Since the passage of the Endangered Species Act 50 years ago, over 1,700 species in the U.S. have been listed as threatened or endangered. However, there are significant disparities in the allocation of funds to save these species. Out of the approximately $1.2 billion spent annually on endangered and threatened species, half of the funds are directed towards the recovery of just two types of fish: salmon and steelhead trout along the West Coast. Other well-known animals such as manatees, right whales, grizzly bears, and spotted owls also receive tens of millions of dollars. Unfortunately, this means that some species have been neglected for decades, pushing them closer to extinction.

At the bottom of the spending list is the Virginia fringed mountain snail, which only had $100 spent on its behalf in 2020. This underground-dwelling snail has only been sighted once in the past 35 years, yet there are more than 200 imperiled plants, animals, fish, and other creatures that received no funding at all. This neglect is concerning, especially considering the increasing threats posed by climate change and the growing number of species qualifying for protection under the Endangered Species Act.

Government officials are struggling to execute recovery actions required by law due to limited resources. Some scientists argue that it may be more effective to redirect funds from costly efforts that may not work towards species with less expensive recovery plans that have been ignored. For example, Leah Gerber, a professor of conservation science at Arizona State University, suggests that allocating a fraction of the budget spent on spotted owls could save entire species of cacti that have smaller budgets but are equally important.

An analysis of 2020 data by the Associated Press revealed that 67% of the spending went to fish, with the majority directed towards several dozen salmon and steelhead populations in California, Oregon, and Washington. Mammals received 7% of the funds, birds received about 5%, insects received only 0.5%, and plants received 2%. However, these percentages do not include the money divided among multiple species.

Unfortunately, some species received no funding at all. These include stoneflies threatened by climate change in Montana's Glacier National Park, the stocky California tiger salamander affected by development, and flowering plants like the scrub lupine around Orlando, Florida, where native habitat has been converted for theme parks.

The disparities in spending can be attributed to a combination of biological realities and political pressures. Restoring salmon and steelhead populations is expensive due to their widespread distribution and their confinement by massive hydroelectric dams. Additionally, they have a broad political constituency, including Native American tribes and commercial fishing interests, who advocate for their restoration. Congress has allocated significant funds to agencies such as the Bonneville Power Administration to operate dams and support fish ladders, habitat restoration projects, scientific monitoring, and other necessary measures.

When the Endangered Species Act was adopted in 1973, the entire plant kingdom was almost excluded from the law. However, botanists from the Smithsonian Institution and Lee Talbot, a senior scientist at the White House Council on Environmental Quality, pushed for their inclusion at the last minute. Today, over 900 trees, ferns, flowers, and other plants are protected, but they received only about $26 million in funding in 2020. According to Faith Campbell, a longtime environmental advocate, plants are catching up in terms of numbers, but they still lack the financial resources and attention compared to larger animal species that attract public interest or cause conflicts.

The lack of funding for some plants has direct consequences. Researchers argue that species tend to decline when they receive less funding than needed, while they have a higher chance of recovery when they receive sufficient financial support. To address this issue, Leah Gerber and others propose redirecting funds from species that receive more than their recovery plans require, such as the bull trout, gopher tortoise, and Northern spotted owl, to those that receive little or no funding.

However, some conservationists disagree with this approach. Former U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Director Jamie Rappaport Clark believes that debating how to allocate scarce resources is a distraction from the real issue: the lack of sufficient funding. She emphasizes that there simply isn't enough money to address the needs of all endangered species.

Despite the challenges, wildlife officials are making efforts to take action. The climate law signed by President Joe Biden last year includes $62.5 million to hire biologists who will develop recovery plans for 32 species initially, with the potential to expand to 300 species in the future. Some of the species that will benefit from this funding include the candy darter fish, the marr??n bacora shrub, the Panama City crayfish, and the Stephens' kangaroo rat. Additionally, the law provides $5.1 million for recovery projects benefiting historically underfunded groups such as Hawaii and Pacific island plants, butterflies and moths, freshwater mussels, and desert fish in the southwestern U.S.

The goal is to provide relief after the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's environmental review staff has decreased by 20% over the past two decades, despite the increasing number of listed species. Lindsay Rosa, vice president for conservation research at Defenders of Wildlife, highlights that over half of the agency's existing recovery plans are over two decades old, emphasizing the need for increased funding.

In conclusion, the allocation of funds for endangered species in the U.S. is imbalanced, with a significant portion going towards the recovery of fish species, particularly salmon and steelhead trout. This leaves many other species neglected, some for decades, as they face potential extinction. The lack of funding for certain plants and animals has serious consequences, as species tend to decline without sufficient financial support. While there are ongoing debates about how to allocate limited resources, the urgency to take action and prevent further extinctions remains. Wildlife officials are making efforts to address this issue, with the recent climate law providing additional funding for biologists to develop recovery plans and support projects benefiting historically underfunded species groups.