http://nanfa.org/agencylinks.shtml
Threatened and endangered species by state and province
Started by
Guest_Skipjack_*
, Oct 15 2006 07:19 PM
9 replies to this topic
#2
Guest_TurtleLover_*
Guest_TurtleLover_*
-
- Guests
Posted 01 March 2007 - 10:54 PM
I just want to add you may also want to check your particular State's local agency/department/division which will most likely also list species of special concern that are not listed on the above site. I bring this up only because in one of the states I checked, I know there are more species protected in it than what are listed. These are the species of special concern that may not have an official listing status, but must have attention brought to their conservation nonetheless.
#3
Guest_AC-Editor_*
Guest_AC-Editor_*
-
- Guests
Posted 01 March 2007 - 11:34 PM
Most of the links at this site link to the state's official T&E listing page (which often includes SC species).
What state did you check that's missing SC species?
Chris Scharpf
What state did you check that's missing SC species?
Chris Scharpf
I just want to add you may also want to check your particular State's local agency/department/division which will most likely also list species of special concern that are not listed on the above site. I bring this up only because in one of the states I checked, I know there are more species protected in it than what are listed. These are the species of special concern that may not have an official listing status, but must have attention brought to their conservation nonetheless.
#4
Guest_TurtleLover_*
Guest_TurtleLover_*
-
- Guests
Posted 02 March 2007 - 12:13 AM
Ok, correction, I looked at the USFWS page, I didn't see the link to CO directly. Although, I'm surprised some species are missing off their page.
Compare the links, some species of fish and amphibians (most noticeable to me) are missing. Compare the links:
USFWS
Colorado Division of Wildlife
It popped out to me because I worked at a facility in Colorado that raised a lot of these fish and the State Endangered Boreal Toad. I worked with pikeminnow, bonytail chub, rio grande chub, roundtail chub, rio grande suckers, northern red belly dace, southern red belly dace, plains minnows, suckermouth minnows, arkansas darter, common shiner, and briefly the razorback sucker. Some of these like the Rio Grande Sucker are listed as State Endangered and aren't listed at all in the USFWS, yet a State Threatened fish like the Arkansas Darter come up in a search on USFWS. Same with the Boreal Toad which is endangered in CO and I think in NM, it doesn't come up if you search Bufo boreas boreas on the USFWS page.
Compare the links, some species of fish and amphibians (most noticeable to me) are missing. Compare the links:
USFWS
Colorado Division of Wildlife
It popped out to me because I worked at a facility in Colorado that raised a lot of these fish and the State Endangered Boreal Toad. I worked with pikeminnow, bonytail chub, rio grande chub, roundtail chub, rio grande suckers, northern red belly dace, southern red belly dace, plains minnows, suckermouth minnows, arkansas darter, common shiner, and briefly the razorback sucker. Some of these like the Rio Grande Sucker are listed as State Endangered and aren't listed at all in the USFWS, yet a State Threatened fish like the Arkansas Darter come up in a search on USFWS. Same with the Boreal Toad which is endangered in CO and I think in NM, it doesn't come up if you search Bufo boreas boreas on the USFWS page.
#5
Guest_ashtonmj_*
Guest_ashtonmj_*
-
- Guests
Posted 02 March 2007 - 09:23 AM
Are they necessarily missing or are they just not granted at both the state and federal level? I'll throw out an example, the Barrens Topminnow, which has no federal listing, but is state listed. This is really done on purpose too because the intense human involvement with the project functions better without the restrictions that would come with federal listing. The USFWS is actively involved with the project and state listing has afforded it enough protection. It sounds like a similar situation to the Rio Grande Sucker which is actively managed, but has no federal protection. State and federal status are also rarely the same. While pointing out Management of Concern or Special Concern or any likewise status is beneficialto keep people aware of a fish that may be in need of further management, on the federal level it affords no protection and it varies by state.
One final note...I'd personally wonder why the State of Colorado is spending money on raising Southern Red Belly Dace and Common Shinern. These fish may be scarce in Colorado, but that is only because the humans decided to draw a boundary for a state is on the edge of the natural range and a watershed. Sticking an imaginarey state boundary over a real, physical boundary such as a watershed is often useless in the realm of biology and consevation. When the natural range or a widely distributed species knicks the a small fraction of a political boundary does the fish really care or know? While a fish in that situation would still be suited to having a protection status, lets be serious here, Common Shiner and SRBD aren't facing broadscale imperilment here.
One final note...I'd personally wonder why the State of Colorado is spending money on raising Southern Red Belly Dace and Common Shinern. These fish may be scarce in Colorado, but that is only because the humans decided to draw a boundary for a state is on the edge of the natural range and a watershed. Sticking an imaginarey state boundary over a real, physical boundary such as a watershed is often useless in the realm of biology and consevation. When the natural range or a widely distributed species knicks the a small fraction of a political boundary does the fish really care or know? While a fish in that situation would still be suited to having a protection status, lets be serious here, Common Shiner and SRBD aren't facing broadscale imperilment here.
#6
Guest_TurtleLover_*
Guest_TurtleLover_*
-
- Guests
Posted 02 March 2007 - 11:12 AM
Unfortunately, this entire country has always been based on human drawn invisible boundries. It's something that's always been fought over. Since there is very little of that watershed and those fish in the state of Colorado, perhaps they are trying to protect what little there is. People live by invisible boundaries and labels. By labeling a fish and an area for that fish as protected, then maybe they can get people to take care of it better and not bulldoze what little beauty there is there. The norther and eastern half of Colorado developed quickly and very large scale. In hindsight, people are now understanding what a negative impact this has had on the environment. In the western half, the damming of the Colorado river has driven important species like the pikeminnow and bonytail to near extinction. Maybe they're just trying to preserve what little is left for future generations. It's sad when you see pics from the 30's with a farmer coming home with a 5 foot pikeminnow (squawfish) draped over the back of his horse knowing that you'll probably never actually get to see that species reach that size presently since their river was so drastically changed. Areas that have been designated as wilderness areas there now and are protected from being entered except on foot or horseback are the most beautiful areas I've ever seen. And because the area has been designated as a wilderness area, you don't have to worry about any celebrities building a mansion up there to "get away from it all" and ruining the natural beauty. I think Colorado begun to realize they don't have much of anything left to protect so they better take care of what is there.
#7
Guest_AC-Editor_*
Guest_AC-Editor_*
-
- Guests
Posted 02 March 2007 - 01:13 PM
Just because an animal is state-listed -- like the Rio Grande Sucker -- doesn't mean that it's federally listed, too. Many state-listed species occur on the periphery of their range and are thus naturally rare within a political boundary, but may be secure throughout their multi-state range.
For a complete list of all listed North American freshwater fishes -- federal, state and provincial -- download this Excel spreadsheet:
http://www.nanfa.org...ting_status.xls
Chris Scharpf
For a complete list of all listed North American freshwater fishes -- federal, state and provincial -- download this Excel spreadsheet:
http://www.nanfa.org...ting_status.xls
Chris Scharpf
Some of these like the Rio Grande Sucker are listed as State Endangered and aren't listed at all in the USFWS, yet a State Threatened fish like the Arkansas Darter come up in a search on USFWS. Same with the Boreal Toad which is endangered in CO and I think in NM, it doesn't come up if you search Bufo boreas boreas on the USFWS page.
#9
Guest_Uland_*
Guest_Uland_*
-
- Guests
Posted 29 November 2010 - 08:30 AM
I noticed that there wasn't brook silversides on the Indiana list. are they an introduced species then??? I know there here
The link for Indiana shows Brook Silversides http://www.in.gov/dn..._April_2007.pdf
NANFA also has posted a spredsheet list that compiles all of the T & E fish from each state in one convenient listing. I'm not sure which list you're looking at.
Keep your eyes out for new books for Indiana though.....A little birdie told me a field guide and "fishes of" books are in the works.
#10
gzeiger
-
- NANFA Guest
Posted 10 January 2015 - 03:41 PM
Anyone know why the Enneacanthus sunfish are listed as "protected" in New Jersey's fishing regulations, but not mentioned anywhere in these links?
I assume the protection is limited to setting the catch limit at zero, and no protection is afforded to their habitat?
I assume the protection is limited to setting the catch limit at zero, and no protection is afforded to their habitat?
Reply to this topic
1 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users
NANFA Youtube Channel 
