners. The Senate has yet to put forward any comparable measure.

The National Center for Public Policy Research is a non-partisan, non-profit educational foundation founded in 1982 and based in Washington, D.C.

The National Center for Public Policy Research delivered a letter to members of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee today regarding Senate efforts to reform the Endangered Species Act, which has managed to trample on the property rights of American landowners in the service of the present ESA's less than one percent species recovery success rate.

The National Center says these facts are not unrelated: The ESA's antiquated regulatory structure unnecessarily pits humankind against wildlife, which (predictably) harms wildlife.

People who fear losing the use of their land if a rare species is found there (under the current ESA, without compensation) have a financial incentive to make their land inhospitable to species.

The solution is grounded in the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution, which says: "...nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." The government should pay people fair market compensation for the land it takes. If it does so, people naturally will be less fearful of discovering rare species, or rare species habitat, on their property. (Recall that even the victims of the appalling Kelo decision retained the right to be paid for losses. Human victims of the ESA don't even get that much consideration.)

85 policy groups share our concern:

Protect Private Property Rights, 85 Groups Tell Senate, in Endangered Species Act Reform

Signatories Include Two Former Reagan Administration Cabinet Officials

Washington, D.C., Feb. 27 - Today, a letter signed by 85 major national and state policy organizations was delivered to Senators on the Environment and Public Works Committee. The letter warns Senators that any Endangered Species Act reform effort must include strong private property rights protections. The coalition letter was spearheaded by The National Center for Public Policy Research.

"Whatever action the Senate takes on ESA reform should reflect the national, bipartisan outcry for strong property rights protections," said David Ridenour, vice president of The National Center for Public Policy Research. "Quite simply, when the government takes your property, the least it can do is pay for it."

National policy organizations signing the letter include: Coalitions for America, the American Conservative Union, the National Taxpayers Union, Eagle Forum, the National Center for Policy Analysis, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, the National Legal and Policy Center, 60 Plus Association, the Property Rights Foundation of America, and the American Family Association, among many others.

The letter was also signed by the Honorable Edwin Meese III, who served as U.S. Attorney General under President Ronald Reagan, and the Honorable Don Hodel, who served as both U.S. Secretary of Interior and Secretary of Energy in the Reagan Administration. Former Senator Malcolm Wallop (R-WY) signed the letter as well.

State policy groups, including the Oklahoma Council of Public Affairs, Oregonians in Action, the James Madison Institute, the Illinois Policy Institute, and the Virginia Institute for Public Policy, among others, also signed the letter.

"Today, private landowners live in fear of the ESA. Those who harbor endangered species on their property or merely own land suitable for such species can find themselves subject to severe land use restrictions that can be financially devastating," said Ridenour. "This creates a perverse incentive for landowners to preemptively 'sterilize' their land to keep rare species away. Such sterilizations benefit no one - least of all the species the ESA was established to protect."

"Property owners should not be punished for being good environmental stewards, yet that is exactly what the ESA does," said Peyton Knight, director of environmental and regulatory affairs for The National Center.

In order to fix the ESA's perverse incentive problem, the letter says property owners who are denied the use of their land should be given 100 percent, fair market value compensation for losses. This would bring the ESA in line with the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which guarantees such compensation ("nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation").

"Americans nationwide were outraged when, in Kelo v. City of New London, the Supreme Court ruled that government could evict property owners to financially benefit private interests," said Knight. "As terrible as eminent domain abuse is, at least the victims in eminent domain cases are compensated. Landowners who lose their property under the Endangered Species Act don't receive a dime."

Under the current ESA, landowners who apply to the Department of Interior for permission to use their property, are often forced to wait years for a response - years during which they often are unable to use the land they legally own, and on which they pay taxes.

The letter suggests that establishing a simple time limit within which the Department of Interior must issue final decisions to landowners' requests could prevent this injustice.

Meaningful ESA reform faces a big hurdle in the Senate, as the chairman of the subcommittee with jurisdiction over the Act is liberal Senator Lincoln Chafee (R-RI).

The National Center tried to schedule a meeting to discuss upcoming reform efforts with Senator Chafee's staff. However, the prospect of a meeting was immediately rebuffed by the Senator's staff after The National Center made it clear it wished to discuss the importance of protecting property rights in such a meeting.

"Allergy season is just around the corner and 'property rights' are apparently ragweed to the Chafee office," said Knight. "Unfortunately, this strangest of allergies hurts American property owners and endangered species more than it does the Senator and his staff."

The National Center for Public Policy Research is a non-partisan, non-profit educational foundation based in Washington, DC. Founded in 1982, it has promoted innovative, market-based solutions to environmental problems.

- 30 -

Text of letter follows; click here for a PDF copy containing the full list of signers.

February 27, 2006

Senator James M. Inhofe
Chairman
Committee on Environment and Public Works
453 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510

Dear Senator Inhofe:

The U.S. Supreme Court's contentious decision in Kelo v. New London has brought the need to protect private property rights to the forefront of America's civic debate. Citizens from coast-to-coast recognize the vital importance of being secure in the ownership and use of their homes, small businesses and family farms.

As you and your colleagues consider proposed changes to the Endangered Species Act, we hope you do so with a clear understanding of the crucial role that secure property rights plays in saving threatened and endangered species.

As you know, the ESA has failed miserably in its stated purpose: Recovering threatened and endangered species. In the three-decade history of the Act, less than one percent of the species listed as either endangered or threatened have recovered.

Failure comes at a steep price under the ESA. Not only have species populations suffered, but the Act has cost billions of dollars and deprived landowners of the use of their land and, often, their savings.

The Endangered Species Act has failed not because it isn't strong enough, expansive enough, or funded enough, but because its incentives are wrong.

Today, private landowners live in fear of the ESA. Those who harbor endangered species on their property or merely own land suitable for such species can find themselves subject to severe land use restrictions. To avoid such restrictions and the losses in property values that accompany them, many decide to preemptively "sterilize" their land to keep rare species away. Such preemptive sterilizations benefit no one - least of all the species the ESA was established to protect.

By one estimate, up to 90% of all endangered species' habitat is found on private property. As such, punishing landowners for good stewardship can have extremely negative consequences for endangered and threatened species.

This perverse, anti-wildlife, incentive within the ESA would be all-but-eliminated if the ESA is brought in line with the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which states that private property should not be taken for public use without just compensation. Property owners who have their property taken or who are denied the productive use of it due to federal species recovery efforts deserve 100% of fair market value in compensation for losses. If property owners receive this compensation, and are secure in their belief that they can be good environmental stewards without risking (at-times ruinous) financial losses, species will benefit.

Also, as a matter of simple fairness, law-abiding American landowners should be able to learn, within a reasonable time, whether a proposed use of their property would run afoul of the Endangered Species Act. Under the current ESA, after landowners apply to the Department of Interior for permission to use their property, they can be forced to wait years for a response - years during which they often are unable to use land they legally own, and on which they pay taxes.

This injustice could be prevented by establishing a time limit within which the Department of Interior must issue final decisions.

Secure property rights are a fundamental cornerstone of our liberty and are integral to our nation's prosperity. Happily - if we as a nation would just recognize it - if we honor these fundamental rights in the ESA, endangered species will benefit.

So that it will work better for wildlife and people, the Endangered Species Act should be reformed to respect the Constitution. We urge you to keep this in mind as you begin your important work.

Full PDF copy here.

In September, the U.S. House of Representatives approved legislation to reform elements of the Endangered Species Act that pit landowners against species. The environmental movement lobbied hard against the bill.

Cross-posted at Amy Ridenour's National Center Blog

Thanks to Jesse Walker over at Reason for pointing me in the direction of the following news story.

Apparently, in the 1980's, the British government and the Scottish government engaged one of the great conservation questions of our age: How do we protect the Loch Ness Monster from poaching should Nessie ever surface?

The Department of Agriculture and Fisheries ruled out the Salmon and Fisheries Protection Act because "Unfortunately, Nessie is not a salmon and would not appear to qualify as a freshwater fish." Meanwhile, Sweden apparently passed a special law specifically to protect its equivalent of Nessie --- though that act was revoked two months ago.

Here's an interesting post, and ensuing discussion, on the Environmental Economics blog on efforts to increase the use of incentives under the Endangered Species Act.

The Rainforest Conservation Foundation paid $1.35 million to buy out the hunting rights of an outfitter for lands running along the British Columbia coastline in western Canada. The group plans to retire nearly all hunting on the license, though some hunting is mandated as part of owning the license. The group will fill the hunting mandate through moose and deer hunts for food, but no trophies and no bears.

While trophy hunting is increasingly becoming a way to fund conservation efforts around the world, the group thinks trophy hunting is wrong and thus is doing its part to eliminate it. Native tribes in the area agree, but mainly because they feel hunting interferes with their eco-tourism opportunities. It is clear that there are opportunities for sport hunting and eco-tourism to work together in a symbiotic relationship, given success in other parts of the world, such as the CAMPFIRE program (still going strong despite the Zimbabwe government.) But the groups in this process have decided they don't want trophy hunting in the area and have put their money where their mouths are.

The one thing the group might want to consider, however, is changing their name. Rainforest Preservation Foundation might be more appropriate. Conservationists are usually not opposed to hunting in the way that preservationists often are.

Thanks to Jeremy Brown at the Fraser Institute for pointing out the story.

The New York Times reports on an "extinction crisis" in Mongolia. The likely causes are identified as overhunting and trade in animal skins. Wolf populations are increasing, but that's no consolation as the wolves may increase the pressure on some species.

It's odd that trade is identified as a cause of the crisis. There is robust trade in products derived from many species that are in no danger of extinction. The relevant factor is not trade, or lackthereof -- nor is it consumptive use. Rather, the question is whether there are institutional arrangements in place that create opportunities and incentives for conservation -- a point I make in this book chapter. In Mongolia, there are not -- the story notes that "the Mongolian Constitution declares wildlife to be a common resource of the people" -- and that is the real cause of the problem.

Over the next year, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service will determine whether the gray wolf is ready for delisting from the Endangered Species Act in the Northern Rocky Mountains.

Courtesy of Jon Christensen’s blog, “The Uneasy Chair”, I came across a provocative piece, “Conservation Refugees: When Protecting Nature Means Kicking People Out”, by Mark Dowie in Orion. Dowie, while shedding light on some of the human toll of big conservation, confirms that colonialism is not dead – read Bob Nelson’s excellent historical account of the founding of some of the flagship nature preserves in Africa in “Environmental Colonialism: ‘Saving’ Africa from Africans”, here.

Dowie states that:

“It's no secret that millions of native peoples around the world have been pushed off their land to make room for big oil, big metal, big timber, and big agriculture. But few people realize that the same thing has happened for a much nobler cause: land and wildlife conservation. Today the list of culture-wrecking institutions put forth by tribal leaders on almost every continent includes not only Shell, Texaco, Freeport, and Bechtel, but also more surprising names like Conservation International (CI), The Nature Conservancy (TNC), the World Wildlife Fund (WWF), and the Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS). Even the more culturally sensitive World Conservation Union (IUCN) might get a mention.

“In early 2004 a United Nations meeting was convened in New York for the ninth year in a row to push for passage of a resolution protecting the territorial and human rights of indigenous peoples. The UN draft declaration states: 'Indigenous peoples shall not be forcibly removed from their lands or territories. No relocation shall take place without the free and informed consent of the indigenous peoples concerned and after agreement on just and fair compensation and, where possible, with the option to return.' During the meeting an indigenous delegate who did not identify herself rose to state that while extractive industries were still a serious threat to their welfare and cultural integrity, their new and biggest enemy was 'conservation.’…

Read More »

The purest bison bloodlines are found in Sullys Hill, North Dakota according to the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. Were they saved by private entrepreneurs?

On Thursday the Senate confirmed H. Dale Hall as the new director of the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. Of note, Hall is a career FWS employee, having worked for the Service for 27 years. He is also a biologist. With his confirmation this means that two of the most important federal environmental agencies -- the FWS and EPA -- are headed by career civil servants with scientific backgrounds.

The Washington Post reports the House Resources Committee approved a rewrite of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) yesterday by a vote of 26-12, eight Democrats supported the measure. The bill aims to lessen the regulatory burdens imposed by the Act and provide incentives to landowners. (I have not yet read the bill text, so cannot give more detailed comments, but Amy Ridenour posted on it here.)

What happens in the Senate is key to whether the ibll actually becomes law. On that note, this part of the Post story is interesting:

Sen. Lincoln D. Chafee (R-R.I.), who chairs the Senate subcommittee charged with overseeing endangered species law, said yesterday he will not decide how to proceed until he hears back from an advisory group of environmentalists, landowners and government officials meeting in Keystone, Colo.

The House, Chafee said, "is moving quickly," adding that once the Keystone group reports to the Senate in 2006, he would be comfortable drafting a bill. Offering financial incentives to landowners will be key, he added. "If you care about protecting private property rights and protecting species, it's going to revolve around funding issues," Chafee said.

John Tierney ponders polar bears and the arctic climate.

(Reminds me of a an old joke: "So the baby polar bear comes home and asks "Mommy, am I a real polar bear? . . . . ")

Environmentalists are considering what to make of Bush's nomination of Judge John Roberts to replace Justice Sandra Day O'Connor on the Supreme Court. Here's one take from Grist, and another from Doug Kendall of Community Rights Counsel. I have some commentary on NRO's Bench Memos here and here.

Much of the attention focuses on Judge Roberts' dissent from denial of en banc review in the Rancho Viejo case. SCOTUSBlog's Tom Goldstein analyzes the opinion here. I have some more thoughts here.

Scrutiny of Judge John Roberts, nominated by President Bush to the Supreme Court, will no doubt focus on his dissent from denial of en banc review in Rancho Viejo v. Norton. I've addressed environmentalist concerns with his opinion here. I also note that Tim Dowling of Community Rights Counsel reached a similar conclusion (see here).

The Supreme Court's recent decision to end the "substantially advances a legitimate state interest" takings test in Lingle v. Chevron is already making its way into the circuits. A takings claim rested among a host of other claims brought before the 9th Circuit by a game ranch. (For the Congressional Budget Office's explanation of what a takings is, see here, and how the courts evaluate takings claims, see here.)

The ranch was affected by Montana voter initiative I-143, which passed in November of 2000. The initiative outlawed fee hunting on existing game ranches and prevented the creation of future game ranches. (Game ranches entail the raising of "alternative livestock" usually elk, deer, or exotic game on fenced-in properties. This should not be confused with ranching for wildlife where landowners improve habitat in return for tags they can sell to hunters for pursuing wild game on their property. For more on ranching for wildlife, as opposed to game ranching, see here.) The 9th Circuit refused to hear a substantially affects theory of takings in light of Lingle and left a deprivation of all economic value theory of takings (which remains valid under current Supreme Court precedent) to be decided once the state courts have decided whether a takings has occurred under Montana law.

Around the environmental horn in other cases this week:

Read More »

I hated seeing them on the beach as a kid. These prehistoric holdovers are quite ugly. But horseshoe crabs are important for some species of shore birds. Now, as crab populations decline -- due to over-harvesting (crab ITQs anyone?) -- bird species such as the rust-colored red knot are threatened. The Washington Post has more here.

In California today, a plant once thought extinct was rediscovered. In New Zealand, a bug pulled off the same feat. And, last month, it was the ivory-billed woodpecker. But none of those stories can top the efforts of Australian researchers to not just find a once-thought extinct animal, but rather to bring one back from the dead. Well...sort of. If the Australian researchers get their way, even already extinct animals may prove far more resilient than once thought. The researchers have revived a program to clone the extinct Tasmanian tiger.

In late April, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of Earl Jones, an Idaho rancher who was the defendant in a case brought by two Idaho environmental groups.

The case concerns the use of evidence and proof in attaining an injunction under the Endangered Species Act. The environmental groups asserted without proof that by diverting water from a creek to its alfalfa farm, the Jones family harmed bull trout, which are protected under the ESA.

In a press release by the Pacific Legal Foundation (which represented Jones' case), said that the case is significant because "it is the first time the Ninth Circuit has clarified the type of evidence that must be demonstrated in order for an environmental plaintiff to obtain an injunction under the ESA."

PLF explains further that:

The Ninth Circuit’s ruling clarifies — for the first time — that environmental plaintiffs must present actual evidence that a species is likely to be harmed before an injunction can be issued against a property owner, and that a lack of evidence of past harm is indicative of the likelihood of future harm.

The Endangered Species Act has long been used by activists of various stripes to stop unwanted development projects. Where an endangered species can be found, the relatively inflexible provisions of sections 7 and 9 are particularly well suited to halting development in its tracks. In the 1990s, a major timber company was even caught employing wildlife biologists to survey land used by its competitors for listed species, hoping to use the ESA to gain a comparative advantage.

This story, courtesy of Tom Tanton, presents a simlar tale with an intersting twist.

Read More »

Scientists long thought the ivory-billed woodpecker was extinct. It was last seen in 1944. Then, surprise, the bird was spotted in northern Arkansas. Details here.

This is great news for bird lovers -- and for the woodpecker. It's also hardly an isolated incident. The sad fact is that data on endangered species is quiet poor -- so poor that quite a few species have been erroneously listed as "endangered" that were doing just fine and were subsequently removed from the list. Conversely, given that only a fraction of extant species have been identified, it's possible for species to disappear before we ever know they exist.

The famed Toklat wolf pack is in trouble, according to this Washington Post story. While Alaskan wolf populations, as a whole, are increasing, this well-studied wolf pack is threatened by trappers operating legally on the outskirts of the Denali National Park.

Wolf advocates maintain that the federal government has a particular interest in this wolf pack, insofar as it helps attract park visitors. One problem, however, is that current federal policy does not allow, let alone encourage, park managers to address such issues. If the wolves do indeed increase park visitiation, it would make sense to allow Denali to charge increased park visit fees to fund wolf conservation efforts. Such funds could be used in the park to protect wolves, but -- in principle -- could also be used to purchase buffer zones, buy-out trappers, and the like. Instead, it's unlikely the park service will do much of anything to help the wolf pack until it is too late.

Interior Secretary Gale Norton has named Matthew J. Hogan as acting director of the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. The animal rights crowd is none to pleased. Hogan is a former lobbyist for Safari Club International, a pro-trophy hunting group. Yet what is bad news for the animal rights folk could be good news for endangered wildlife. As a veteran of SCI, Hogan might understand the value of conservation-through-commerce and the use component of sustainableuse.

Well, the proliferation of such drugs might dampen the demand for aphrodesiacs and sexual enhancement remedies derived from endangered species. That is the suggestion of this article on Grist.

Due to recently enacted legislation, the Bureau of Land Management is now authorized to sell wild horses that live on federal lands. If there are no takers, some of the horses will be sold to slaghterhouses. This new policy has many horse-lovers upset, according to this report in the Washington Post.

Read More »

In May, Canada will be hosting international talks on the problem of overfishing.

The Washington Post just discovered that there are a good number of bald eagles living along the Potomac River. The New York Times reported on this some months back, as I noted here.

Utah State University political science professor, and PERC senior associate, Randy Simmons recently spoke on the Endangered Species Act to the Western Governors Association. An op-ed based on his talk is available here. Following are some highlights:

[The ESA] uses a regulatory approach born in the Nixon administration, and it ignores the role of states and landowners. It ignores incentives. A new endangered species act should correct these misunderstandings.

Read More »

The NYT reports on Venezuela's effort to encourage macaw conservation through commerce. Some Marao villagers have earned the right to harvest, breed and sell macaws. The idea is to increase the standard of living for Warao, as well as to create an economic incentive to conserve macaws. This is a surprisingly market-oriented policy for the increasingly communistic Venezuelan government.

I've written more on the importance of conservation through commerce here.

CNN reported on a paper published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences that predicts the extinction of ten percent of all bird species by the year 2100. One of the paper's authors is Paul Ehrlich whose prior attempts at predicting the end of humanity in the 1980s and 1990s proved wrong and wrong again.

My response is up at A Better Earth today. It explains the difficulties inherent in much of today's scientific modeling. Climate change models aren't the only models that suffer from problems.

There is rarely enough information to say anything reliable about wildlife populations, so most scientists cut a lot of corners and build inferences upon inferences to arrive at their predictions. They then call the predictions conservative by simply taking the most conservative number from the range that results from their study. But conservative estimates based on faulty assumptions are not conservative estimates. Despite this fact, the modelers seem unbothered by adding a coat of paint to their Pinto and calling it a Rolls Royce.

The NYT reports on bald eagles on the Potomac. The article attributes the eagle's rebound to the Endangered Species Act (ESA), but then notes that the most important step in the eagle's recovery was the ban of DDT. The problem is that the current ESA -- that is, the various land-use restrictions that are at the heard of the current law -- were not enacted until 1973. DDT was banned a full year earlier in 1972. The ESA had nothing to do with the ban -- and, truth be told, had little if anything to do with the bald eagle's recovery.

AlJazeera reports on bear troubles along the urban-rural interface in Japan.

The 13th Conference of the Parties to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Flora and Fauna (CITES) is currently underway. Many African countries in particular have moved to property-rights based conservation for protecting endangered species and, where they have, wildlife populations have prospered. For the African elephant, however, this means that CITES continuing prohibition on the ivory trade may be its greatest hurdle to conservation.

As I write over at A Better Earth today, the ban suffers from the same flaws as "modern drug laws where illegal activity is driven underground. In the case of ivory, however, it is driven onto eBay." The September 24th Washington Post noted that approximately 1,000 eBay auctions of ivory take place daily. If those African communities that now steward their elephants could participate in those markets legally, new worlds of opportunity would arise for conservation of the elephant. "Only unowned resources are exploited to extinction."

The staying power of property-rights based conservation may be most evident in Zimbabwe where Robert Mugabe has decimated institutional property rights, and yet locals continue to fight for control of their wildlife.

Most media coverage of the four hurricanes to hit Florida has focused on the toll to people and their property -- and understandably so. Yet the Associated Press is also reporting that hurricanes Frances and Jeanne was also bad for endangered sea turtles on Florida's Atlantic Coast. It is estimated the two storms destroyed over 1,300 turtle nests in or around the Canaveral National Seashore.

Jonathan Adler's note on contraception for birds brings to mind the problem of mute swans, an invasive species doing serious harm to ecosystems such as the Chesapeake bay. Details here. Animal rights groups, however, have blocked action to control the swans - see a recent story here. One swan lover is quoted as saying ""To me, they've been here so long already — so what if they're not indigenous," she said. "You can't force them out now." " What's next - immigration amnesty for invasive species?

Public financing of contraception is always a controversial subject. This is no less so when it's for the birds -- literally. Today's New York Times reports on efforts to put parakeets on the pill:

In wildlife management there is no tougher public relations problem than a cute pest, which is partly why scientists and wildlife managers are showing increasing interest in a new, nonlethal means of animal control: contraception. The monks [a type of parakeet] have joined a variety of other species, some cuter than others, but all with passionate defenders, as a target for enforced infertility.

Parakeets are not the only species subject to such efforts. Wildlife managers have also sought to use contraception to control populations of geese, deer and other "pest" species.

Everywhere animals that people would rather not have in such large numbers are doing or have just done what Cole Porter's birds, bees and educated fleas are famous for. That's fine; it's the inevitable results that scientists are working on.

Reaction to an EPA announcement on mercury and river fish yesterday, exemplified by USA Today's lead story today, Warnings on river, lake fish jump (note that the print headline is different from the more circumspect web headline), could reasonably be described as alarmist. Take the first paragraph in the USA Today story, for example:

One third of the nation's lake waters and one-quarter of its riverways are contaminated with mercury and other pollutants that could cause health problems for children and pregnant women who eat too much fish, the Environmental Protection Agency said Tuesday

(Emphasis added). As the story notes, the warnings are not about fish in general but about fish caught from those particular lakes and rivers. Nowhere in the story is it estimated how many women eat so much river-caught trout that they may be at risk.

Moreover, as the story intimates, the "jump" in the headline is probably an artifact of increased reporting in two states. The EPA fact sheet (PDF link) says quite clearly (p.4):

In 2003, the geographic extent of the states under advisory for mercury was 13,068,990 lake acres and 766,872 river miles. The increase in acres and river miles under advisory is a result of the issuance of statewide mercury advisories by Montana and Washington in 2003 and the addition of rivers to Wisconsin’s statewide advisory.

All of which makes this statement from the Sierra Club outright misleading:

Today the Environmental Protection Agency announced in its 2003 National Listing of Fish and Wildlife Advisories that 766,872 miles of America's rivers and 13,068,990 lake acres are contaminated with so much poisonous mercury that the fish aren't safe to eat -- that is a more than 60 percent increase for river miles and an eight percent increase for lake acres since the 2002 report.

This increase is astounding considering that the technology exists right now that would put us on the road to cleaning up 90 percent of toxic mercury emissions from coal-fired power plants by 2008. As America's waters get more contaminated, the Bush administration continues dragging its feet, even endorsing a plan that would delay cleaning up mercury emissions from power plants for at least a decade and setting targets so weak that the industry will be allowed to emit three times more mercury after 2018.

Mercury emissions in the US for which humans are responsible dropped from about 375 tons per year in 1989 to 117 tons per year in 1999*.

Moreover, the EPA's health warnings themselves are based on studies from the Faroe Islands which inadequately controlled for the Islanders' diet, which contained a fair proportion of whale meat. A useful discussion of the science underlying EPA's guidelines on mercury and health is available here (PDF link).

The actual basis for the alarmist reaction is flimsy, to say the least.

UPDATE: Environmentalist blogger JLowe agrees that the Sierra Club reaction is inappropriate.

* Corrected from earlier numbers.

The blatantly protectionist Common Agricultural Policy is well-known as one of the worst things the European Union does, preventing developing nations from selling agricultural products in a competitive European market. Less well known is the disaster that is the Common Fisheries Policy. Euroskeptic commentator Richard North, who I believe has worked closely with the dying British fising industry, examines the problems in this post at his EU Referendum blog. He notes a publicity stunt by Greenpeace, which arranged for delivery of a load of dead marine life:

This was the by-catch from a two-hour trawl on the Dogger Bank, and comprised 11,000 dead or dying marine species. It included a variety of flatfish, small cod, mackerel, sole, Norway lobster, edible crab and starfish.

The catch represented a fraction of the estimated 720,000 tons of discarded fish returned annually to the North Sea, including some 12 percent (or more) of the total cod and 40 percent of the plaice catch by weight had been discarded.

So far so good. Every fisherman and campaigner would agree that discarding is highly wasteful, and experience from the successful fisheries of Norway, Iceland and the Faroes demonstrate that banning this practice is an essential past of good fisheries management.

But Greenpeace does not make this point. It uses the information to claim that "this type of fishing practice" – and then lumps beam trawling with otter trawling, which is claims are "particularly prone to picking up unwanted species, because they are inherently indiscriminate".

That, in fact, is not true as a matter of principle. Given good design, these nets can be highly selective – the problem being that the rigidities of the CFP prevent the design and development of more selective gear, and prohibit experimentation to reduce by-catch.

North goes on to point out that there are some exclusion zones in the North Sea, notably around oil and gas installations.

These in part may account for the fact that certain species, like haddock, are at a thirty-year high, and that fishermen are taking record catches of large cod, despite scientists' claims that the stock is near exhaustion.

Finally, North notes that, under the proposed EU Constitution, conservation of fish stocks will become the responsibility of the EU itself, and not of member governments. Given the "depradations" of the CFP, this is unlikely to be good for marine life.

Of the 39 species removed from the Endangered Species Act since its inception, at most three could attribute their removal to an ESA success story --- even that may be too generous. Nine of the 39 escaped the list by going extinct and twenty never warranted listing in the first place. I've updated the scorecard on the ESA's failings over at A Better Earth.

UPDATE: As Mr. Meyer mentions in his comment, it is indeed true that the prairie dogs regularly carry the plague. This is, in fact, one of the justifications used for listing the dog, as it is worried by some that the prairie dog's communal nature could lead to the plague wiping it out.