[PCA] FWS and surrogate species
Addsum-Tony Frates
afrates at addsuminc.com
Thu Aug 21 18:29:25 CDT 2014
I've read some of the FWS literature on this topic, but am wondering
why it won't just focus on doing its job and administer the ESA (which
includes listing species and not trying to subvert or delay its own
listing proposals).
We simply need to protect the ecosystems of threatened and endangered species.
What is being proposed does not sound like modernization to me, but
more like avoidance and/or becoming significantly side-tracked.
No doubt the identification of a surrogate species could be useful
under certain circumstances, but I suspect very often not it would not
even be applicable.
Further, from 2011:
http://calwatercenter.org/images/11_01_14_A_Critical_Assessment_of_the_Use_of_Surrogate_Species_in_Conservation_Planning_paper.pdf
See the end of the abstract:
" . . . conservation biologists demonstrated that the surrogate
concept is generally unsupported by ecological theory and empirical
evidence. Recently developed validation procedures may allow for the
productive use of surrogates in conservation planning, but, used
without validation, the surrogate species concept is not a reliable
planning tool."
As with some of the other more recent FWS policies/rules/regulations
including PECE analysis and the "significant range" policy fiasco, we
do not seem to be going in the right direction.
Tony Frates
Salt Lake City, Utah
More information about the native-plants
mailing list