Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A model for improving endangered species recovery programs

  • Forum
  • Published:
Environmental Management Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper discusses common organizational problems that cause inadequate planning and implementation processes of endangered species recovery across biologically dissimilar species. If these problems occur, even proven biological conservation techniques are jeopardized. We propose a solution that requires accountability in all phases of the restoration process and is based on cooperative input among government agencies, nongovernmental conservation organizations, and the academic community. The first step is formation of a task-oriented recovery team that integrates the best expertise into the planning process. This interdisciplinary team should be composed of people whose skills directly address issues critical for recovery. Once goals and procedures are established, the responsible agency (for example, in the United States, the US Fish and Wildlife Service) could divest some or all of its obligation for implementing the plan, yet still maintain oversight by holding implementing entities contractually accountable. Regular, periodic outside review and public documentation of the recovery team, lead agency, and the accomplishments of implementing bodies would permit evaluation necessary to improve performance. Increased cooperation among agency and nongovernmental organizations provided by this model promises a more efficient use of limited resources toward the conservation of biodiversity.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Literature Cited

  • Allison, G. T. 1971. Essence of decision: Explaining the Cuban missile crisis. Scott, Foresman and Co., Glenview, Illinois. 338 pp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bean, M. J. 1992. Issues and controversies in the forth-coming reauthorization battle.Endangered Species Update 9:1–4.

    Google Scholar 

  • Byars, L. L. 1984. Strategic management: Planning and implementation (cases and concepts). Harper and Row, New York, 992 pp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark, T. W. 1986. Professional excellence in wildlife and natural resource organizations.Renewable Resource Journal 4:8–13.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark, T. W. 1992. Practicing natural resource management with a policy orientation.Environmental Management 16:423–433.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark, T. W., and J. R. Cragun. 1991. Organization and management of endangered species programs.Endangered Species Update 8:1–4.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark, T. W., and A. H. Harvey. 1988. Implementing endangered species recovery policy: Learning as we go?Endangered Species Update 5:35–42.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark, T. W., and S. R. Kellert. 1988. Toward a policy paradigm of the wildlife sciences.Renewable Resources Journal 6:7–16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark, T., and R. Westrum. 1987. Paradigms and ferrets.Social Studies of Science 17:3–31.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark, T. W., and R. Westrum. 1989. High performance teams in wildlife conservation: A species reintroduction and recovery example.Environmental Management 13:663–670.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clark, T. W., R. Crete, and J. Cada. 1989. Designing and managing successful endangered species recovery programs.Environmental Management 13:159–170.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clark, T. W., E. D. Amato, D. G. Whitemore, and A. H. Harvey. 1991. Policy and programs for ecosystem management in the greater Yellowstone ecosystem: An analysis.Conservation Biology 5:412–422.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clark, T. W., P. Schuyler, T. Donnay, P. Curlee, T. Sullivan, P. Cymerys, L. Sheeline, R. Reading, R. Wallace, A. Marcer-Batlle, Y. Defretes, and T. Kennedy, Jr. 1992. Conserving biodiversity in the real world: Professional practice using a policy orientation.Endangered Species Update 9:5–8.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duda, M. D. 1991. A bridge to the future: The wildlife diversity funding initiative. Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, 32 pp.

  • Galbraith, J. R. 1977. Organizational design. Addison-Wesley, Reading, Massachusetts, 426 pp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gibbons, A. 1992. Mission impossible: Saving all endangered species.Science 256:1386.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldstein, B. D., 1992. Science at EPA.Science 255:1336.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greenwalt, L. 1988. Reflections on the power and potential of the endangered species act.Endangered Species Update 5:7–9.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hamilton, D. P. 1992. Better science at EPA?Science 255:147.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harrison, R. 1972. Understanding your organization’s character.Harvard Business Review May–June:119–128.

  • Hornocker, M. 1982. Letter to the editor.The Wildlifer November–December:51–52.

  • Jackson, J. A. 1986. Biopolitics, management of federal lands, and the conservation of the red-cockaded woodpecker.American Birds 40:1162–1168.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jackson, J. A. 1987. Red-cockaded woodpecker.Audubon Wildlife Report 1987:479–493.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jackson, J. A., P. Ramey, and B. J. Schardien. 1977. The red-cockaded woodpecker in north Mississippi.Mississippi Kite 7:14–17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Janis, I. L. 1972. Victims of group think: A psychological study of foreign-policy decisions and fiascoes. Houghton Mifflin, Boston, 245 pp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kellert, S. R. and T. W. Clark. 1991. The theory and application of a wildlife policy framework. Pages 17–36in W. R. Mangun and S. S. Nagel (eds.), Public policy issues in wildlife management. Greenwood Press, New York, 196 pp.

    Google Scholar 

  • King, W. B., J. A. Jackson, H. W. Kale, II, H. F. Mayfield, R. L. Plunkett, Jr., J. M. Scott, P. F. Springer, S. A. Temple, and S. R. Wilbur. 1977. Report of the committee on conservation, 1976–77: The recovery team-recovery plan approach to conservation of endangered species: A status summary and appraisal.Auk 94(4, suppl.):1DD-19DD.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kohm, K. A. 1991. Balancing on the brink of extinction: The Endangered Species Act and lessons for the future. Island Press, Washington, DC, 318 pp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ligon, J. D., P. B. Stacey, R. N. Conner, C. E. Bock, and C. S. Adkisson. 1986. Report of the American Ornithologists’ Union committee for the conservation of the red-cockaded woodpecker.Auk 103:848–855.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lindblom, C. E. 1980. The policy-making process. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 131 pp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Loucks, O. L. 1992. Forest response research in NAPAP: Potentially successful linkage of policy and science.Ecological Applications 2:117–123.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marshall, E. 1992. Science and science advice in favor at EPA.Science 255:1504.

    Google Scholar 

  • May, R. M. 1986. The cautionary tale of the black-footed ferret.Nature 320:13–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McFarlane, R. W. 1992. A stillness in the pines: The ecology of the red-cockaded woodpecker. W. W. Norton, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller, B., D. Biggins, L. Hanebury, and A. Vargas. 1993. Reintroduction of the black-footed ferret. Pages 455–464in G. Mace and P. Olmney (eds.), Creative conservation: Interactive management of wild and captive animals. Chapman-Hall, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Montgomery, P. 1990. Science friction.Common Cause November/December:24–29.

  • O’Connell, M. 1992. Response to: ‘Six biological reasons why the endangered species act doesn’t work and what to do about it.”Conservation Biology 6:140–143.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Perrow, C. 1986. Complex organizations: A critical essay, 3rd ed. McGraw-Hill, New York, 307 pp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Phenicie, C. K. and J. R. Lyons. 1973. Tactical planning in fish and wildlife management and research. US Department of Interior Fish and Wildlife Service Research Publication 123, Washington, DC, 15 pp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prescott, J., and M. Hutchins. 1991. Joining efforts for preservation of biodiversity.Transactions of the 56th North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference 227–232.

  • Reading, R. P., T. W. Clark, and S. R. Kellert. 1991. Towards an endangered species reintroduction paradigm.Endangered Species Update 8:1–4.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rohlf, D. J. 1991. Six biological reasons why the Endangered Species Act doesn’t work—and what to do about it.Conservation Biology 5:273–282.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schon, D. A. 1983. The reflective practioner. Basic Books, New York, 374 pp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Snyder, N. R. F. 1986. California condor recovery program. Pages 56–71in S. E. Stenner, C. M. White, and J. R. Parrish (eds.), Raptor conservation in the next 50 years. Raptor research report 5. Raptor Research Foundation, Hasting, Minnesota.

    Google Scholar 

  • Snyder, N. R. F., and H. A. Snyder. 1989. Biology and conservation of the California condor.Current Ornithology 6:175–267.

    Google Scholar 

  • US General Accounting Office. 1988. Endangered species: Management improvements could enhance recovery program. GAO/RCED-89-5, 100 pp.

  • US General Accounting Office. 1989. Spotted owl petition evaluation beset by problems. Report No. RCED-89-79.

  • Volkman, J. M. 1992. Making room in the ark: The Endangered Species Act and the Columbia River Basin. Environment 34:18.

    Google Scholar 

  • Warwick, D. 1975. A theory of public bureaucracy: Politics, personality, and organization in the State Department. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 252 pp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weinberg, D. 1986. Decline and fall of the black-footed ferret.Natural History February:63–69.

  • Wemmer, C., and S. Derrickson. 1987. Reintroduction: The zoologists dream. Pages 48–65.in Annual Proceedings, American Association of Zoological Parks and Aquariums, Wheeling West Virginia.

  • Yaffee, S. L. 1982. Prohibitive policy. MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 239 pp.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Centro de Ecologia, UNAM, Apartado Postal 70-275, 04510, México D.F., México

    Brian Miller

  2. Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, 205 Prospect Street, 06511, New Haven, Connecticut, USA

    Richard Reading

  3. Department of Natural Resource Science, The University of Rhode Island, 02881-0804, Kingston, Rhode Island, USA

    Courtney Conway

  4. Department of Biological Science, PO Drawer GY Mississippi State, Mississippi State University, 39762-5759, Mississippi, USA

    Jerome A. Jackson

  5. American Association of Zoological Parks and Aquariums, 7970-D Old Georgetown Road, 20814, Bethesda, Maryland, USA

    Michael Hutchins

  6. Wildlife Preservation Trust International, PO Box 426, 85632, Portal, Arizona, USA

    Noel Snyder

  7. Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund, 2008 East Calhoun, 98112, Seattle, Washington, USA

    Steve Forrest

  8. CINVESTAV, Apartado Postal 73 “Cordemex” Mérida, 97310, Yucatán, México, C.P.

    Jack Frazier

  9. National Zoological Park Conservation and Research Center, 22630, Front Royal, Virginia, USA

    Scott Derrickson

Authors
  1. Brian Miller
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Richard Reading
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Courtney Conway
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Jerome A. Jackson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Michael Hutchins
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Noel Snyder
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Steve Forrest
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Jack Frazier
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Scott Derrickson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Miller, B., Reading, R., Conway, C. et al. A model for improving endangered species recovery programs. Environmental Management 18, 637–645 (1994). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02394630

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02394630

Key words

Search

Navigation