The Experts below are selected from a list of 12972 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform

Deborah L. Heller - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

Eugene H. Buck - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

Jeffrey A. Michael - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • preemptive habitat destruction under the Endangered Species Act
    The Journal of Law and Economics, 2003
    Co-Authors: Dean Lueck, Jeffrey A. Michael
    Abstract:

    This paper examines the extent to which landowners have preemptively destroyed habitat for the Endangered red-cockaded woodpeckers (RCWs) in the forests of North Carolina in order to avoid potential land-use regulations prescribed under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Under the ESA, it is illegal to kill an Endangered Species and it is also illegal to damage its habitat. By preventing the establishment of an old-growth pine stand, landowners can ensure that RCWs do not inhabit their land and avoid ESA regulations that limit or prohibit timber harvest Activity. Data from 1984–90 on over 1,000 individual forest plots are used to test predictions about the probability of harvest and the age of timber when it is harvested. We find that increases in the proximity of a plot to RCWs increases the probability that the plot will be harvested and decreases the age at which the forest is harvested.

  • THE Endangered Species Act AND PRIVATE LANDOWNER INCENTIVES
    2000
    Co-Authors: Jeffrey A. Michael
    Abstract:

    While intended to increase the habitat available to Endangered Species, the restrictions of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) increase the costs of harboring an Endangered Species to private landowners and create incentives for private landowners to reduce habitat. This paper illustrates the incentive for habitat destruction with a simple model of private land use under the ESA, and uses it to predict the effects of changes in policy or biological conditions on private landowner incentives. Many anecdotal accounts and recent empirical research support the predictions of the model. Because of the ESA’s perverse incentives, many have proposed replacing the punitive regulations of the ESA with positive incentives for habitat creation, including takings compensation, negligence compensation rules, tradable development rights, and land purchase programs. The paper concludes by reviewing economic analysis of these proposals’ effectiveness.

  • PREEMPTIVE HABITAT DESTRUCTION AND THE Endangered Species Act: THE CASE OF THE RED-COCKADED WOODPECKER
    1998
    Co-Authors: Jeffrey A. Michael
    Abstract:

    An economic model illustrating a southern forest landowner's incentive to increase timber harvest in response to the risk of red-cockaded woodpecker colonization and subsequent regulation under the Endangered Species Act is developed. The empirical results show that industrial landownders respond to these incentives, whereas non-industrial private forest landowners do not.

Kristina Alexander - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

Daniel J. Rohlf - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • six biological reasons why the Endangered Species Act doesn t work and what to do about it
    Conservation Biology, 1991
    Co-Authors: Daniel J. Rohlf
    Abstract:

    AbstrAct: Law plays an important role in shaping land management decisions. The success of efforts to conserve biodiversity thus depends to a large degree on how well scientific knowledge is translated into public policy. Unfortunately, the Endangered Species Act, the United States's strongest legal tool for conserving bidodiversity, contains serious biological flaws. The statute itself, as well us agency regulations and policies that implement the law include provisions that fail to account accurately for important biological concepts such us ecosystem conservation, patch dynamics, and the probabilistic nature of stochastic threats to a Species' persistence. Moreover, the procedures of federal agencies charged with implementing the Endangered Species Act in some cases make it difficult for interested outside reviewers to evaluate the agencies' scientific findings and methodology. However, the Endangered Species Act also gives interested individuals and groups several opportunities to provide input into the process of managing threatened and Endangered Species. Conservation biologists should prActice focused advocacy by taking advantage of such opportunities to steer law in a more biologically sound direction.

  • Six Biological Reasons Why the Endangered Species Act Doesn't Work—And What to Do About It
    Conservation Biology, 1991
    Co-Authors: Daniel J. Rohlf
    Abstract:

    AbstrAct: Law plays an important role in shaping land management decisions. The success of efforts to conserve biodiversity thus depends to a large degree on how well scientific knowledge is translated into public policy. Unfortunately, the Endangered Species Act, the United States's strongest legal tool for conserving bidodiversity, contains serious biological flaws. The statute itself, as well us agency regulations and policies that implement the law include provisions that fail to account accurately for important biological concepts such us ecosystem conservation, patch dynamics, and the probabilistic nature of stochastic threats to a Species' persistence. Moreover, the procedures of federal agencies charged with implementing the Endangered Species Act in some cases make it difficult for interested outside reviewers to evaluate the agencies' scientific findings and methodology. However, the Endangered Species Act also gives interested individuals and groups several opportunities to provide input into the process of managing threatened and Endangered Species. Conservation biologists should prActice focused advocacy by taking advantage of such opportunities to steer law in a more biologically sound direction.