ABSTRACT
More can be done to encourage effective state conservation of imperiled species. As implemented by the national government and interpreted by federal courts, the Endangered Species Act (ESA) unnecessarily restricts the role of the states in achieving the Act’s ultimate goal—conserving those species listed as endangered or threatened. In the process, the ESA also fails to maximize the incentive that states have to recover and protect listed species. The national government could promote diversity protection both a) by giving states greater authority over those species that are threatened but not yet endangered or that have made significant progress toward recovery, and b) by working more effectively with states to set recovery goals that, if met through state and other efforts, would remove species from national purview. The national government could also provide for state involvement in recovery efforts, give clearer guidance on when state or local actions will preclude the need for a federal listing, make greater use of section 6, establish new state–federal coordinating bodies, and increase funding for state conservation efforts. Far from undermining the ESA, such actions could strengthen biodiversity policy in the United States and better reflect the goals of Congress when it passed the ESA in 1973.
