By Jim Beers
There are more than a few readers concerned that I am proposing that ONLY
Species may be "Listed" under any revised Endangered Species Act.
The fact
that subspecies, races, populations, distinct populations, even the
marvelously "original" distinct population segment might "fall
between the
cracks of Endangered Species protections" is of great concern to some.
Let's
look at this proposed modification.
We can set the bar of concern anywhere we want at any level consistent with
the UN Convention on Threatened and Endangered Species (CITES). Other
signatories (to CITES) have not even started an Endangered Species Program
with only a few exceptions. Other signatories have not begun extensive
Lists that identify plants and animals that can stop a dam or a road or
farming or ranching, etc. Other signatories have not identified Critical
Habitats for endangered species (except for Parks or Reserves for
"nature"
in general). Other signatories have not identified plants and animals that
due to their rarity override every other consideration from national defense
and airline safety to farming and energy development. The point? We
have
gone way beyond all other signatories so we are not "required" to list
every
imaginable plant or animal grouping that some bureaucrat and his academic
sidekick proclaim as on the cusp of extinction and the possible cure for
cancer.
Under our system of government, State governments have primary jurisdiction
over all naturally occurring plants and animals with the exception of
species named on international treaties or those occurring on the high seas
in waters controlled by the US. So, it is reasonable that as any plant or
animal approaches extinction in the US and in accord with our national
policies and CITES, States wherein such species occur or could occur should
receive financial help and incentives from the nation as a whole to maintain
or increase the abundance of such species. Only if such plants or animals
are "in extremis" (about to become extinct) is there any justification
for
some Federal seizure of jurisdiction and management authority. When such
species reach that "in extremis" point on their way back to recovery,
the
Federal government should immediately relinquish any jurisdiction that
conflicts with State jurisdiction over such species. Which brings us to
SPECIES.
A species is a group of plants or animals that can breed and produce viable
offspring with the characteristics of the parents. For our purposes, such
a
definition (regardless of what some academic or bureaucrat objects to) can
and should be set by politicians in law based on science and the social and
fiscal impact of the words chosen. So all mountain lions, for instance,
are
ONE species. The little rascals in Florida can reproduce with the Montana
mountain lions and the Arizona mountain lions. Therefore, they are all one
species and the Federal government has NO INTEREST in whether Florida has
more or less or no "panthers". Florida has that responsibility
and it is
their decision to make. Only if and when ALL the mountain lions from
Alaska
to Arizona are "in extremis" does the Federal government have any
overriding
concern. That level of concern should be set even lower if Canadian and
Central American and South American mountain lions are doing fine. So,
while Genetics classes and Taxonomy classes may rightly and with great
benefit study and speak of Florida panthers and Idaho cougars and California
mountain lions, for the purposes of US Federal Endangered Species Law all
mountain lions and catamounts and panthers and cougars are ONE species.
One of the highest heights of absurdity under the current Endangered Species
debacle is the "Listing" of bighorn sheep in California. There
are healthy
and persistent populations throughout the western mountains of these bighorn
sheep. This is due largely to their high desirability as trophy animals by
hunters who pay large amounts for the privilege to hunt them. The bighorn
sheep throughout the western mountains are all one species. (The desert
bighorn sheep, like the dall sheep and stone sheep are different species.)
In the late 1970's California voters outlawed any management or hunting or
trapping of mountain lions in California. At that time California had a
strong population of bighorn sheep in its mountains. Through the 1980's
the
mountain lions increased and human attacks and livestock and pet losses
increased accordingly. Then the bighorn sheep in the mountains began to
disappear. The reason was the mountain lions were in greater densities and
hungrier and going up into the high mountain meadows in spring and killing
the female bighorn sheep and their young as they gave birth. It doesn't
take very long with that going on for extinction to take place.
So the US Fish and Wildlife Service "Listed" the bighorn sheep - only
in the
California mountains - as Endangered. They were called a Distinct
Population Segment. This was defined as a "segment" of any size
divided
from other parts of the "population" (not even a race or subspecies!)
by a
LEGAL BOUNDARY. To add insult to injury, while USFWS was telling everyone
that predators DID NOT DECREASE PREY SPECIES as they dumped wolves in the
northern and southern Rockies. The reason for the listing of the
California
bighorn sheep given in the Recovery Plan was "predation by mountain
lions."
Then the coup de grace was that each spring the USDA APHIS animal control
agents (paid for by you and me) go into the California mountains to
"protect" the Endangered sheep by killing the mountain lions that
Californians are just too moral and righteous to soil their hands doing.
No, a short and sweet definition of species is needed in any ESA rewrite and
a clear Federal role as only a last resort and one that is immediately
relinquished upon any NATIONAL recovery of a species and nothing less. The
idea that the Federal government is concerned with Florida cougars or that
it can willy-nilly shove wolves into every nook and cranny with the
potential for locking up anyone that doesn't play ball with them is nothing
short of repugnant to Americans and more appropriate to the government of
Mugabe than the government of President Bush.
Jim Beers
28 December 2004