New Rule on Endangered Species in the Southwest

[Guest guest]

Hey, Fraggle, I hear they are using that Oregon ruling here in CA, too.

 

Lynda

-

 

> May 24, 2005

> New Rule on Endangered Species in the Southwest

> By FELICITY BARRINGER

>

> WASHINGTON, May 23 - The southwestern regional

> director of the United States Fish and Wildlife

> Service has instructed members of his staff to limit

> their use of the latest scientific studies on the

> genetics of endangered plants and animals when

> deciding how best to preserve and recover them.

>

> At issue is what happens once a fish, animal, plant or

> bird is included on the federal endangered species

> list as being in danger of extinction and needing

> protection.

>

> Dale Hall, the director of the southwestern region, in

> a memorandum dated Jan. 27, said that all decisions

> about how to return a species to robust viability must

> use only the genetic science in place at the time it

> was put on the endangered species list - in some cases

> the 1970's or earlier - even if there have been

> scientific advances in understanding the genetic

> makeup of a species and its subgroups in the ensuing

> years.

>

> His instructions can spare states in his region the

> expense of extensive recovery efforts. Arizona

> officials responsible for the recovery of Apache

> trout, for example, argue that the money - $2 million

> to $3 million in the past five years - spent on

> ensuring the survival of each genetic subgroup of the

> trout was misdirected, since the species as a whole

> was on its way to recovery.

>

> In his memorandum, Mr. Hall built upon a federal court

> ruling involving Oregon Coast coho salmon. The judge

> in that case said that because there was no basic

> genetic distinction between hatchery fish and their

> wild cousins, both had to be counted when making a

> determination that the fish was endangered.

>

> In the policy discussion attached to his memorandum,

> Mr. Hall wrote, " genetic differences must be

> addressed " when a species is declared endangered.

> Thereafter, he said, " there can be no further

> subdivision of the entity because of genetics or any

> other factor " unless the government goes through the

> time-consuming process of listing the subspecies as a

> separate endangered species.

>

> The regional office, in Albuquerque, covers Arizona,

> Oklahoma, New Mexico and Texas.

>

> Mr. Hall's memorandum prompted dissent within the

> agency. Six weeks later, his counterpart at the

> mountain-prairie regional office, in Denver, sent a

> sharp rebuttal to Mr. Hall.

>

> " Knowing if populations are genetically isolated or

> where gene flow is restricted can assist us in

> identifying recovery units that will ensure that a

> species will persist over time, " the regional

> director, Ralph O. Morgenweck, wrote. " It can also

> ensure that unique adaptations that may be essential

> for future survival continue to be maintained in the

> species. "

>

> Mr. Hall's policy, he wrote, " could run counter to the

> purpose of the Endangered Species Act " and " may

> contradict our direction to use the best available

> science in endangered species decisions in some

> cases. "

>

> One retired biologist for the southwestern office,

> Sally Stefferud, suggested in a telephone interview

> that the issue went beyond the question of whether to

> consider modern genetics.

>

> " That's a major issue, of course, " Ms. Stefferud said.

> " But I think there's more behind it. It's a move to

> make it easier " to take away a species's endangered

> status, she said. That would make it easier for

> officials to approve actions - like construction,

> logging or commercial fishing - that could reduce a

> species's number.

>

> Mr. Hall was on vacation and not available for comment

> Monday. Mr. Morgenweck could not be reached late

> Monday afternoon, but his assistant confirmed he had

> sent the rebuttal.

>

> The memorandums were provided by the Center for

> Biological Diversity and Public Employees for

> Environmental Responsibility, two groups that opposed

> Mr. Hall's policy. They said that species whose

> recovery could be impeded by the policy included the

> Gila trout and the Apache trout.

>

> Mr. Hall's ruling fits squarely into the theory

> advanced by the Pacific Legal Foundation, a

> property-rights group in California, that endangered

> species be considered as one genetic unit for purposes

> of being put on the endangered species list and in

> subsequent management plans.

>

> In an e-mail message on Monday, Russ Brooks, the

> lawyer who worked on the Oregon case for the

> foundation, wrote, " Having read the memo, I can say

> that I agree with it. "

>

> Bruce Taubert, the assistant director for wildlife

> management at the Arizona Game and Fish Department,

> said of the new policy, " We support it, " adding, in

> the case of the endangered Apache trout, " Why should

> we spend an incredible amount of time and money to do

> something with that species if it doesn't add to the

> viability and longevity of the species that was

> listed? "

>

> " By not having to worry about small genetic pools, we

> can do these things faster and better, " Mr. Taubert

> said.

>

> But Philip Hedrick, a professor of population genetics

> at Arizona State University, said that it made no

> sense to ignore scientific advances in his field.

> " Genetics and evolutionary thinking have to be

> incorporated if we're going to talk about long-term

> sustainability of these species, " he said. " Maybe in

> the short term you can have a few animals closely

> related and inbred out there, but for them to survive

> in any long-term sense you have to think about this

> long-term picture that conservation biologists have

> come up with over the last 25 years. "

>

> Professor Hedrick added that cutting off new genetic

> findings that fell short of providing evidence that a

> separate species had evolved was " completely

> inappropriate, because as everyone knows, we're able

> to know a lot more than we did five years ago. "

>

> He added, " They talk about using the best science, but

> that's clearly not what they're trying to do here. "

>

> In a telephone interview from the Albuquerque fish and

> wildlife office, Larry Bell, a spokesman, said that

> Mr. Hall's interpretation meant that " the only thing

> that we have to consider in recovery is: does the

> species exist? "

>

> " We don't have to consider whether various adaptive

> portions of a species exist, " he said.

>

> Asked about why an Oregon ruling would have an impact

> on policies in the southwest, he said: " My belief is

> that because it's the only court decision that

> addresses the issue of genetics. While we're not

> within this region bound by the Oregon decision per

> se, it would provide guidance. "

>