Meffe, G. and C.R. Carroll. 1994. The design of conservation reserves. In: Meffe, Menges, E. 1990. Population viability analysis for an endangered plant. Conservation Menges, E., D.M. Waller, and S.C. Gawler. 1986. Seed set and seed predation in Pedicularis furbishiae, a rare endemic of the St. Johns River, Maine. American Journal of Botany 73:1168-1177. Murphy, D.D., K.E. Freas, and S.B. Weiss. 1990. An environment-metapopulation approach to population viability analysis for a threatened invertebrate. Conservation Biology 4:41-51. Noss, R.F. 1983. A regional landscape approach to maintain diversity. BioScience 33:700-706. Orians, G.H. 1993. Endangered at what level? Ecological Applications 3: 206-208. Povilitis, T. 1990. Is captive breeding an appropriate strategy for endangered species conservation? Endangered Species UPDATE 8:20-23. Power, M.E. and L.S. Mills. 1995. The Keystone cops meet in Hilo. Trends in Prendergast, J.R., R.M. Quinn, J.H. Lawton, B.C. Eversham, D.W. Gibbons. 1993. Preston, F.W. 1962. The canonical distribution of commonness and rarity. Ecology 43: 185-215, 410-432. Pulliam, H.R. 1994. Sources and sinks. In: O. E. Rhodes, R. K. Chesser and M. H. Rohlf, D. J. 1989. The Endangered Species Act. Stanford Environmental Law Society, Schemske, D. W., B. C. Husband, M. H. Ruckelshaus, C. Goodwillie, I. M. Parker, and Shaffer, M.L. 1990. Population viability analysis. Conservation Biology 4:39-40. Simons, LH., D.A. Hendrickson, D. Papoulias. 1989. Recovery of the Gila topminnow: a success story? Conservation Biology 3: 11-15. Stacey, P. B. and M. Taper. 1992. Environmental variation and the persistence of small populations. Ecological Applications 2:18-29. Tear, T. H., J. M. Scott, P. H. Hayward, B. Griffith. 1993. Status and prospects for success of the Endangered Species Act: a look at recovery plans. Science 262: 976977. Tobin, R. 1990. The Expendable Future: U. S. Politics and Protection of Biological Turner, M.G., G.J. Arthaud, R.T. Engstrom, S.J. Hejl, and J. Liu. 1994. Usefulness of 5 spatially-explicit population models in land management. Ecological Applications, in press. Vane-Wright, R. E., C. J. Humphries, and P. H. Williams. 1991. What to protect systematics and the agony of choice. Biological Conservation 55:235-254. Zwank, P.J., J.P. Geaghan, D.A. Dewhurst. 1988. Foraging differences between native and released Mississippi sandhill cranes: implications for conservation. Conservation Biology 2: 386-390. The Ecological Society of America NEWS 2010 Massachusetts Avenue, NW, Suite 400 Washington, D.C. 20036 ♦ Phone: (202)833-8773 MEDIA ADVISORY Contact: Nadine Cavender 13 July 1995 (202) 416-6182/nadine@esa.org (202) 416-6181/gabriel@esa.org Embargoed: Not for public release before 9 AM EST, Thursday, 13 July 1995 SCIENTIFIC FOUNDATION OF ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT IS STRONG SAYS SCIENTIFIC SOCIETY REPORT The Ecological Society of America, a 7,500 member professional organization, today released its latest scientific consensus report, "Strengthening the Use of Science in Achieving the Goals of the Endangered Species Act." A committee of nine ecologists was charged by the Society to address the ecological issues relevant to reauthorization of the Endangered Species Act. Like the recently published scientific report of the National Research Council, the independently conducted, peer-reviewed report of the Ecological Society of America finds that the Endangered Species Act is firmly based on scientific principles and suggests the establishment of new policies to prevent further losses of key habitat. "It is important to understand that proactive habitat protection is needed in addition to species-oriented protection efforts if the goals of the Act are to be achieved in a scientifically sound, cost-effective manner," said Gordon Orians, member of the Committee and PresidentElect of the Ecological Society of America. "Re-establishing a species on the cusp of extinction usually requires enormous effort and expense," explained Orians. "The goals of the Endangered Species Act are more likely to be achieved, and realized at lower total cost, if steps are taken to help prevent populations from spiralling downward in the first place. One of the best ways to accomplish this is to maintain habitats important to biological communities." Major conclusions of the Ecological Society of America report include: The 1973 Endangered Species Act is a powerful and sensible way to protect biological diversity, and contains the procedures and mechanisms with which to achieve this goal. On the basis of science, the most important priorities to use in deciding which candidate species to list are: 1) number of other species that will benefit from the listing; 2) ecological role of the species; 3) the organism's recovery potential; and 4) its taxonomic distinctness. Formal Population Viability Analysis offers a method to identify how a species' survival potential can be maximized in the least controversial manner. The likelihood of restoring the viability of an endangered species is enhanced when: 1) recovery plans seek to achieve a population distributed in suitable habitats across the landscape; and 2) these plans are developed and implemented expeditiously. Additional programs for ecosystem-level protection that would complement existing legislation offer promise for a proactive approach that would effectively protect our Nation's biological heritage at lower long-term cost. "Scientific, socio-economic, and ethical issues are components of all science policy decisions," said Judy Meyer, President of the Ecological Society of America. "We hope that this report, which analyzes the scientific foundations of the Act, will assist policymakers in their efforts to ensure that biological science plays its appropriately strong role during the reauthorization process." To receive of a copy of "Strengthening the Use of Science in Achieving the Goals of the Endangered Species Act: An Assessment by the Ecological Society of America," contact Gabriel Paal, ESA Public Affairs Office, 2010 Massachusetts Avenue, NW, Suite 400, Washington, DC 20036; ph: 202/416-6181; fax: 202/833-8775; e-mail: gabriel@esa.org. The Ecological Society of America has produced other reports focusing on possible ecological consequences of the release of genetically modified organisms, delineation of wetlands, and ecological research priorities. The Ecological Society of America (ESA) is a scientific, nonprofit, 7,500-member organization founded in 1915. Through ESA reports, journals, membership research and expert testimony to Congress, ESA seeks to promote the responsible application of ecological data and principles to the solution of environmental problems. ESA publishes three scientific, peer-reviewed journals: Ecology, Ecological Applications, and Ecological Monographs. Information about the Society and its activities are published in the bi-monthly Newsletter of the Ecological Society of America. |