In a country that values private property such as the United States, it is hard to control activities on private land. It's also unrealistic to believe that small or medium-sized landowners, should play a major role in the conservation of these species. Especially since many species need hands-on management, such as red-cockaded woodpecker (very few, if any non-assisted clusters in my state left). Working with larger private landowners is where things can be done, say large forestry companies in southeast leaving stands for RCW or habitat conservation for lesser-prairie chicken by major ranchers. Despite that critique, the Endangered Species Act is probably the strongest of its kind in the world. In regards to American law it was a radical departure from previous legislation regarding private property and is extremely strong when it comes to state and federal government land (making it almost impossible to waive, except for the border wall). Regarding federal land, a great example is that my state's largest RCW population is on Fort Bragg, specifically around the bombing range. The government was mandated to conserve the population and it did, with innovative management strategies. You are not now or anytime in the near future going to get another law as strong as it passed through congress. Especially the critical habitat designation section, which shocked constitutional scholars when it was upheld by the supreme court.
The biggest issue for the endangered species is chronically underfunded. The budget of the USFWS for it is small considering how many species are listed. In the southeast species like the red-cockaded woodpecker and the red wolf program take most of divisions funding. The budget hasn't increased at all in the last decade for example, despite inflation. If we keep the ESA on a starvation budget, what do we expect. One way to remedy this is to pass the Recover Americas Wildlife Act, which would more than double endangered species funding to USFWS and state wildlife agencies. So that's an easy solution that has bi-partisan support, yet the senate refuses to take it up (maybe that'll change come January). I am frightened at the recent rhetoric that has been spread as of recent to delegitimize the law. The big talking point being how few species have recovered for example ignores the fact that the law has stemmed the decline or likely extinction of many of the species on it. These people have no good intent in their heart, they simply want to move Americans against a law that still remains extremely popular in polling.
