If Murphy`s Law has variations, one of them must certainly be that you have the opportunity to screw up a good idea, people will. There is ample evidence of this fact, but it is a question of focusing on threatened species “Safe Harbor Agreements” and a multitude of ideas that, if persecuted, will certainly deprive this new conservation instrument of much of its potential value. This does not mean that reports, monitoring and other requirements should never be imposed on Safe Harbour agreements, but that the temptation to go overboard with such requirements can only scare away landowners whose cooperation would benefit the most endangered species. In considering this point, it is important to consider the consequences of evicting landowners. A system so complex that it prevents landowners from participating means that the conservation of threatened species on private land must be achieved first by the application of the hosting ban. However, this ban does not even address many of the most serious threats to species survival, including the loss of natural disturbances, the presence of exotic species, the inevitable downward spiral of small isolated populations in already fragmented habitats, etc. In addition, the effective application of the hospitality ban requires that police officers know where the protected species are and when landowners end up acting; For many listed species, this is clearly not the case. Safe Harbour agreements have the potential to improve both our knowledge of the location of threatened species and our ability to preserve them, by involving the proactive cooperation of private landowners. That`s why it`s so important not to ruin it. To date, the SHAs used in Florida have been used to protect the habitat of the red-tailed woodpecker (Picoides borealis).

There are currently 16 SHAs (about 95,000 hectares) in Florida. Participants in these agreements are generally larger landowners who already apply land management practices that benefit the wildlife in their wildlife management. The actions taken by these landowners are likely to assist in the recovery of RCW species in Florida. The use of HSAs in North Carolina has already helped reverse the decline in vehicle numbers and maintain a positive attitude on the part of landowners towards ESA rules (Kishida 2001). Learn more about a Safe Harbor Agreement that provides suitable habitat for species listed as grey grey and northern owls in Northern California. Refuse the security of port guarantees for landowners who receive federal funds. Unfortunately, ill-thought-out ideas are not the exclusive province of the regulated community or government. Among the more self-destructive ideas adopted by at least some environmental groups, it is understood that landowners who receive public cost assistance for the implementation of habitat improvements are not allowed to enter into safe harbour agreements with respect to these improvements.