The perfect example of the removal of a species whose range has expanded to protect an endangered species is the killing of coyotes to enhance the recovery of the reintroduced red wolf in North Carolina. They have tried killing, sterilization, and relocation of coyotes that either hybridized with or were perceived as competitors to the wolves. Although this is slightly different because the wolves were completely extinct when the coyotes expanded their range. Cheers, Lauren Nolfo-Clements ________________________________
From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news on behalf of stan moore Sent: Sun 29-Apr-07 12:43 AM To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: draft recovery plan for northern spotted owls raises questions about management The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has announced the completion and availability of a new draft recovery plan for the northern spotted owl. One threat is emphasized primarily in this recovery plan, and it is a threat that was essentially non-existent at the time the species was listed. The barred owl has experienced a long-term range expansion that has brought it into virtually all habitat types occupied by spotted owls and now the barred owl is considered a threat to the spotted owl. The primary management technique emphasized in the recovery plan is lethal control of barred owls over vast area and in large numbers. Much of this management (lethal control) is for the stated purpose of experimenting to see how the management might impact the listed species; in other words, the "threat" is anecdotal. Is anyone here aware of a precedent in endangered species protections and management in which a competitive species has experienced a huge range expansion during the period of listing resulting in a perceived threat to the listed species? I am aware that a year or more ago, a prominent spotted owl species expert told me (and stated publicly, I believe) that it would be a practical impossibility to kill barred owls sufficiently to protect spotted owls. And yet now that seems to be the priority of the Fish and Widllife Service for recovering spotted owls in a vast geographic area. Does this not constitute a de facto attempted reversal of a natural range expansion of a native species? Does this not mean in reality a permanent program of killing barred owls, because if the shotgunning of barred owls is brought to an end at some point in time, the expansion of the barred owl population and threat to spotted owls will resume, leading to further or future endangerment? Something in the logic of this plan seems unworkable to me because the plan only addresses this issue anecdotally, without exploring the long-term ramifications of this management strategy, including looking past the projected time of delisting of spotted owls. It seems hard to believe that spotted owls and barred owls cannot reach some sort of natural equilibrium and the idea of a permanent program of killing barred owls just for being barred owls is not something that makes a lot of sense to me, as much as I want to see spotted owl recovery. Is this the best we can do? This recovery plan, in my view, has other serious weaknesses, but the "shotgun management" approach is particularly distasteful to me in view of the geographic and temporal scales that would be necessary. Stan Moore San Geronimo, CA [EMAIL PROTECTED] _________________________________________________________________ Interest Rates NEAR 39yr LOWS! $430,000 Mortgage for $1,299/mo - Calculate new payment http://www.lowermybills.com/lre/index.jsp?sourceid=lmb-9632-19132&moid=14888 Interested in taking action online to help animals? Then join our online community and sign up for our Humane Action Network. Go to www.hsus.org/join .
