SAVING AMERICA'S WILDLIFE

NOTES

1. See National Research Council, National Academy of Sciences, Science and the Endangered Species Act (Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 1995).

2. U.S. House of Representatives. Committee on Natural Resources and the Environment. Taking from the Taxpayer: Public Subsidies for Natural Resource Development (1994).

3. Tom Kenworthy, "Proposal to Raise Grazing Fees Is Sinking Slowly in the West." The Washington Post, January 19, 1995.

4. Elizabeth Losos et al., Taxpayers' Double Burden: Federal Resource Subsidies and Endangered Species (Washington, D.C.: The Wilderness Society, Environmental Defense Fund, 1993), p. 18.

5. Taking from the Taxpayer, p. 87.

6. Losos et al., p. 10.

7. See, eg, Thomas Fleischner, "Ecological Costs of Livestock Grazing in Western North America," Conservation Biology 8, no. 3 (1994): 629-644.

8. "Managing the Federal Government: A Decade of Decline. Majority Staff Report, Committee on Government Operations, 102d Congress, 2d Session, December, 1992, p. 198.

9. Mineral Policy Center, Golden Patents, Empty Pockets (1994).

10. Ibid., p. 51.

11. Ibid. p. 54.

12. Valerie Guardia. "Every Species Counts: Endangered Species in National Forests and Grasslands." Endangered Species Technical Bulletin 19, no. 4 (1994); p. 11. 13. See Leonard F. Ruggiero et al., The Scientific Basis for Conserving Forest Carnivores in the Western United States (Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Forest Service, 1994). 14. 16 U.S.C. Section 460(d), 4601-4 et seq. See also Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act (PittmanRobertson Act), 16 U.S.C. $$669-6691, Federal Aid in Fish Restoration Act (Dingell-Johnson Act), 16 US.C. $$777-777k; Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act (Nongame Act), 16 U.S.C. §§2901-2911

15. See Rodger Schlickeisen, "Saving Species: A New Approach," Defenders (Spring 1993).

16. Defenders has drafted an amendment to ESA Sections 3 and 11 to achieve this.

17. 1980 Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act, 16 U.S.C. $$2901.

The Future

ongress created the Endangered Species Act

C

(ESA) in response to a
very real and frightening

crisis - the rapid decline of myriad species. The Act is regulatory in nature because this crisis requires an immediate and decisive response. Now after two decades of intermittently controversial regulation, new flexibility is emerging in agency implementation. Also, during the current reauthorization cycle, the Act should be amended to modernize it. In addition, companion legislation is needed to strengthen preventive conservation measures and thus to diminish the necessity for listing altogether.

Such an overhaul of the nation's fundamental approach to

wildlife conservation necessitates a look at past wildlife and natural-resource management in order to learn from our mistakes and to integrate into our land-management strategies the emerging lessons taught by the growing field of conservation biology. Only in this way will we become careful stewards of our biological resources and fulfill our obligation to future generations.

The recommendations in this report will make the Endangered Species Act work better, but they cannot remove the overall need for an Act that is fundamentally regulatory in nature. However, to reduce or even prevent the need for further species listings and related emergency recovery actions, we must:

• Acknowledge that past landmanagement strategies are flawed, and move from a symptom-oriented species model to a cure-oriented ecological model. • Use sound scientific principles from conservation biology and genetics in setting long-term biodiversity goals.

• Use ecosystem management as our primary land-management tool to achieve long-term biodiversity goals.

• Accept that the present collection of protected lands is inadequate to produce long-term sustainability, and use emerging analytical tools such as gap analysis (described in an earlier section) to identify priority lands for conservation.

• Establish a quasi-public agency

SAVING AMERICA'S WILDLIFE

Colorado River Squawfish (Continued)

Dams also have altered permanently the character of the Colorado River, reducing it in some areas to little more than a series of slackwater pools. The waters, now cooler and clearer, have become ideal habitat for an estimated 45 species of fish. Sport fishermen have stocked the reservoirs with smallmouth bass, flathead catfish, brown trout and sunfish, all of which feed voraciously on the young of native fishes. Populations of the razorback sucker, for example, now consist almost entirely of individuals more than 40 years old. Although they reproduce successfully, all of their offspring are eaten by predators.

The same is true for the bonytail chub, now essentially extinct in nature except for a few individuals in Lake Mead. Anglers view remaining native fishes as "trash fish." In the 1960s, the poison rotenone was used in some areas to wipe out native fish populations and make room for sport fish.

are threatened, endangered or already extinct. Almost all of Arizona's and Nevada's native fishes are listed under the Endangered Species Act. Cooperative squawfish recovery programs involving the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and state agencies in Colorado, Arizona and Utah are concentrating on the Colorado's upper basin, where long, undammed stretches allow the river to retain at least a shadow of its former character.

However, populations in the lower basin may be unsalvageable unless the original character of the Colorado River is restored. Dam outflows will need to be managed to mimic historic conditions, floodplain habitats must be reconnected to the main-stem river to allow seasonal flooding, fish passage must be restored in some areas, and the impact of nonnative fish species must be reduced. Given the region's growth rate and the increasing human demand for every drop of available water, these changes are unlikely to happen without significant political will.

or entity to raise new funds to protect priority lands.

• Enhance and strengthen our position as a world leader in biodiversity conservation.

Land Management for
Commodities

Historically, federal and state land-management agencies have emphasized commodity production to the point of excess. The Forest Service has focused pri

and other predators, even in national parks; foresters have replaced mature natural forests with short-rotation stands of genetically altered trees; and rangeland managers have removed shrubs from grazing land and poisoned prairie dogs, inadvertently bringing species such as the black-footed ferret and the swift fox to the edge of extinction.

Although ecosystems were

altered intentionally to increase production, the processes of production and harvesting harmed the natural ecosystems. In the Southwest, cattle and sheep grazing changed local vegetation from native bunch grasses and wildflowers to European and African weeds imported as living fodder. In turn, populations of native animals dependent on undisturbed grasslands plummeted. Now, many threatened and endangered species owe their predicament to habitat loss caused by grazing.

In New York's Adirondacks, lumbermen clearcut the speciesrich mixed conifer and hardwood old-growth, prompting secondgrowth that lacks mature hardwoods. In much of the East, game managers have so augmented deer populations that the current levels prevent natural plant regeneration within the forests, and many wildflower species are becoming rare.!

The cumulative effects of managing public lands primarily for production have been profound, both for the survival of

endangered species and for the
sustainability of the natural
resources. For example, 90 per-
cent of the original old-growth in
the Pacific Northwest has been
lost and 214 salmonid runs are at
risk of extinction in four western
states. Western rangelands have
been severely degraded by live-
stock overgrazing. More than half
of BLM and Forest Service lands
are now judged to be in only
poor or fair condition.' And
these
management problems are
being compounded by the spread
of invasive exotic species. Public-
land acreage the size of Montana
is covered by an exotic weed, the
leafy spurge, that is unpalatable
to native species.

Biological and Ecological
Models

To achieve economic and ecological efficiency, and to repair some of the damage from past management practices, resource managers must move away from the species model historically used and move toward an ecological model. For example, game managers in the Southeast are

concerned about small predators attacking ground-nesting birds such as waterfowl. A typical response based on the species model would be to treat the symptom by removing foxes and raccoons. Under the ecological approach, managers would recognize that the top predator was missing from the system and take steps to restore the red wolf. Return of the wolf would not only help to reduce fox and raccoon populations, but also would help to control white-tailed deer populations, leaving more vegetative cover for the birds.

Need for More and Larger
Reserves

Recent research indicates that species and entire communities of species need more space for long-term survival than previously thought. For example, Yellowstone National Park's 2.2 million acres are not enough to sustain a viable population of grizzly bears in the long term.' Similarly, the long-term survival of a particular plant community, such as mature redwood forest,