Conservation triage or injurious neglect in endangered species recovery

Abstract

Although government funding available for species protection and recovery is one of the best predictors of successful recovery, government spending is both insufficient and highly disproportionate among groups of species. Here I demonstrate that expenditures for recovery in excess of the recommended recovery budget would not necessarily translate into better conservation outcomes. More importantly, elimination of the budget surplus for "costly yet futile" recovery plans can provide sufficient funding to offset funding deficits for more than 180 species. Using a return on investment analysis, I show that triage by budget compression provides better funding for a larger sample of species, and that a larger sample of adequately funded recovery plans should produce better outcomes even if by chance.