8127 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

.. REALISTIC M1~AGE.1E~T OF END~~GERED SPECIES: PROGRESS TO DATE James E. Johnson Endangered Species Biologist U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Introduction Within the last six months I have presented papers on endangered species management to two diverse groups, Resources for tlle Future and the Western As~ociation of Political Scientists. TIle Resources group gcner~lly involved economists talking to biologists about ~ater in the Colorado River basin. To economists, "realistic" \.'.:lS equated to benefit/cost and the only li..l1tation to man's abilities was a b/c ratio below one.. The political scientists defined "realistic" in terms of public desire. If something is demanded by the public, it can and will be accomplished. As an endangered species biologist, I approach realistic manage~ent somewhat more broadly. Certainly money and public demand are essential factors in accoQplishing anything today, including the recovpry of a species of fish, wildlife or plant hovering near extinction, but r believe at least two other variables are also necessary: kno~ledge and tiQc. Provided unlimited quantities of demand, rr.oney, knowledge, and time, 1 believe any species with an existing breeding population can be saved. UO~.Jever, by modifying the unlimi.ted q~antities of these four variables with realis~, the results beco~e less assured. I have been asked to discuss the role of recovery teams in the realistic management of endangered species. I would like to expand the scope of this charge and discuss listing, ~ritical habitat, and recovery plans, three primary methods by \,,'hich the Service's Endangered Species Progra~ is implementing the Endangered Species Act of 1973, and then assess ho~ realistic these management activities are in meetin~ the mandate of the Act. Listing Once a species of fish, wildlife or plant has been listed by the U. S. Fish and Hildlife Service as endangered or threatened, it comes under the protection of tl-e Endc::ngered Species Act and imr.lediately begins receiving benefits from Sections 7 and 9. In some cases thi~ protectioOl alone r.:ay be enough to reverse declining population trenus and bring the species back to non-threatened, healthy levels. Section 9 of the Act prevents the taking of list~d species, ~ud taking is bro3d!y defined as h.3rass, harQ, pur;:;ue, shoot, hunt, \YOund, kill, trap, captc:"e, or collect, or attempt to entiage in any such co~duct. Is this broad interpretation of take realistic? In this case it seems best to d(;finc :"c.31ism through impacts, priorities, and implementation. The iwpact of a hiker frightening a peregrine falcon frem its eyrie is obviously less ciar....,ging than dn agency build lnt; .:! d~m that compl etE'ly destroys the habitC)t or a darter. Both actions are illegal uncer Section 9, and for the most part foreseeable and therefore preventable, but 1977, Proc. Annu. Con!. West. Assoc. Game & Fish Comm. 57: 298-301.