8127 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

..., ..... ~ control an expanding industry I classify the prairie falcon as threatened so we might use that to stop desert land entries I or classify the bald eagle as endan- gered to simplify other administrative problems associated with"the species. My ovm concerns in this regard are principally two: 1) the luster of endangered species is apparently being used by some federal agencies to stimulate appro- priations which are used to build substantial wildlife staffs (at this point I won't question their purpose in staffing); and 2) direction has been so completely diverted by some federal agencies to endangered species that contemporary wildlife programs have been essentially abandoned--one in particular I big game range modification. States have voiced concern since the first Red Book was published that they were inadequately consulted with respect to species to be included on threat- ened or endangered lists. There is still a feeling that species are added with little justification and an equal lack of regard for a state's position. Perhaps the most referenced instance in .this respect is classification of the grizzly bear as threatened I apparently without regard for some rather extensive I com- monly acknowledged investigations to more adequately determine its status. Concern about classification is intensified by apprehension over the difficulty of getting a species de-listed. The "Box Score of Species Listings" feature of the monthly Endangered Soecies Technical Bulletin offers little encourage- ment--there isn't even a category for de-listings. Or isn't it our goal to get or keep species off the list? Taxonomically I there are "splitters" and "lumpers." If a species is "split" far enough I listing can be justified. Then I all the other" species" from which it was "split" can be listed under provision of Section 4(e), "Similarity of Appearance Cases." It is prOVided in Section 4 (e) that "The Secretary may, by regulation, and to the extent he deems advisable, treat any speCies as an endangered species or threatened species even though it is not listed . . . II if, among other things, ". . . such treatment of an unlisted species will substantially facilitate the enforcement and further the Policy of this Act. It This appears to be a very real probability, particularly with respect to fishes, where the" splitters" are espeCially active. It is a good way to dive even deeper into the sea of resident species management. Notwithstanding the" splitters" and "lumpers I" the" look-alike" prOVISIon can have serious implications in and of itself. The whooping crane may be a good example. Attempts to increase the numbers of this species include the placing of eggs under nesting sandhill cranes in the Gray's Lake area of Idaho. \Vhooping cranes are "large white birds I" if you will. Utah has enjoyed a series of successful seasons for hunting whistling swans; also "large white birds." '^/hat will the migration route of the semi-artificially reared whoopers from Gray's Lake be? Will they mingle with migratory swans, move into Utah, and be subjected to possible accidental shooting? . They could create a con- flict with snow goose hunting. V\'hat happens to sport hunting under such conditions? In the three and a half years since passage of the Endangered Species Act I only 19 states have succes sfully run the gauntlet of requirements in Section 6 (c) , 288