Most funding for endangered species only benefits a few creatures. Thousands of others are left in limbo

Striking Disparities in Endangered Species Funding

Since the Endangered Species Act became law 50 years ago, the government has listed more than 1,700 species for protection. Yet how these funds are distributed shows a big inequality. The largest portion of the budget goes towards the recovery of salmon and steelhead trout. Other high-profile species also get big chunks of money including manatees, right whales, grizzly bears, and spotted owls. Meanwhile, many lesser-known species receive little or no support even though they’re in danger of extinction.

One example is the Virginia fringed mountain snail, which had only $100 spent on its behalf in 2020, according to federal records. Despite only being seen once in 35 years, it’s clear that a disturbing number of plants, animals, insects, fish, and other creatures are not receiving the support they need.

The urgency to act is growing as species are facing more threats because of climate change. The government has had challenges properly executing recovery actions required under the law. Some experts argue that it’s time to rethink the distribution of funds. Shift to species with less expensive recovery plans that have been neglected for years could make a significant impact.

A recent Associated Press analysis discovered that about half the budget goes toward fish. Among them, tens of millions of dollars are directed to a number of salmon and steelhead populations in California, Oregon, and Washington. Mammals and birds, on the other hand, don’t receive as much of the funding. Species like stoneflies, the stocky California tiger salamander and flowering plants are being overlooked despite approaching extinction.

Restoring salmon and steelhead is expensive because they’re found over a large area and blocked by large-scale hydroelectric dams. Political pressure also plays a role in where resources are allocated. As a result, the entire plant kingdom was nearly excluded from the Act when it was passed in 1973. While the number of protected plants has grown, they’re still receiving a small portion of the funding.

Underfunding is a problem because it’s been shown that species tend to decline when they receive less funding than necessary. At the same time, there is a higher chance of recovery when they receive enough money. A strategic approach is needed, and there’s a short supply of resources. Officials have been trying to allocate funds more effectively and came up with a climate law that provides an additional $62.5 million for biologists to craft recovery plans. Increased funding is especially important because more than half the agency’s existing recovery plans are more than two decades old.