Laserfiche WebLink
of habitat management is perhaps the most difficult to accomplish and may not yield positive results <br />for the species. <br />The Service approach is more likely to result in debates over flows. If we implement successful <br />management methods that are less dependant on flow we may be able to deflect flow oriented <br />arguments. <br />It's always dangerous to leave yourself i'.n the hands of the federal government and mad scientists. <br />THE MORE DIVERSE APPROACH <br />Pro's <br />We will focus our attention on how to best benefit the species and in doing so will learn more about <br />what works and does not work in a shor,ter time. <br />The ESA has had a poor record in making a meaningful improvement in recovering species. We will <br />have a better chance of making a positive impact. <br />Having a sense of controlling your own destiny has inherent value. <br />Con's <br />We end up taking greater ownership of t:he process and arguably have greater responsibility. <br />It will be difficult to directly and definitively show benefits to the species. Especially, given their <br />migratory nature. <br />We may create an adverse impact to the species and will be an easy target for criticism. <br />Ultimately, some combination of these two a.pproaches seems warranted. It may just come down to an <br />issue of timing. Realistically there is not enough time to try one rrianagement method, obtain clear and <br />meaningful data, and adapting the new management methods. Foc- example, if we find that Whooping <br />Cranes do not select for wet meadows when foraging or show no preference for 700 feet wide versus 1200 <br />foot wide channels this information will not be available before we are expected to have obtained and <br />managed Program lands.