Current Law:
The ESA says that when the Secretary is deciding whether a species should be listed as endangered or threatened, he cannot consider the economic impacts of the listing. Rather, the decision must be based solely on the best scientific and commercial data available. (Proposed amendments also address the definition of best scientific data.)
Proposed Amendment:
H.R. 3824 "revises the criteria for making determinations of endangered or threatened species," a summary of the bill says. Under this amendment, when listing a species, the Secretary would be required to prepare an analysis of "the economic, national security, and other relevant impacts and benefits" of the listing. Click below to read the amendment.
Controversy:
The Union of Concerned Scientists argues, "While non-scientific factors may appropriately be considered at points later in the process of protecting species, their use in listing decisions is inconsistent with biologically defensible principles." See The Endangered Species Act: Consideration of Economic Factors, by Pamela Baldwin, for more information.
Scientists have also addressed the need for science-based, adaptable recovery plans for endangered and threatened species. Some scientists argue that species recovery should be viewed as a continuum that requires active management even after the species no longer meets the ESA-list criteria. See "Recovery of imperiled species under the Endangered Species Act: the need for a new approach" to learn about one proposal to redefine recovery. J. Michael Scott, a guest on Science Friday this week, is an author on the paper.