Get reliable rangeland science

The Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA) is once again the subject of heated political debate.� Critics call it a failure because it has not led to the recovery of very many listed species.� Proponents claim the opposite, noting that the ESA has prevented the extinction of 99 percent of listed species.� My view, based on many years of implementing the ESA as a field biologist working throughout the West, is squarely in the middle: the ESA continues to enable some of the most important and positive conservation outcomes in the U.S., but implementation could be improved to accomplish more conservation with less unintended consequences.� There are significant areas where the ESA falls short of its potential and where its effectiveness could be improved. �For example, the ESA can create perverse disincentives to conservation for large segments of the American public.� It sometimes alienates or antagonizes important constituencies who would otherwise support its goals and intent and who are critical to conservation, such as many family farmers and ranchers.� The question is: can the ESA be strategically tailored to these circumstances, or is America�s most powerful environmental statute mostly a blunt regulatory instrument?� We used the inherent flexibility in the ESA during the greater sage grouse (GSG) listing process to reduce conservation disincentives within the ranching community of eastern Oregon and to support nonregulatory alternatives to an ESA listing of the GSG.� Our guiding principles included: (1) maximize positive net conservation outcomes for GSG, (2) keeping ranchers ranching is good for longterm, landscape-level conservation, and (3) help landowners view the GSG on their ranches as an�asset�rather than a�liability.� This paper describes the rationale, process, and outcomes of this strategy, and how this approach may be applied to other conservation challenges where the ESA interfaces with private landowners.