Scientists motivated by pure conservation might exert influence on the process, but their priorities are not its priorities.

So the question becomes, to what extent is that bit is actually correct?

If species listed, and species not listed, had equal chances of recovery, it would mean that the people who choose when to list a species as endangered performed randomly – that they were just throwing darts at a dartboard to pick species.

It seems much more likely than me that the people who spend their entire careers working in this field, and who consider each case in detail, have information available to them that the economists who wrote this meta-analysis did not consider!

Could it simply be that the listing is a good prediction of future woes for the species?

With all of the political wrangling that surrounds it, a species needs to be on its last legs before it’s added to the list. It’s possible that being added to the list, regardless of any other effects, is an indicator that a species is likely to collapse within the next few generations.

“the funds have a strongly skewed distribution towards those endangered species that are considered to have the best chance for recovery”

It may be more the human bias towards what’s cuddly and cute – the so-called Bambi Effect.

Environmental groups, while well-meaning, are political critters that need to raise money. Hard to raise money with a picture of a banded kingsnake, say, as opposed to a violet hummingbird, even tho’ the kingsnake may be more important to the environment overall. Who wants to give money for an evil-looking reptile as opposed to the beautiful hummingbird? These groups then go forward with this money and lobby for agency action on X or Y species, ignoring the others.

Also there’s the issue of how enforcement has been carried out in the past. Instead of offering incentives – for example, grants towards preserving species with an eye towards fostering eco-tourism or exchanging prime habitat for the land rights elsewhere – the enforcement history has traditionally been strangely punitive. Altho’ this is now changing, history has caused landowners to be very reluctant to work with the government.