As Congress returns from the August recess, many questions remain about the future of the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Recently, the House Natural Resources Committee heard a series of legislative proposals addressing the program’s effectiveness, implementation, and even the legitimacy of the Act itself. While opinions about the ESA vary widely, Western Landowners Alliance believes it is in our common interest as a nation to preserve the intent and integrity of the Act, while improving the way in which it is implemented. Just as the ESA was originally adopted with strong bipartisan support, we also need a collaborative and bipartisan process to improve outcomes for both people and wildlife.

We also believe that real and enduring solutions will only be found through constructive partnerships with the farmers and ranchers who own and manage the working landscapes upon which the majority of our wildlife depend. The West is a checkerboard of public and private lands and wildlife species have never shown great deference to fences segregating these landscapes. As such, management of those species is often a shared responsibility between the states and private landowners. This quazi co-management becomes more difficult and complicated when species become listed as threatened or endangered, at which point the species falls under the management of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). FWS’s involvement generally results in regulatory restrictions to land use which can disproportionately impact landowners, particularly those who have kept land open and able to support wildlife when human development and activity have displaced them elsewhere. So, what should Congress consider as they seek to improve the ESA?

First and foremost, we need to elevate dialogue on the management and conservation of our lands and natural resources above the level of partisan rhetoric and tweets. It’s too important, and the issues involved are too complex. Congress must work across the aisle and with all key stakeholders in a thoughtful, collaborative process designed not to gut regulations, but to improve efficiency and outcomes for people and wildlife.

Second, focus should be on increasing proactive, voluntary actions that keep species from becoming imperiled in the first place and helping those that are spurring recovery more quickly. Up to 80 percent of wildlife species rely on private land for survival. Landowners can and should be engaged as partners. This means implementing the ESA in a way that recognizes and supports those who maintain habitat and manage for species conservation and recovery. Strategic investments up front can save tremendous costs, reduce regulation and better support both people and wildlife than waiting until species are on the brink of extinction.

Finally, collaboration and flexibility are essential in the management and conservation of our working landscapes, which provide both for wildlife and also for many human needs. In these complex landscapes, land use and conservation must be integrated and circumstances change continuously through time. This means we have to work together in an ongoing process of adaptive management and we need relationships built on trust to succeed. Congress can both set an example and also provide the institutional frameworks and targeted funding to better support place-based, collaborative management.

At the end of the day, land, natural resources and biodiversity make our existence possible. Through increased collaboration and smart investments, we can manage these resources responsibly and in a manner that does not jeopardize the livelihood of those putting food on our tables. It doesn’t have to be a zero-sum game.