Global versus local conservation focus of U.S. state agency endangered bird species lists.
The development of species priorities for conservation at local or regional scales (for example, within a state or province) poses an interesting paradox. One the one hand, locally or regionally-derived species priorities may lead to greater interest in and resources directed to biodiversity conservation by local or regional institutions. On the other hand, locally or regionally-derived species priorities could overlook national or global priorities. We assessed U.S. state government agency endangered-threatened bird lists to determine the comparative representation of species of global versus local conservation significance on them. State lists tended to be represented primarily by species of low global risk-low global responsibility (range: 15-100%; mean 51%) and high global risk-high global responsibility (range: 0-73%; mean 35%). In 25 states, more than half of the species on the state lists were in the low global risk-low global responsibility category. Most U.S. state agency lists represent a combined strategy of highlighting species of both local and global conservation significance. Even with this combined local-global strategy, most state lists were predominated by species that represent local but not global conservation significance. Such a strategy could have profound negative consequences for many species that are not formally recognized under national endangered species protections but that are also left off of state-level endangered species lists.
Wells
Jeffrey V
JV
Boreal Songbird Initiative, Seattle, Washington, United States of America. jeffwells@borealbirds.org
Robertson
Bruce
B
Rosenberg
Kenneth V
KV
Mehlman
David W
DW
D000818:Animals; D003247:Conservation of Natural Resources; D056727:Endangered Species; D006077:Government Agencies; D014481:United States