8127 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

; During Fiscal Yeal' 1973, the year in which the Act was passed, the FWS had 1.8 million dollars to start a program to save the endangered and threatened species in the plant and animal kingdoms of the world. We also had about a hundred people working part-time on this effort along with a lot of other jobs. 'Today we have 9.3 million, not counting grant-in-aid and-land acquisi- tion funds, to do the same job. Our manpower has intreased to about 150 people mostly working part-time on endangered species. Some spend all of their time on the program. We estimate that it would take three times as many dollars and people as we now have to do the job adequately. In addition, we must have the full support of all 55 State and territorial conservation agencies; we must have all Federal agencies working with us; we must have the support of the private conservation agencies; we need a minimum of 3 to 4 million dollars in grant- in-aid funds annually; and we must have from 30 to 40 million dollars each year to acquire key habitats of endangered and threatened species if we. are to do the kind of a job that everyone seems to want us to do. What is the point of all this? It is simply recognition that we do not have these kinds of dollar and manpower resources and may never get them. Therefore, realistic administration of endangered species in this case means making every . dollar and every man-day of effort achieve its maximum potential. To do this, we had to establish more priorities for recove~y actions, or management efforts if you prefer. We have decided first to spend our money and effort on U.S. full species that are endangered and declining, if they have a reasonable recovery potential. From there on a variety of options are available. If ] did not realize that endangered s~ecies conservation is an emotion laden subject when I first became involved a few years ago, I know it well now. I hav~ been taken apart more times in the pa~t 3 or 4 years than I care to remember. The endangered species program and my honesty, integrity, intelli- gence, and professional judg~ent has been questioned by the national press, major magazines, and in recent times, an occasional television broadcaster. Sometimes the criticism comes because someone thinks it will sell newspapers, particularly if it contains minimum facts and maximum sensationalism. But more often the criticism comes because someone didn't like or understand what we ~id or didn1t do. And occasionally, in different articles on the same day, we are criticized in the press both because we did it and because we didn1t do it sooner. The point here is that no matter what we do or don't do in this endangered species business, we do it in a fish bowl-- and that's not going to change. Consequently, realistic administration of the endangered species program ;n this case means obtaining the best facts and advice available, deciding what is best for the resource, then doing it. I take great solace in being criticized by both sides of an issue at the same time-- it gives me confidence that I am doing what is right for the resource. . 293