70 



— Page 2 — 



It is dear that the current structure and application of the Endangered Species Act does 

 not foster the necessary cooperation. To the contrary, the punitive nature of the Act as 

 adniinistered has created an adversarial relationship that affects both private property rights 

 and is to the detriment of the listed species. Under current law, fanners and ranchers are 

 prevented from making full and effective use of their property, and are prevented from 

 protecting their property because of the burdens created by the Act. Should you desire, we 

 would be more than happy to provide the committee with such examples. 



Listed species have also suffered from current application of the Act. Despite the 

 seemingly absolute prohibitions in the Act, far more listed spedes have still become extinct 

 than have been recovered. It is becoming increasingly clear that habitat 

 preservation — without management — is insufficient to protect species. 



Clearly, a new approach is called for. 



We believe that endangered spedes protection can be more effectively achieved by 

 providing incentives to private landowners and public land users than by imposing land 

 use restrictions and penalties. 



To this end, we propose the adoption of a landowner incentive program that would 

 enhance both the protection of listed species and private property rights. An outline of the 

 proposal is attached to this statement. 



Under the proposal, the Interior Secretary would enter into voluntary agreements with 

 private landowners in those areas designated as critical habitat to conserve and manage the 

 species on their property. To better balance the interests of man and spedes, aitical habitat 

 would be a defining factor in delineating the scope of the program, since critical habitat is 

 defined as the area essential for the existence of the species. 



The Secretary would provide technical assistance and administration through the 

 Fish and Wildlife Service and annual payments, determined by bid process, to owners and 

 operators for protection and management of species and habitat. 



Most farmers and ranchers — given appropriate incentives — would willingly participate. 



A key aspect of the proposal is that private landowners would manage both the spedes 

 and prescribed habitat for the conservation of the species. Sdentists are more and more 

 realizing that preservation of habitat is not enough — species require active management if 

 they are to recover. The attached news artide detailing the story of the Peter's Mountain 

 Mallow in Virginia illustrates this point. Left alone, without active management by such 

 measures as controlled burns, this species may have gone extinct. Who better to provide 

 that management than the person who knows the property and is there to provide 

 necessary management measures? 



We submit that this proposal is more cost-effective use of funds than either having the 

 government provide the management, or having no management at all. 



