Inadequate information and status

Michael Gochfeld gochfeld at eohsi.rutgers.edu
Fri Jan 7 20:33:18 EST 2000


Mark wrote: 

	>On the other hand, I do believe that there are many cases where 
	>species are erroneously placed on protected lists based on bad 
	>information.  I would argue that, although it's always "best to 
	>side with caution", placing too many ill-founded restrictions 
	>is not the proper solution. 

I do not know whether I agree or disagree with the statement since I 
don't have a handle on how many species are on such lists nationwide.  
I would have guessed that there are relatively few invertebrates of any 
group on such lists.  

In the two states I am familiar with ( NY, NJ) species have not been 
"erroneously placed on protected lists based on bad information". 

Rather I would say that species have "erroneously NOT been placed on 
protected lists based on a combination of inadequate information, 
uncertainty, and politics. 

NJ has developed a detailed consensus procedure for listing, and 
when in doubt species have been placed in lower rather than higher 
categories (e.g. special concern rather than threatened or threatened 
rather than endangered). 

There is also a question of timing. 

The classic example is Mitchell's Satyr which was placed on the State 
Endangered list more than a decade after it had been declared 
extirpated. 

I suggest that the attention focused on "endangered status" interfering 
with collecting is only part of the story.  The real value of 
"endangered" or "threatened" status, at least in NJ, is that it imposes 
a burden on developers to leave, protect, mitigate, or other such verbs. 
 As an example, having the Pine Snake on the "threatened" list allowed 
the state to restrict a golf course development from 36 holes to 18 
holes, leaving many acres of prime snake habitat undisturbed. It also 
protected one of the richest butterfly fields in central NJ (but despite 
the species richness, butterflies were of NO value in protecting the 
habitat because NONE had yet been put on any LIST). 

More recently, even having a species on the "special concern" list, 
allowed us to negotiate with a developer to leave a corridor of suitable 
habitat to protect Leonard's Skipper, before final permits were granted. 

Thus the unanimity of concern voiced over habitat destruction, provides 
ample support for using the endangered-threatened-etc status 
designations liberally.  

Mike Gochfeld


More information about the Leps-l mailing list