<br />:t,',
<br />
<br />
<br />THREATENED & ENDANGERED FISHES
<br />
<br />
<br />Table 1. Fish species being held at Dexter NFH, New Mexico, as of July 1,1982,
<br />
<br />I.'/(.
<br />
<br />Spedes
<br />
<br />! I" I '/~ ; Family Catostomidae
<br />,)0: Razorback sucker
<br />, Family Cyprinidae
<br />Ii \ . u. .' Colorado squawfish,
<br />.... '.<r'! Bony tail .'
<br />~~ '-. .J;.",r'~i:_; Humpback chub
<br />, Rounqtail chub.
<br />!, . Gila chub.2
<br />" .iii~! I Sonora chub.
<br />. w',I .~.:: Rio Grande chub.
<br />L" I.i!.. Chihuahua chub (2 populations)l
<br />';;;,].,':1; 1.!jL Yaqui chub
<br />f..,:.... , Woundfin
<br />.,.., . Bea~tiful ~hiner
<br />!l' .. .'}, Family Cyprin6dontidae
<br />" ;, ';." ( Comanche Springs pupfish
<br />,.. Leon Springs pupfish
<br />V' ','i"/ Desert pupfish
<br />: '\' .... Family Poeciliidae
<br />. ," i h, Gila topminnow
<br />Big Bend gambusia .
<br />
<br />IE - Endangered
<br />T .... Threatened j;- ,; I
<br />p. ~ Proposed for listing in Federal Register
<br />C.... Candidate for future listing
<br />2Editors Note: Not as yet recognized by the Committee on Names of Fishes, American Fisheries Society.
<br />lOne from the Mimbres River, New Mexico, and one from the Rio Piedras Verde, Chihuahua, Mexico.
<br />.Held temporarily for hybridization studies only.
<br />
<br />!) -; .,i
<br />
<br />,~?_~., --H'~:~<;-~:_ t,; I.
<br />t.:'~':;;t~ 1;;'illn'::1
<br />
<br />, !.,
<br />-J' ,
<br />
<br />l i ~ } ~ .' .: ~ ~ i
<br />
<br />fish in captivity far exceeded their numbers in the
<br />wild, but still no fish were re-stocked.
<br />This apprehension was first overcome in 1980,
<br />when 35,000 Yaqui chub (Gila purpurea) were
<br />stocked on private property (San Bernardino Ranch)
<br />in southeastern Arizona. In the following year
<br />(1981), the Arizona Department of Game and
<br />Fish (AG&F) signed a Memorandum of Under-
<br />standing (MOU) with the FWS to reintroduce
<br />razorback suckers (Xyrauchen texanus) into the
<br />Gila River and its tributaries, in lieu of listing the
<br />species under the ESA. Under that MOU, the
<br />FWS agreed not to propose razorback sucker for
<br />listing until success of the restocking effort could
<br />be determined, estimated conservatively at 10
<br />years. By 1985, more than 6 million fry and 296,000
<br />'I fingerling razorback suckers had been stocked in
<br />Arizona waters. With reintroduction activities un-
<br />der way in Arizona, a degree of confidence and
<br />mutual trust began to develop among several of
<br />the involved agencies towards reintroducing native
<br />'~sh species.
<br />h(Th~, next significant step in the reintroduction
<br />
<br />
<br />. Sdentilic nlme
<br />
<br />Federal 1.I.USI
<br />
<br />Xyrauchen texanus
<br />
<br />
<br />C
<br />
<br />Ptychocheillls lucius
<br />Gila elegans
<br />Gila cypha
<br />Gila robusta
<br />Gila imermedia
<br />Gila ditaenia
<br />Gila pandora
<br />Gila nigrescens
<br />Gila purpurea
<br />PJagopterlls argemissimus
<br />NOlropis formosus
<br />
<br />E
<br />E
<br />E
<br />
<br />~
<br />
<br />T
<br />E
<br />E
<br />T
<br />
<br />Cyprinodon elegans
<br />Cyprinodon bovinlls
<br />Cyprinodon macularius
<br />
<br />E
<br />E
<br />P
<br />
<br />Poeciliopsis occidemalis
<br />Gambllsia gaigei
<br />
<br />E
<br />E
<br />
<br />
<br />program was another MOU signed by the USDA
<br />Forest Service (FS), AG&F, and the FWS, to re-
<br />stock the endangered Gila topminnow (Poeciliop-
<br />sis occidentlllis) into its historic range on Forest
<br />Service lands in Arizona. Although several conces-
<br />sions to circumvent the ESA were necessary (i.e.,
<br />no critical habitat designation and no curtailment
<br />of existing land use practices in the re-inlr9duc~ion
<br />areas), in order to get this MOU signed, the
<br />precedent for re-introduction of listed species was
<br />established. In June, 1982, more than 70 isolated
<br />aquatic habitats in Arizona were stocked with Gila
<br />topminnows, representing the first phase of a I" ,
<br />program that could result in down-listing the
<br />species to threatened status by 1987 and complete
<br />de-listing by 1989. These dates are probably op-
<br />timistic, but the precedent this action sets engen-
<br />ders optimistic predictions. It should be noted that
<br />the Gila topminnow re-introduction effort may
<br />have been the most intensive action ever attempted
<br />for the recovery of an endangered species, and
<br />that more than 100 separate re-introductions have
<br />now taken place.
<br />
<br />
|