I can't think of a more negative signal to a private landowner than the one that makes the presence of endangered species a liability for them on their land as opposed to a source of potential incentive or revenues. I often tell people if they want to be up to their knees in burrowing owls, then they should pay landowners per burrowing owl that fledges from their landscape, and that's the appropriate signal. That's the way the policy should be designed when you're dealing with private property rights.
It's a totally different picture on crown land, obviously, but when you're dealing with the privately owned landscape, to make endangered species that we want more of a liability is, in my view, a perverse and negative reaction.