8127 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

, Therefore, realistic administration of an endangered species program at the Federal level is recognizing that some endangered species cannot be helped in spite of the knowledge, dollars, and effort available to us. We must decide to either place them in a permanent custodial institution or to walk away and let the inevitable happen. In the near future, we will implement criteria for determining when a species is beyond the point of no return, and a policy for handling the situation. We must do this for those species that can still be helped by our efforts. The last point I want to talk to you about is perhaps the hardest and most controversial. It flies in the face of the current day protectionist who is dead set against killing in any form. These well-meaning but highly misinformed people will do anything to stop a project that even remoteiy threatens a species. It also flies in the face of the dedicated academician who has devoted his life to the study of a particular species, and be~ause of this devotion cannot tolerate anything that means the status of this species must yield a little or its habitat must serve a dual purpose. Finally, it flies in the face of the dedicated fish or wildlife biologist who isan advocate for a single species such as the white-tailed deer, the rainbow trout, or the belted peccary if it means that he canlt change the habitat to favor his species regardless of what it may do to the other species that share the same habitat. But 1et1s consider some basic facts and see if we can't arrive at a reasonable solution. First, the human populations of the world are growing while food supplies and energy reserves are shrinking. Continued developments in the form of housing, job opportunities, food and fiber production, energy develop- ment, etc., must and will take place with us, without us, or in spite of us. Secondly, as professional fish and wildiife biologists and ecologists we were trained that species within a given ecosystem are often dependent upon one another in ways that presently are both known and unknown to us. We know, better than anyone else, that monoculture of a single species at the expense of other life forms is biologically wrong. We know that maximum retention of species diversity in an ecosystem is the target to shoot for. .Given these two sets of facts which few would argue with, it becomes increasingly apparent that our primary job is to maintain maximum species diversity while permitting optimum development of the world's resources where these resources are essential to the best standard of living that can be maintained in perpetuity. If this premise is acceptable, what does it mean? Simply.this-- we must stop our traditional adversary role in water developments, po~er developments, agriculture expansion, energy production, etc., and start trying to help the developers locate the site, design the structure, and develop the operational regim~ that ~lill do the least harm to wild plant and aniQal' species and their habitats. It is likely that in some instances we can enhance the habitat and ultimately the species if we accept the fact that development must and will continue. 296