8127 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

...'1 _i .. STATE VIEW OF ENDANGERED SPECIES MANAGEMENT Donald A. Smith Director, Utah State Division of Wildlife Resources My comments today will be of two dimensions: a state viewpoint and a collective viewpoint of the several states on endangered species management. I will try to keep you advised of which is the general viewpoint and which is Utah's, or perhaps more correctly, mine. Some of the discussion will relate to the general philosophy of endangered species management; most will con- sider management under the terms or shadow of the Endangered Species Act. The 13 Western states were contacted for observations on the subject. Most began to concern themselves with nongame wildlife species, including those of dwindling or statically low numbers, several years ago. Those legal, philosophical, and functional changes in state wildlife agencies apparently did not move with ad equate vigor. The Endangered Species Act of 1973 is a fact; that it thrusts the federal government into management of resident wildlife is also a ree.lity. On March 28, 1974, every Western state, I believe every state in the Union, lost primary jurisdiction over resident wildlife species then listed or in the future to be listed by the Secretary of the Interior as threatened or endangered. Few acts of Congress have caused more concern for state wildlife agencies nor, generally, more friction between agencies of two levels of government involved directly in the matter of managing the Nation's wildlife resources. Its closest rivals in terms of emotional generation are probably Smokey Bear and Bambi. The history of the endangered species movement and of the Act itself, with which many, perhaps most of you, are more fa'miliar than I, is not so impor- tant today as what is being done with it and where it appears we are going. Purposes of the Act, as stated therein, ". . . are to provide a means whereby the ecosystems upon which endangered species and threatened species depend may be conserved, to provide a program for the conservation of such enda:1- gered species and three.tened species, and to take such steps as may be appropriate to achieve the purposes of . . . II several treaties and conventions referenced. The Act directs a policy that all federal agencies will seek to conserve threatened and endangered wildlife and urges maximum cooperation with the states. Some federal agencies have taken their charge seriously. New federal refuges have been established, research and natural areas set aside, endangered speCies critical habitat areas designated, and programs generally are being reoriented in consideration of endangered wildlife. Most states express con- cern that federal actions in the interest of endangered species lack coordination with them. Some noted endangered species appear to be u sed to serve another interest; 1. e., propose an excessive critical habitat boundary in an attempt to 1977, Proc. Annu. Conf. West. Assoc. Game & Fish Comm. 57: 287-290.