Inadequate information and status

[Chris J. Durden]

At 09:33  7/01/00 -0400, you wrote:
 
>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
>
>
Mike,
  In New Jersey you have the benefit of many hundreds of thousands of
expert collector and observer hours to document your biota in the past. Not
as much as in Britain but mamy times more than in Texas where we have many
counties where most of the fauna is not yet reported.
  We do not have an historical record of what is here. We are currently in
the process of getting these records for a few groups of current interest,
without a budget and with insufficient museum funding. There is no state
biological survey and the national biological survey does not seem to be
staffing with exploring collectors.
  In the nineteenth century we had 3 resident collectors who sampled
butterflies, and you know what data keeping was like then. Until NABA
appeared we have had little over a dozen people seriously interested in
butterflies resident in a state the size of France. 
  The last thing we need is national regulations, written for your neck of
the woods, inhibiting our exploration of our end of the woods.
..........Chris Durden