On May 5, 1998 Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt announced that the following list of thirty-three endangered and threatened species would be considered for removal from the list of species protected under the Endangered Species Act. Babbitt said, "Our new policy, to emphasize delisting, could alter the terms of debate over the future of the landmark 1973 conservation law. For we can now finally prove one thing conclusively: The Endangered Species Act works. Period."

Despite such pronouncements, the facts indicate that the ESA has done little, if anything, to help most of these thirty-three species.

EXTINCTION: One of the simplest ways to get off the list is to go extinct. These five species will join the seven that have already been delisted due to extinction. Although extinction may be a valid reason for delisting, it hardly proves the Endangered Species Act works.

1) Guam broadbill

2) Mariana mallard

3, 4, 5) Oahu tree snails (3 species)

DATA ERROR: This means that the data upon which the species was originally listed was incorrect. In many cases surveys found that the species was actually more abundant. In other cases scientific research on the species’ taxonomy revealed that the listed species was actually not genetically different than a more common species. Because scientists have realized that some of these are not separate species does not mean the Endangered Species Act works; rather it shows that species are often listed based on faulty or incomplete data.

6) Tinian monarch – Heavy fighting during WW II decimated this bird and its habitat, but as the habitat gradually returned so too did the bird. By the time it was listed it may well have been fully recovered.

7) Hawaiian hawk – It was listed on the assumption that it was imperiled, not on the basis of actual data. Subsequent to listing, surveys indicated it was more common than thought at the time of listing. Also, the threats identified at the time of listing have turned out either not to be threats (logging and cattle grazing) - as the hawk does best around agricultural fields - or to be beneficial (exotic small mammals such as rats provide an increased food base)

8) Dismal Swamp southeastern shrew – Surveys subsequent to listing found it too abundant to merit listing.

9) Tidewater goby – When it was listed in 1994, this fish was known from 43 sites. Subsequent to listing, surveys found approximately 40 additional sites. Many of what were thought to be threats at the time of listing have turned out to be less harmful than originally thought. Some protection has apparently been afforded through the ESA, but this appears to have been on a more piecemeal basis, as opposed to the species-wide boost that was provided by the discovery of additional populations.

10) Virginia northern flying squirrel – When it was listed, only ten specimens had ever been collected. Surveys subsequent to listing found approximately 700 individuals at 83 sites, and the range expanded slightly to the south and east. In addition, two threats at the time of listing, competition with – and transmission of a deadly parasite from - the southern flying squirrel, turned out not to be threats, as the two species rarely, if ever, come into contact.

11) Hoover’s wooly-star – Subsequent to listing, surveys found more plants, and what were thought to be threats (road construction and drilling for oil) were found not to be as detrimental as originally thought.

12) Truckee barberry – Not a valid taxonomic entity.

13) Chamaesyce skottsbergii (variation kalaeloana) – Not a valid taxonomic entity.

14) Lloyd’s hedgehog cactus – Not a valid taxonomic entity.

15) Running buffalo clover – When it was listed it was known from 4 plants in West Virginia. Subsequent to listing, surveys found at least 100,000 plants in Ohio, Kentucky, Indiana, Missouri and West Virginia.

16) Virginia round-leaf birch – Not a valid taxonomic entity. Scientific researched revealed it to be round-leafed form of the sweet birch.

17) Missouri bladder-pod – When it was listed it was known from 11 sites in Missouri. Subsequent to listing, surveys found 52 sites, 2 of which are in Arkansas. The Missouri Department of Conservation has taken the lead in conserving this plant.

ERRONEOUSLY ON LIST: This species never should have appeared on Babbitt’s list, as the FWS is not considering it for delisting or downlisting.

18) Pahrump poolfish – Does not merit downlisting, according to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). Prior to the destruction of the poolfish’s historic range (which consisted of one spring-fed pond of approximately ¼ acre), the species was transplanted to several sites outside its natural habitat. The poolfish has thrived, but the FWS Regional Director determined that the species will not be downlisted or delisted until its historic habitat is secure and the species exists in it.

DDT: The banning of the pesticide DDT in 1972, not the passage of the ESA in 1973, was the major factor in these birds’ resurgence.

19) American peregrine falcon – The banning of the pesticide DDT in 1972, not the passage of the ESA in 1973, was the most important factor in its resurgence. Approximately 54% of the pairs of this sub-species, knows as anatum, exist due to data error. That is, they are the result of birds that existed prior to the ESA’s passage. In addition, the Peregrine Fund, a private organization, was responsible for developing the captive breeding and release techniques that returned peregrines to many areas from which they had been extirpated.

20) Bald eagle – The banning of the pesticide DDT in 1972, not the passage of the ESA in 1973, was the most important factor in its resurgence. The recovery coordinator for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service admits that she has not researched the role the ESA has played in the eagle’s recovery, despite FWS’ claim that the Act’s land-use restrictions are one of the major reasons for the eagle’s resurgence. In addition, reintroductions have played a very minor role.

21) Brown pelican – Another "DDT bird." The banning of the pesticide DDT in 1972, not the passage of the ESA in 1973, was the most important factor in its resurgence. Translocations to Louisiana were carried out by that state, with help from the state of Florida.

FEDERAL LANDS: These species exist solely on federal lands, and the federal government did not need the Endangered Species Act to protect them.

22) Ash Meadows Amargosa pupfish – Exists exclusively on federal lands purchased in part for its conservation.

23) Island night lizard – Exists exclusively on federal lands. Conservation efforts have essentially consisted of eradicating and removing feral rabbits, cats and goats. Habitat destruction by herbivores was by far and away the single greatest threat to the lizard. Almost all the sheep on San Nicolas Island were removed in the late 1930s and early 1940s, so the ESA can claim no credit for this. The removal of goats from San Clemente Island could have been done much more quickly and economically had not animal rights groups insisted the goats be removed live by helicopter instead of being shot.

24, 25, 26) Three Ash Meadows plants – Federal land-use restrictions for plants do not apply to private land.

27, 28) Eureka Valley plants – Federal land-use restrictions for plants do not apply to private land. One of the plants, the Eureka Valley dune grass, very likely could have been reclassified from endangered to threatened at least four years ago but was not for reasons that are unclear.

29) Robbins’ cinquefoil – Federal land-use restrictions for plants do not apply to private land. Most of the conservation work has been funded and carried out by the Appalachian Mountain Club, a private organization.

30) Heliotrope milk-vetch – Federal land-use restrictions for plants do not apply on private lands. Conservation efforts have consisted of posting some signs and closing some roads to keep off road vehicles and cattle out and preventing energy development from taking place.

STATE CONSERVATION SUCCESS: This species was conserved by the state of California, not the federal government.

31) Loch Lomond coyote thistle – Conserved by the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG), which paid $224,000 for the 11.94 acres that are the plant’s habitat. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service chipped-in approximately a few thousand dollars for fencing material that was installed with volunteer labor. When the fence was vandalized, CDFG paid for repairs.

MISCELLANEOUS: These three species could have been conserved without the ESA, as the Act’s land-use regulations had little, if anything, to do with their conservation. In addition, prohibitions on hunting all three species could have been handled under other state and federal wildlife laws.

32) Aleutian Canada goose – Fox eradication by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on the nesting grounds on the Aleutian Islands National Wildlife Refuge was the most significant factor in the population increase. The provision of wintering habitat, almost totally by private landowners, on the wintering grounds was the second most significant factor.

33) Columbian white-tailed deer – The ESA essentially stopped hunting of the deer. Habitat was acquired for a national wildlife refuge despite the fact the deer were thriving on privately owned farms. Farmers in the vicinity of the refuge have lost significant income to deer feeding on their lands that provide higher quality forage than the wildlife refuge.

34) Gray wolf – The ESA’s prohibition on direct killing was the most important factor in the wolf’s rebound. The ESA’s prohibition on habitat modification on private property has played no role in the wolf’s rebound. The second most important factor in the wolf’s rebound has been efforts by the state of Minnesota to increase the deer population for hunters. Should the wolf’s status change, it will occur in Minnesota, Wisconsin and Michigan.

For more information, please contact Brian Seasholes, CEI research associate, 202-331-1010.

Updated 5/19/98.