9666 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

to accomplish conservation measures that enable a listed species to recover in the wild, with or without intervention (e.g., artificial cavity provisioning), prior to implementing controlled propagation for reintroduction or supplementation." The policy also states that controlled propagation will be "based on the specific recommendations of recovery strategies identified in approved recovery plans or supplements to approved recovery plans whenever practical." Furthermore, the "recovery plan, in addressing controlled propagation, should clearly identify the necessity and role of this activity as a recovery strategy." Additionally, controlled propagation must not be carried out as a recovery option without addressing potential benefits and risks (both genetic and ecological); and that prior to release of propagated individuals, controlled propagation must be tied to the development of a reintroduction plan. In short, the policy statement emphasizes that controlled propagation (including the holding of offspring and reintroduction) should not be undertaken until all other less intrusive recovery options to recover the species in the wild have been tried and shown to fail. Furthermore, the document is clear that controlled propagation should be identified as a recovery option in an approved recovery plan document. From a legal perspective, this could be problematic concerning many of the options discussed in this report. The 1990 Recovery Plan for humpback chub identifies broodstock development, reintroduction and augmentation as specific recovery needs and strategies (USFWS 1990). However, the most recent Recovery Goals for humpback chub (USFWS 2002a) make no such provisions. In addition, the most recent Recovery Goals call for self-sustaining populations in order to meet downlisting and delisting criteria, as opposed to population augmentation via hatchery production. The scientific literature clearly coincides with the perspective of USFWS's and NOAA's policy on captive propagation. Captive broodstocks should not be considered as an effective means for the long-term safeguard of most species and strains (Nehlsen et al. 1991), and stocking should not be a factor that leads to the diminishment of habitat conservation and restoration (Philippart 1995). There is concern that funding and attention expended for ex situ recovery efforts (Le., captive brood stock) often preempts funding and attention for in situ recovery efforts (e.g., improvement of habitat), largely because long-term solutions to conserve wild populations are often politically more difficult than captive breeding solutions, tempting managers to de-emphasize efforts for wild populations once captive brood stocks are in place (Snyder et al. 1996). Philippart (1995) emphasizes that movement of animals from the wild to a captive breeding station is considered the most extreme form of relocation, and Snyder et al. (1996) emphasrze that captive breeding should be viewed as a last resort to species recovery. Primary objectives The first step in designing a captive breeding program is to clearly define its objectives (Frankham et al. 1986). For humpback chub, the following two objectives seem most 11