Laserfiche WebLink
<br />11/04/1999 04:48 <br /> <br />71 98735126 <br /> <br />u S FO,'EST INCUSTRIE <br /> <br />000298 <br /> <br />Michigan addressed the listing as follows: <br />"We believe that Federal listing would provide no additional <br /> <br />protection and may unnecessarily impaC( bobcat harvests <br />and restnct some forest management activities should a <br />recol/ery plan be requIred. Such planning efforts are costly. " <br />Maine addressed several concerns. including: <br />I. The historic boundary of lynx range in the northeastern <br />United States is poorly documented and arbitrary, and <br />leads to a pessimistir: assessment of the reduction in lynx <br />range In recent history. <br />2. The proposal determines that lynx In the Contiguous US <br />constitute a Distinct Population Segment as defined <br />within ESA, with credible supporting biologicai data. <br />3. The legal mandate for the USFWS to consider lynx <br />through the entire contiguous US for listing appears <br />unrealistic, when in fact lynx occur in 3 distina regions <br />that are geographically Isolated, and probably have <br />different facrors affl!!cting lynx. <br />4. The proposal determines that Maine has a resident <br />(defined as self-supporting, viable) population of lynx, <br />withol.Jt credible supporting data. . . <br />5. The proposal assumes that forestry practices and <br />associated road networks are detrimental to lynx and <br />their habitat. This has not been demonstrated in Maine. <br />Page 4 <br /> <br />PAGE 05 <br />