Whether or not one decides if excluding consideration of historic range from the ESA listing criterion of "endangered of threatened in a significant portion of its range" represents a weakening of protection, there are other protective options under the ESA that can still come into play. In the Bald Eagle example, if the populations in the lower 48 and Alaska could be shown as relatively distinct with limited interchange, it would be possible to list the lower 48 population as a "distinct population segment" and classify it as threatened or endangered without regard to the status in Alaska. It would be similar to separate listings for salmon populations in individual river systems along the West Coast. >From ecological and management perspectives, treating populations separately is probably more effective, and more easily defensible during listing considerations.
Cheers, Bob On Fri, February 3, 2012 11:45 am, Pete Epanchin wrote: > The Obama administration is proposing policy to specify the Endangered Species Act's definition of "significant portion of [a species'] range". The public comment period closes on Feb 7. > If you have been following this proposed policy, please post a reply with > your take on whether or not the proposal undermines the ESA. > My take is that the proposed policy would undermine the ESA by excluding consideration of a species' historic range when determining whether a species should be listed. Knowing what a species' historic range relative > to its current range is obviously an important piece of information in understanding the threats to a species and whether it deserves protection, > however under this policy, any loss of a species' historic range could not > be counted toward the "significant portion of its range", only the currently occupied range can be considered. The argument goes that the bald > eagle would never have been listed because at the time of listing it was doing great in Alaska despite its near disappearance in the lower 48. > Nonetheless, the proposed policy seems to take an opposing view, it > states > that: > Listing a species when it is endangered or threatened in a > "significant portion of its range" before it is endangered or > threatened throughout all its range may allow the Services to protect and conserve species and the ecosystems upon which they depend before large-scale decline occurs throughout the entire range of the species. This may allow protection and recovery of declining organisms in a more timely and less costly manner, and on a smaller scale than the more costly and extensive efforts that might be needed to recover a species that is endangered or threatened throughout all its range. > Here's the notice in the Federal Register with links to submit comments: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2011-12-09/html/2011-31782.htm > Here's a short read on it from the Washington Post, based on concerns voiced by Representative Markley's (D-Mass): > http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/obama-ally-suggests-administration-is-undermining-endangered-species-act/2012/01/27/gIQAzlLaWQ_story.html Thanks in advance for replying with your take on this one. > Best, > Pete Epanchin ================================================= Robert D. Kenney, Ph.D. Associate Marine Research Scientist University of Rhode Island Graduate School of Oceanography Bay Campus Box 41 215 South Ferry Road Narragansett, RI 02882-1197, U.S.A. TEL: (401) 874-6664 FAX: (401) 874-6523 EMAIL: [email protected] WEB: http://www.gso.uri.edu/users/rkenney PUBS: http://www.gso.uri.edu/~rkenney/reprints/ =================================================
