An Evaluation of the Endangered Species Act and Private Landowner Assurances
Bridget Cummings
University of Wisconsin, Department of Wildlife Ecology, 215 Russell Laboratory, 1630 Linden Drive, Madison WI 53706
bbcummin1@yahoo.com
Nancy E. Mathews
University of Wisconsin, Department of Wildlife Ecology, 215 Russell Laboratory, 1630 Linden Drive, Madison WI 53706
nemathew@facstaff.wisc.edu
Editor's Note
The UPDATE presents a three-part series of educational essays from Nancy Mathews' Wildlife
Ecology class at the University of Wisconsin. We are presenting a selection of position papers
regarding Section 10 of the Endangered Species Act. This educational exercise is an example of how
the next generation of conservation biologists is being trained. In particular, the essay set reflects an
emphasis on remaining sensitive to the perspectives of multiple stakeholders. Perhaps some novel ideas
are embedded in these essays as well, as fresh eyes often bring new insights to old controversies.
Wildlife Ecology students were given sample Habitat Conservation Plans and were instructed
to assume the identity of the associated landowner, who also happened to be a trained wildlife
biologist. The role-playing assignment was then given as follows:
Please write a position paper to be presented at a Senate sub-committee hearing on reau-thorization
of the Endangered Species Act. Support or refute the intent of the Section 10 administra-tive
policies that attempt to make conservation planning more palatable to private property owners.
Give a brief overview of the policies and present the pros and cons of the private landowner assur-ances.
Support your position using what you have learned in class, the Endangered Species Act,
and the assigned Habitat Conservation Plan.