The ESA and Landowners

• Per the FWS, working with private landowners is vital in fulfilling the goals of the ESA, as many of the listed threatened and endangered species occur "partially, extensively--in some cases even exclusively--on private lands." Finding a balance between protecting the landowners' interests and finding a reasonable way to manage those lands while continuing to benefit endangered species can be tricky. The FWS asserts its commitment to "finding this balance between private property rights and endangered species protection."
  
  

Landowner Reactions to ESA Listings

• The research arm of the EPA, The National Center for Environment Research (NCER), conducted a study as to how landowners respond to ESA listings. After multiple interviews, the NCER found most responses negative toward the ESA. Some of the responses given include doing nothing, hiring legal counsel, refusing a survey for the species and contacting government officials. According to the NCER, many landowners intimated concern about regulatory equity and held antiregulation and antifederal government beliefs, and some just did not care. While this does not encompass the ideals of all of the participants, these findings do represent the majority of respondents.
  
  

FWS Endangered Species Program

• Recognizing that "approximately half of listed species have at least 80 percent of their habitat on private lands," in 2009 the FWS released a fact sheet for landowners outlining its Endangered Species Program. Composed of updated policies and several new programs such as The Safe Harbor Policy, The Candidate Conservation Agreements with Assurances Policy and Habitat Conservation Planning, the program offers incentives and, if qualified, funding for private landowners, state and local governments, tribes and industry to foster "voluntary stewardship" and cooperation.
  
  

Opposition

• In 2005, the Threatened and Endangered Species Recovery Act was introduced in Congress. The bill died in committee, but initiated a firestorm of controversy over the ESA's regulation of private property and the listing process of endangered species. Groups such as The Heritage Foundation, the National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA) and The National Home Builders Association (NHBA) contend that not only do the current ESA policies harm the species it's meant to protect, it actually incentivizes land owners to destroy habitats to avoid federal interference. According to the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), the NAHB "actually advises preemption in its 'Developers Guide to Endangered Species Regulation.'" Per NAHB, "The highest level of assurance that a property owner will not face an ESA issue is to maintain the property in a condition such that protected species cannot occupy the property."
  
  

Moving Forward

• Since the implementation of the FWS Endangered Species Program, the uproar over encroachment of private property has somewhat subsided, although some researchers such as APHIS consider current land owner compensation inadequate. Additionally, the sponsor of the Threatened and Endangered Species Recovery Act, which, as written, practically guts the ESA, plans to run for Congress in 2010. The first thing on his agenda: the reintroduction of the Threatened and Endangered Species Recovery Act.