8127 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

-.' , "Cooperative Agreements. II Eleven of the 13 Western states have the authority for compliance; eight of the 11 have requested a cooperative agreement; only four such agreements have been signed. Most states have a desire to initiate affirmative programs for endangered species. Their major problem is and has been funding, a problem which cC!n be mitigated to a major degree through a cooperative agreement. Is the plight of this Nation's threatened wildlife our concern, or is compliance with the technical features of a law and rules and regulations promulgated pursuant to it? Utah and Arizona are bastard pups in the West 50 far as failure to hold "adequate" authority to conserve threatened or endangered wildlife. Arizona apparently lacks such authority over invertebrates. Utah has been notified of " . . . several problems with . . . (its) .. . legislative authority." That authority has certainly been adequate to provide for state management of both game and nongame wildlife, including at least one of our five endangered species, .50 far as funds and manpower permit. State legislators, like state wildlife administrators, are peculiar critters; they don't mind taking a carrot if they aren't kicked in the backside in the process. The Federal Recister of June l, 1977, contained regulations to II . . . relax restrictions and permit procedures for qualified breeders of endangered species which are designated as captive, self-sustaining populations. II It is inter- esting to me that we relax restrictions and permit procedures on this self- interest group but appear to get more technical with each communication to a reasonably competent, by any standard, public wildlife management agency. The current tendency to propose as critical habitat the entire range now occupied by a threatened or endangered species is almost universally viewed as threatening by Western states. Identification of any critical habitat will have the potential for impacting on management of other commingled species. The more extensive the delineation, the greater the potential for impact; or should I say conflict? Additionally, such e>..1:ensive classification appears to be a simplistic approach to conserving these species; it considers only one feature of a species' environment; I.e., its size. That may, in fact, be the least critical factor in continued survival of a species. A rational approach to defining critical habitats is in order. Recovery teams, as I understand their charge, are to investigate the status. including the causes of such status, of a threatened or endangered species and to develop approaches which will lead to the improvement of such status. Implementation of these so-called plans for recovery is the responsibility of management agencies. There appears to be no major or universal problem in the West, but Utah has had one experience where the recovery team has pro- posed to inject itself into the management role. Some also appear to be more than a little eager to deal with unlisted species coexisting in a subject eco- system. Directions to recovery teams should be explicit in terms of their role. 289