Inadequate information and status

[Eric or Pat Metzler]

Gochfeld's observations about politics are right on the money.  I once heard
Dennis Murphy state that when in doubt, list the species, else it be lost
before we have a chance to study it.  While noble, that sentiment does not
always ring true for my experiences.

Another side of the political issue is the authority afforded by state laws
(they are all different) and how other agencies will respond.  In Ohio, the
state has no authority to enforce habitat modification on private lands
unless other permits, such as wetland modification, are involved.  So, it is
most effective to declare species, not associated with wetlands, to be
endangered when they occur on government owned lands where habitat
manipulation will be directed towards encouraging future occurrence of the
species.  In Ohio, only federally declared species can generally effect use
of private lands.  On the other hand, declarations of endangered species can
encourage NGOs such as TNC and private nature preserves to undertake habitat
purchases and management adaptations.

Right now, in Ohio, we watch a battle between the USFWS and private land
owners over a proposed Federal Wildlife Refuge.  One of the best wetland
spots for lepidopterans near Columbus is owned by one of the land owners
most vigorously apposed to the proposed refuge.   For the time being, I'm
personna non grata (I might find an endangered species), even though this
land owner is extrememly sensitive to his wetlands, and until now, he's
encouraged my research.

With all this in mind, whenever I'm asked, I'm work extremely hard to make
sure there are valid, citable, data to show that the species is truly
endangered.  This means I must know the life history, I must know the
factors that threaten the species, and I must be able to declare steps to
remove the species from the endangered list.  Often the steps for removal
include more sampling in unexplored likely habitats.   In all cases, the
declaration should stand a test of facts which can be defended when politics
become involved.  I'd hate to stand in front of a group of people and not
know why a species is declared to be endangered except for a desire to list
as many species as possible.  Credibility of science, conservationists, and
the movement to protect habitat is on the line.

The above paragraphs provide some of the reasons why I support the notion
that the bottom line is to protect natural systems, with species as evidence
for the value of the system, rather than protecting individual species.

Cheers to all,

Eric
Columbus OH

PS:  I'd like to think the credibility of The Ohio Lepidopterists can be
traced, in part, to its thoughtful approach to the notions of data,
sampling, and careful analysis in determining the status of a species,
before making recommendations.  In fact, all recommendations for declaring a
lepidopteran species to be endangered in Ohio came from peer reviewed
published papers, written by the members of The Ohio Lepidopterists.  The
state responded by accepting these recommendations.


"Michael Gochfeld" <gochfeld at EOHSI.RUTGERS.EDU> wrote in message
news:1000107213322.ZM17646 at Gochfeld...
> 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
>