Laserfiche WebLink
<br />The policy further states: "Controlled propagation is not a substitute for addressing factors <br />responsible for an endangered or threatened species' decline. Therefore, our first priority is to <br />recover wild populations in their natural habitat wherever possible, without resorting to the use <br />of controlled propagation. This position is fully consistent with the Act." <br /> <br />There is no mention in this policy that when wild populations fall to a certain level or number <br />that they must be brought into captivity. <br /> <br />Status of Captive Propagation of current endangeredfish species: <br /> <br />The captive propagation policy clearly states "Our policy is that the controlled propagation of <br />threatened and endangered species will be: I. lI'irst) Used as a recovery strategy only when other <br />measures employed to maintain or improve a listed species' status in the wild have failed, are <br />detennined to be likely to fail, are shown to be ineffective in overcoming extant factors limiting <br />recovery, or would be insufficient to achieve full recovery. All reasonable effort should be made <br />to accomplish conservation measures that enable a listed species to recover in the wild, with or <br />without intervention (e.g., artificial captivity provisioning), prior to implementing controlled <br />propagation for reintroduction or supplementation." [emphasis is by author] <br /> <br />Another reason for this reluctance to advance a controlled propagation program is to avoid risks <br />associated with hatchery products: I) avoid reducing genetic variability within naturally <br />occurring populations; 2) an increased level of inbreeding that would likely result from the <br />enhancement of only a portion of the gene pool; and 3) diminishing a listed species' natural <br />capacity to survive and reproduce in the wild through exposure to selection regimes in controlled <br />environments. IdentifYing a critical number of individuals in the wild that would require a listed <br />species to be brought into captivity or prepared for controlled propagation depends on species- <br />specific demographic and environmental factors, and would have to be established on an <br />individual basis. <br /> <br />RECOMMENDA nONS <br /> <br />I. At this time, bringing humpback chub into captivity or developing a controlled <br />propagation program does not appear prudent. With 2-3 wild core populations available <br />for redundancy as insurance in case of a catastophic event, emphasis and resources should <br />be placed on removing or minimizing threats to the species. Establishing a refuge or a <br />captive propagation program for humpback chub could result in reduced numbers of <br />recruits or adults in the wild, reducing genetic variability; enhancing only a portion of the <br />gene pool; and developing selection regimes in controlled environments. <br /> <br />2. Existing genetic characteristics and variability of humpback chub are currently unknown, <br />but are being investigated at Colorado State University. These studies should continue in <br />order to assess the genetic status of the humpback chub. The existing genetic effective <br />population size (N,) should be determined for the species and for individual populations, <br /> <br />DRAFT HBC Genetics Management Plan - 5 <br /> <br />OOC51 <br />