A diverse and large coalition of organizations representing everyone from environmental groups and property owners to ranchers, miners, loggers and outdoor recreationists has publicly unveiled principles for establishing a new way to conserve our nation's endangered species.

The Grassroots ESA Coalition organizations united to promote these principles so that the old Endangered Species Act could be reformed in a way that benefits both wildlife and people, something the old law has failed to do.

The old law has been a failure for endangered species and for people. It has not led to the legitimate recovery of a single endangered species while costing billions of dollars and tremendous harm. The old way destroyed trust between people and our wildlife officials. We need to reestablish trust so we can conserve wildlife - no program will succeed without the support of our farmers, our ranchers, our citizens.

The old law failed because it is based on flawed ideas. It is founded on regulation and punishment. If you look at the actual law by section you see it is all about bureaucracy - consultation, permits, law enforcement there isn't even a section of the law called "conservation," "saving" or "recovery."

It is a bureaucratic machine and its fruits are paperwork and court cases and fines - not conserved and recovered endangered species. What the Grassroots ESA Coalition and all Americans want to see is a law that works for wildlife, not one that works against people.

The future of conservation lies in establishing an entirely new foundation for the conservation of endangered species - one based on the truism that if you want more of something you reward people for it, not punish them. The debate that will unfold before the public is one between methods of conservation.

The old way is shackled to the idea that Washington bureaucrats can come up with a government solution through national land use control. Is supporters do not want to acknowledge that the law has failed because doing so would mean an end to the influence and power they have under the old system.

The Coalition sees a new way that can actually help endangered species because it stops punishing people for providing habitat and encourages them to do so. It creates an opportunity for our officials - for government - to reestablish trust and work with and earn the support of citizens. The Grassroots ESA Coalition is working to promote this new way.

If you think that government bureaucracy works, that welfare stops poverty and does not need reform or that the DMV and Post Office operate the way they should, then the old endangered species program is for you. If you do not, and you want to conserve endangered species without wasting money, intruding on people's lives and causing more pain and problems, then the Grassroots ESA Coalition is for you.

The Endangered Species Act has:

• failed to conserve endangered and threatened animals and plants;
• discouraged, hindered, and prohibited effective conservation and habitat stewardship;
• created perverse incentives, thus promoting the destruction of privately owned endangered species habitat; and
• wasted scarce conservation resources.

The Endangered Species Act has failed in large part because it has engendered a regulatory regime that has:

• violated the rights of individuals, particularly property rights;
• destroyed jobs, devalued property, and depressed human enterprise on private and public lands;
• hidden the full cost of conserving endangered species by foisting those costs on private individuals; and
• imposed significant burdens on State, county, and local governments.

We therefore support replacing current law with an Endangered Species Act based upon these principles:

• Animals and plants should be responsibly conserved for the benefit and enjoyment of mankind.
• The primary responsibility for conservation of animals and plants shall be reserved to the States.
• Federal conservation efforts shall rely entirely on voluntary, incentive-based programs to enlist the cooperation of America's landowners and invigorate their conservation ethic.
• Federal conservation efforts shall encourage conservation through commerce, including the private propagation of animals and plants.
• Specific safeguards shall ensure that this Act cannot be used to prevent the wise use of the vast federal estate.
• Federal conservation decisions shall incur the lowest cost possible to citizens and taxpayers.
• Federal conservation efforts shall be based on sound science and give priority to more taxonomically unique and genetically complex and more economically and ecologically valuable animals and plants.
• Federal conservation prohibitions should be limited to forbidding actions intended to kill or physically injure a listed vertebrate species with exception of uses that create incentives and funding for an animal's conservation.

• Kathleen Benedetto
• Bob Boese
• Dan Byfield
• Chuck Cushman
• Paula Easley
• Margaret Gabbard
• Robert Gordon
• Dennis Hollingsworth
• Dave Hook
• Tom DeWeese
• Mark Pollot
• Ike Sugg
• Bruce Vincent

• Alliance For America
• American Land Rights Assoc.
• Alliance for Resources & Environment
• Alaska Loggers Assoc.
• American Agri-Women
• American Policy Center
• Blue Ribbon Coaliton
• California Women in Timber
• Coalition Protect Coastal Property (FL)
• Community for a Constructive Tomorrow
• Communities for a Great Northwest
• Competitive Enterprise Institute
• Consumer Alert
• Defenders of Property Rights
• Environmental Political Task Force
• Exotic Wildlife Association
• Fairness to Land Owners Committee
• Farm Credit Bank of Texas
• Frontiers of Freedom
• Hardwood Manufacturers Assoc.
• Maine Conservation Rights Institute
• Nationwide Public Projects Coaliton
• National Center Public Policy Research
• National Water Resources Assoc.
• National Wilderness Institute
• New Hampshire Land Owners Alliance
• New Mexico Cattle Growers Assoc.
• Oregonians for Food & Shelter
• Oregonians in Action
• Putting People First
• Rhode Island Farm Bureau Federation
• Riverside County Farm Bureau (CA)
• Stewards of the Range
• Texas Wildlife Assoc.
• US Taxpayers Alliance
• United 4-Wheel Drive Assoc.
• Western States Coalition
• Women's Mining Coalition
• Wyoming Farm Bureau Federation
• Adirondak Solidarity Alliance (NY)
• Alliance for Constitutional Defence, Inc (FL)
• American Legislative Exchange
• American Loggers Solidarity
• American Rights Coalition
• American Trappers Assoc.
• Animal Owner & Karegiver Assoc.
• Arizona Trail Riders
• Arizona Mining District
• Beverage Mining District (CA)
• Burnet County Property Owner Rights (TX)
• California Assoc 4 WD Clubs
• California Assoc of Business Property
• California Desert Coalition
• California Outdoor Recreation League
• California Women for Agriculture
• Catron County Concerned Citizens (NM)
• Citizens Equal Rights Alliance
• Citizens for Private Property Rights (MO)
• Citizens for Responsible Zoning
• Citizens for Constitutional Prop Rights (FL)
• Concerned Citizens for Property Rights (CA)
• Conch Coalition (FL)
• Creekside Property Owners (AZ)
• East Mojave Property Owners Assoc.
• Eastern Oregon Mining Assoc.
• East Mojave Property Owners (CA)
• Environmental Conservation Organization
• Environmental Issues Council
• Environmental Stewardship Foundation
• Family Water Alliance (CA)
• Farm Credit Property Rights Fdtn.
• Farwell Irrigation District (NE)
• Georgia Public Policy Foundation
• Gold Hill Resource Coalition (ID)
• Grassroots for Multiple Use (ID/MO)
• High Desert Multple-Use Coalition (CA)
• Idaho County Farm Bureau
• Independent Miners
• Institute for Regulatory Science
• International Wildlife Mgmt. Consortium
• League of Private Property Voters
• Lincoln County Public Lands Committee (NV)
• Malheur Timber Operators (OR)
• McCulloch County Prop Owners Assoc. (TX)
• Minnesota Corn Growers
• Montanans For Multiple Use
• Multiple Use Assoc (ME/NH)
• National Assoc of Mining Districts
• National Natural Resources Coalition
• National Outdoor Coalition
• National Trappers Assoc.
• Nebraska Landowners & Sportsman Assoc.
• Nebraska Landowners Alliance Inc
• New Mexico Public Lands Council
• New Mexico Woolgrowers Action Committee
• New Mexico Woolgrowers Assoc.
• Niobrara River Basin Development Assoc
• Northern Catron County Ranchers (NM)
• Nevada Outdoor Alliance
• Oregon Independent Miners
• Pennsylvania Landowners' Assoc.
• People for the Constitution (NV)
• People for the West (Brawley, CA)
• People for the West (Reno, NV)
• People for the West (Accord, AZ)
• People for the West (Lucerne, CA)
• People for the West (Rnd Valley, AZ)
• Piedmont Environmental Development Assoc.
• Pima County Rural Property Owners (AZ)
• Plow (Private Landowners of Wisconsin)
• Property Owners Coalition (Ca)
• Property Rights Alliance (WA)
• Property Rights Foundation of America
• Public Lands for the People (CA)
• Regulatory Science Press
• Resource Protection Institute (CA)
• Riverside & Landowners Coaliton (TX)
• San Diego Off-Road Coalition (CA)
• Science and Environmental Policy Project (VA)
• Sierra Forest Foundation (CA)
• Sierra Valley Women in Timber (CA)
• Southwest Meat Assoc. (TX)
• Stand Up! (AL)
• Sugar Cane Growers Coop of Florida
• Take Back Texas
• Treasure Coast Coalition (FL)
• Trees - Coastal Chapter (OR)
• Tulelake Growers Assoc. (CA)
• Washington Friends of Farms & Forests
• Washington Lands Coalition
• Washington Log Truckers Conference
• Water For Life (OR)
• We Can! (CA)
• Western Mining Council
• Winning American Rights (NY)
• Wisconsin Women for Agriculture
• Wise Use Solidarity (WA)
• Wyoming Wool Growers

Survey results of a poll of 1,000 "likely" registered voters across the country conducted on March 25-27 with an associated confidence interval of +3.1%. The Survey was conducted by phone by the Tarrance Group for Project Common Sense.

• 71% Favor Incentives and Rewards. When presented the option of the most effective means for implementing ESA laws (an endangered species program based upon incentives or a ESA program based on penalties and restrictions on public and private land) 71% of voters indicated they believed that the establishment of incentives and rewards would be most effective.
• Only 15% believe that punishments and penalties would be more effective.
• Only 4% believe that both should be utilized.
• The view that incentives and rewards are more effective rises with education (50% of those without a high school education, 77% among college graduates.)
• There is no difference in attitude based on partisanship (72% of Republicans and ticket-splitters and 70% of Democrats believe in incentives.)
• 71% of voters believe that the States should have at least equal authority in setting and enforcing ESA policy in their state.
• 65% believe that state government should have at least equal authority on setting and enforcing policy on federally owned lands in their states.
• Among voter groups such as African Americans, Democrats, Clinton voters, self-identified liberals, and working women 64% hold this view.
• 48% of voters and 62% of voters in Mountain region agreed that the Act has adverse impact on people
• Respondents were asked if the agreed with the statement that ESA laws are hurting many industries, denying people the chance to find good jobs, provide for their families and build for their children's future.
• 48% agreed and 9% were uncertain
• 62% of voters in the Mountain region, 53% West, 50 Midwest agreed and 51% in the Northeast disagreed
• 54% of self-identified conservatives agreed while 57% of self-identified liberals disagreed
• 58% of Republicans agreed while 50% of Democrats disagreed
• Only 18% of respondents believe that the Endangered Species Act should be applied equally to public and private land.
• 39% believe that ESA should be applied to both public and private land but that private land owners should be compensated for any negative economic impact. (There are higher levels of support for this position among Texas voters, moderate/liberal democrats, Democrat men, 35-44 year old voters and self-identified liberals)
• 27% believe that it should be applied to only public land (the subgroup holding this view is primarily Republicans, South - central region, women at home, seniors, self-identified conservatives and Bush and Perot voters.)
• 9% believe that ESA laws should be 'done away with' (This rises to 19% in Mountain states region, as do men over the age of 45 and older Republicans)

Endangered Species Facts:

• That no endangered species can be legitimately claimed as having recovered because of the Act?

Although a few species are claimed as recoveries, in each case it is more accurate to attribute removal from the endangered species list to 'data error'-meaning it should not have been listed in the first place or its improvement is attributable to a factor other than the Endangered Species Act. For example, some species were improving before being listed while some owe their recovery in large part to the non-ESA-related ban of DDT.

• That 68.4% of animals that are candidates for addition to the Endangered Species Act are insects, snails, spiders and other invertebrates? (Based upon the USFWS Animal Notice of Review-candidate list-8/11/94.)

• That the ESA discourages private property owners from providing habitat for endangered species:

According to Michael Bean of the Environmental Defense Fund: "there is increasing evidence that at least some landowners are actively managing their land so as to avoid potential endangered species problems." "Now it's important to recognize that all of these actions that landowners are either taking or threatening to take are not the result of malice toward the red-cockaded woodpecker, not the result of malice toward the environment Rather, they're fairly rational decisions motivated by a desire to avoid potentially significant economic constraints. In short, they're really nothing more than a predictable response to the familiar perverse incentives that sometimes accompany regulatory programs."

According to Larry McKinney of Texas Parks and Wildlife Commission: "While I have no hard evidence to prove it, I am convinced that more habitat for the black-capped vireo, and especially the golden-cheeked warbler, has been lost in those areas of Texas since the listing of these birds than would have been lost without the ESA at all."

• That numerous species have been added to the Endangered Species List by accident including the: Mexican duck, Pine Barrens tree frog, McKittrick pennyroyal, Palau dove, Palau owl, Palau flycatcher, Rydberg milk-vetch, Tumamoc globeberry and Maguire daisy? (Based upon the USFWS Threatened and Endangered Species List (8/94),GAO Report on Endangered Species (1988) and Federal Register delisting notices.)

• That plans to recover endangered species include statements like:

Iowa Pleistocene Snail: "With a return to glacial conditions it will be resuscitated over a major part of the upper Midwest, provided its relictual areas are preserved and maintained"

Florida Scrub Jay: "Because of the extreme usefulness of the Act in this case, it is not desirable to remove the scrub jay from protection under the "Endangered Species Act" "There is no anticipated date of recovery because it may never be feasible to delist this species."

Blunt-nosed Leopard Lizard: "A current target acreage figure of 80,000 acres has been established for the San Joaquin Valley floor, with additional emphasis on optional habitats containing high density blunt-nosed leopard lizard populations in identified 'priority' habitat areas conflicting land users will be reduced or eliminated in an effort to restore habitat to optimal condition."

• That the ten species covered by the most expensive endangered species recovery plans are:

Atlantic Green Turtle $88,236,000
Loggerhead Turtle $85,947,000
Blunt-Nosed Leopard Lizard $70,252,000
Kemp's Ridley Sea Turtle $63,600,000
Colorado Squawfish $57,770,000
Humpback Chub $57,770,000
Bonytail Chub $57,770,000
Razorback Sucker $57,770,000
Black-Capped Vireo $53,538,000
Swamp Pink $29,026,000

• That there is a kind of cockroach - the Tuna cave cockroach - on the candidate species list?

• That the government has no estimate of the economic cost of the Endangered Species Act?

• That while the government has no estimated cost, if you use USFWS estimates of the average cost to list ($68,400), recover ($2.76 million) and delist ($39,220) a species and multiply that by a fraction of the number of species on the list plus a fraction of the candidate species estimated by the Interior Department to require future listing, the cost of recovery alone reaches $7.3 to $9.1 billion.

This projection employs the methodology of the Interior Department Inspector General using USFWS's "high range" estimate of $2,760,000 for recovery of 70% of currently listed species. The projection assumes that USFWS has made sufficient progress to recovery 30% of currently listed species without additional funding and uses the Inspector General's estimate that a range of 43-60% of Category 2 candidate species will eventually be listed. Figures based upon USFWS's own estimates and the USFWS Budget Justifications for FY '93 are adjusted to 1994 dollars.

The Grassroots ESA Coalition expressed extreme disappointment today over the Supreme Court's Decision in favor of the Interior Department in the case Babbitt v. Sweet Home and sees the ruling as forcing Congress to replace the current punitive endangered species program with an non-regulatory, incentive-based approach.

According to Rob Gordon, Executive Director of the National Wilderness Institute, a member of the Grassroots ESA Coalition, "Unfortunately, the Court's decision sends the warning to each and every landowner that endangered species or habitat suitable for them means loosing control of your property. This pits people against wildlife - and we know from experience that wildlife will lose in such a confrontation."

Ike Sugg of The Competitive Enterprise Institute, a Coalition member, echoed the concern about the decision's disastrous effects on endangered species. "When you want more of something, you reward people for it, not punish them - this decision does just the opposite and makes reforming the Endangered Species Act an even more urgent matter."

Another coalition member, David Langford of the Texas Wildlife Association shares the same concerns, "The Court's decision essentially places a bounty on endangered species and their habitat. It rewards people who get rid of either by allowing them to retain control of their private property."

The Grassroots ESA Coalition which includes 250 organizations representing 4 million people recently formed to promote an endangered species program which eliminated the punitive or perverse incentive approach to endangered species management in favor of a non-regulatory, incentive based management.

Dennis Hollingsworth of the Riverside County Farm Bureau and a Coalition member sees the Court's decision as adding urgency to the Coalition's message, "An endangered species program can't work if it does not have the support of ordinary people - farmers, ranchers, woodlot owners. The burden to fix the problem is now on Congress - if we don't it is like putting butter on a burn - something people used to think was a good idea but everybody knows better now."

Seventy-one percent of the public favors an endangered species program based on incentives," says Jim Streeter, a former Fish and Wildlife Official now with the National Wilderness Institute. "The public recognizes the need to shift from a punitive to a non-regulatory program even if the Court feels hemmed in by an outdated law. The Court's decision made the Grassroots Coalition's work and principles even more timely."