New Rule on Endangered Species in the Southwest

[Submariner]

Another case of Bushista ignorance and greed.

The Highlight: "....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.


New Rule on Endangered Species in the Southwest

By FELICITY BARRINGER
Published: May 24, 2005, NY Times

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."
__________________________________________________________
Join AFS at
http://www.fisheries.org/forms.shtmlhttp://www.fisheries.org/membership.
shtmlhttp://www.fisheries.org/membership.shtml
This is brought to you as a service of the American Fisheries Society.
Information or views expressed here are not necessarily those of AFS.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to
the mailing list <[email protected]>.
The AFS list is provided as a service to all AFS members.

To unsubscribe, E-mail to: <[email protected]>
enter UNSUBSCRIBE AFS in the body of the e-mail.
To subscribe, E-mail to: <[email protected]>
enter SUBSCRIBE AFS in the body of the e-mail.
To switch to the DIGEST mode, E-mail to <[email protected]>
enter DIGEST AFS in the body of the e-mail.
To switch to NORMAL mode, E-mail to: <[email protected]>
enter NORMAL AFS in the body of the e-mail.
Send administrative queries to <[email protected]>


No link. Listserver email note.

[fryguy]

1. I think the AMA should adopt a similar rule . . .

That "all decision about how to treat an individual must use only the science in place at the time the individual was born."

Therefore people born at time when CAT-Scans, MRI's, artificial hearts, blood-pressure medication, surgical procedures, etc. were not yet developed may not have access to them to aide in their return to robust viability . . . and yes, that includes Viagra!

[phantom power]

2. It's the sheer bloody-mindedness of these people that gets to me

It's like they've decided they're going to systematically stamp it all out, no matter how long it takes, no matter how petty they have to be, no matter how senseless it all is.

They have become terminators. They'll never stop, ever. It's what they do. It's all that they do.

[MisterP]

3. Bush directive: "kill everything"