"Beyond a doubt, the greatest threat today to the Florida panther lies in the departments of government collaborating to save it…. Lobbying for enabling legislation, and for the provision of funds, by environmental organizations has been rewarding, but the resulting aid has outrun the institutional capacity to use it effectively."
Ken Alvarez, former member of the Panther Advisory Council, Twilight of the Panther 1993:23
"Poor implementation of the ESA [Endangered Species Act] is itself a major cause of the continuing decline of species, and professionals and organizations are significantly responsible for the quality of implementation."
Tim Clark, Richard Reading, Alice Clarke, Endangered Species Recovery 1994: 4. |
|
Endangered species recovery is an organizational, social, political, and economic process as well as a biological process. Numerous agencies, groups, and individuals have an interest in the Florida panther and its future. The recovery of the Florida panther is generally guided by four agencies: the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission, the National Park Service, and the Florida Department of Environmental Protection. Representatives from these agencies make up the Florida Panther Interagency Committee (FPIC). There is also a FPIC Technical Subcommittee, composed of representatives from the four agencies, that meets, listens to reports from field biologists and outside experts, and makes recommendations to FPIC. It is FPIC that makes the major decisions concerning panther management. Another group, the Florida Panther Technical Advisory Council (FPTAC), whose members are appointed by the governor, advises the Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission only.
Decisions of other agencies and entities, including the South Florida and Southwest Florida water management districts, the Central, Southwest, and South Florida regional planning councils, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the Florida Department of Transportation, the U.S. Forest Service, and the Seminole and Miccosukee tribes, may be critical to the panther's future. Local governments (cities and counties), through land use and zoning decisions, also affect habitat of the panther and many other species.
In an examination of endangered species recovery nationwide, sociologist Ron Westum (1994) argues that existing governmental agencies do not generally function in a way that leads to successful recovery of endangered species. Agencies have distinct histories, are accustomed to functioning independently of each other, and their goals and values may conflict. When they were established, the need for intergovernmental coordination was not recognized to the extent it is today. Government agencies may be notoriously slow in completing tasks, especially when everything must be reviewed and decisions made through long chains of  command. Mid-level managers may distort information as it moves up and down long hierarchies between field biologists and top administrators (Clark, Reading, and Clarke 1994; Synder 1994).
Clark, Reading, and Clarke (1994) suggest reorganizing the way the endangered species recovery process occurs in the United States. They suggest establishment of teams of experts (social scientists as well as biologists) who are committed to the goal of species recovery and who are not simply representatives of governmental agencies or special interest groups. Teams must include the principal biologists who have worked with the species. Members need to be free to inquire, to think, and to speak their minds independent of government agencies. They need to be empowered to make decisions and to act quickly. They need leaders who are open to new ideas and who are able to get potential adversaries to "buy in" to species recovery.
 Back to Top
 Mercury and Other Contaminants Public Perceptions
|
