My link

Well, ya know, there are priorities (round up the usual suspects...).

I am still trying to learn how to access the effectiveness of these programs. I do know in some states (mine) that the law was obviously written with a near blanket set of laws, that did not counter existing laws, with apparently no real reference to any particular species needs. I certainly want to support conservation efforts, even at the expense of my freedoms. But I also want to know it is not just a bunch of laws placed on the books to justify collecting federal/state money.

Reading this link only begs the question. Consider (from th link):

“Despite historical successes in bringing many fish and wildlife species back from the brink of extinction, other species at risk have continued to decline as evidenced by the staggering numbers listed under the federal Endangered Species Act,” said PFBC Executive Director John Arway.

Point of fact: Increasing the numbers of species on the endangered list is not itself "evidence" of any change in the field status of any given species. But what about the successes mentioned here? Consider this quote:

With the help of these grants, the PFBC has been able to be much more proactive in gathering and using data about vulnerable species, including actually removing species from the state threatened and endangered species lists as a result of increased knowledge about the distribution and abundance of species.

(Italics added)
Here it 'appears' to specify that these status changes were merely the result of "increased knowledge" concerning species distribution. No actual change in the field status of any species is mentioned. I can name a few successes, but they all preceded these state specific regulatory bodies and the plethora of laws they placed on the books. I am well aware that my knowledge is too limited to make any real judgments at this point, but when the agencies pad their claims of field effectiveness with the volume of corrected data, or data not previously available at all, it does not engender anything but skepticism. The article is pretty worthless in making any kind of real case.

One example I know about is the Eastern Box Turtle. In spite of the fact that people living in Eastern Box Turtle territory can go years without ever seeing one, while out west it is near impossible to go through a summer without seeing multiple dozens of Western Box Turtles without getting out of the car, Eastern Box Turtle are actually far more abundant than Western Box Turtles. The numbers on a small plot of this property, undisturbed like a tiny personal wildlife sanctuary, is staggering.

The two big ecological elephants, not effectively addressed and trump all the hunter/hobbyist issues the laws are aimed at, is habitat and fertilizer effluent. We have a dead zone that kills everything that cannot get away in the Gulf bigger than some states as a direct result. Not to mention the effects on inland habitats. The actual effect is worse than the oil spill.

Anyway, I am still studying this issue, but the efforts appear more driven as a mechanism for collecting funds than a coherent effort at actual conservation. Again, that is not to say that no positive benefits have come from it. But the same money and effort could potentially multiply that benefit many times if geared more toward effects, rather than just data collection to justify funds with.

I want to see some real conservation efforts, that take the ecology as a whole as the primary concern. That means regulating my trash/effluent would have far bigger bang for the buck than all the collection laws on the books. I personally would concede any and all hobby rights if it would fix the problem, but that is not even a significant percentage of the problems source.

You're right, habitat degradation is the single biggest killer. Some species can be overcollected, like green salamanders, but even with them increasingly acidic precipitation at the high altitudes they prefer may be as important as amateur poaching.