Jump to content


Photo

Modoc sucker delisting- anybody else smell a rat? Or is a rat being outed?


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
27 replies to this topic

#1 mattknepley

mattknepley
  • NANFA Member
  • Smack-dab between the Savannah and the Saluda.

Posted 13 February 2015 - 07:54 PM

FWS is reopening the comment period for their proposed removal of the Modoc sucker from the federal E&T list. Which I am glad for,as final action was to have been taken to remove said catostomid from the endangered species list, and remove protection for all its habitat, as there is "no longer a need". From the original proposal:

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (Service), propose to
remove the Modoc sucker (Catostomus
microps) from the Federal List of
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife.
This determination is based on a
thorough review of the best available
scientific and commercial information,
which indicates that the threats to this
species have been eliminated or reduced
to the point that the species no longer
meets the definition of an endangered
species or a threatened species under
the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended (Act). If finalized, the effects
of this rule would be to remove the
Modoc sucker from the List of
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife.
This proposed rule, if made final, would
also remove the currently designated
critical habitat for the Modoc sucker
throughout its range. This document
also constitutes our 12-month finding
on a petition to reclassify the Modoc
sucker from endangered to threatened.
We are seeking information and
comments from the public regarding
this 12-month finding and proposed
rule. In addition to the proposed rule,
we are also seeking information and
comments on the draft post-delisting
monitoring plan.

http://ecos.fws.gov/...ion?spcode=E053

Here is the new notice:

https://www.federalr...federal-list-of

I am no scientist. I struggle with scientific papers. I can't even spell Catostomus without a field guide in front of me. And I haven't seen anything in my exhaustive half hour of searching that suggests a valid reason for delisting this fish and removing its habitat's protected status. Here are some of my sources:
http://ecos.fws.gov/...ion?spcode=E053
http://ecos.fws.gov/...iew/doc2546.pdf
http://blog.pacificl...redit-sued-plf/

What gives?


Edit: the more I look at PLF blog, the more I smell a money-coveting rat...
Matt Knepley
"No thanks, a third of a gopher would merely arouse my appetite..."

#2 Matt DeLaVega

Matt DeLaVega
  • Forum Staff
  • Ohio

Posted 14 February 2015 - 01:27 PM

It is my understanding that once something is listed, it is difficult to delist it, at least on the federal level. This fish must be impeding progress for it to warrant down grading.

The member formerly known as Skipjack


#3 Sean Phillips

Sean Phillips
  • NANFA Member
  • Allegheny River Drainage, Southwest PA

Posted 14 February 2015 - 09:49 PM

If it is a rat (which most likely it is), then I can empathize. The same thing is happening in PA only here it's people in the fracking business bribing the PFBC to delist darters so they can take water from protected streams. I'm doing my best to stop this but there's only so much an individual can do unless there's enough people.
Sean Phillips - Pine Creek Watershed - Allegheny River Drainage

#4 mikez

mikez
  • NANFA Guest

Posted 17 February 2015 - 12:19 PM

I'm cynical and smell a rat whenever I hear about delisting.

In Ma it was the spotted turtle which was specifically delisted to allow the bulldozers to roll. Not enough McMansions or strip malls on the last few patches of wild land.


Mike Zaborowski
I don't know, maybe it was the roses.

#5 olaf

olaf
  • NANFA Member

Posted 17 February 2015 - 02:49 PM

Rat! Rat!
I wrote about this exactly a year ago. Intentionally reined in my cynicism then, but I have basically zero faith that this is a success story. And the Modoc isn't the only sucker in peril.
Here's my post from Feb. 17th, 2014: http://moxostoma.com...ger-endangered/
Redhorse ID downloads and more: http://moxostoma.com

#6 Matt DeLaVega

Matt DeLaVega
  • Forum Staff
  • Ohio

Posted 17 February 2015 - 03:32 PM

This is a for instance. Back when Chrosomus cumberlandensis was listed it was only known from a fraction of the streams that is now known to inhabit. There simply is more data now. Even though many experts believe it really has no reason to be federally listed, still it remains, and from what I am told it is because delisting is usually extremely difficult. So if there is a push to delist something, I almost have to believe there is some special interest behind it.

The member formerly known as Skipjack


#7 smbass

smbass
  • Board of Directors

Posted 17 February 2015 - 10:46 PM

You guys may very well be right with this sucker I know nothing about that situation... However I know first hand that this is not the case with the darters in PA. They really have re-expanded in distribution much like many of the moderate to large stream species here in Ohio. Actually it is many of the same species. They are being de-listed there because there is no longer a reason to have them listed, not because of some outside interest. The changed distribution maps over time are quite impressive. One really good example is the gilt darter. This species was considered extirpated from OH last seen in the late 1880's in Ohio. They have become so abundant in the Allegheny and upper Ohio River in PA they have now expanded back down stream and are once again found in Ohio after just over 120 year absence. They are now listed as endangered instead of extirpated in Ohio and soon to be de-listed in PA. There is reason to be skeptical about changes in listings sometimes but sometimes things do in fact recover and can be removed.


Brian J. Zimmerman

Gambier, Ohio - Kokosing River Drainage


#8 Matt DeLaVega

Matt DeLaVega
  • Forum Staff
  • Ohio

Posted 18 February 2015 - 12:53 AM

Dang optimist.

I am sure you would agree that state versus federsl is very different. You are right though, there are many fish that could be delisted, but it is not always easy to do. The Modoc sucker may deserve it. The skeptic in me has to wonder why this fish, and why now.

Even though you are certain that these Ohio drainage fish are secure, I can understand Sean's question. Why now the push? But we have seen it where fracking has no impact in Ohio, Mountain madtom for instance. So I agree it may be simply because they have come back enough.

I will however remain skeptical about these Fed. fish. Who exactly is petitioning that they be delisted? Who might be pushing the petitioners?

The member formerly known as Skipjack


#9 mikez

mikez
  • NANFA Guest

Posted 18 February 2015 - 09:28 AM

This came up before and all the same examples were made. The expanding darter thing is interesting. I wonder if there are other examples of delisting due to expansion.

In all fairness, my standard example of the spotted turtle in Ma could be turned on its ear in the sense that the turtle probably never needed listing in the first place. They were more abundant than the state knew and were listed at a time when philosophy was "List first, ask questions later."
They got delisted as a result of a huge influx of data from amateur naturalists who counted and reported spotted turtle sightings. The internet had a lot to do with that. Unfortunately, many of these naturalists were taken aback to learn their data got the turtle delisted. Not everybody saw it as a good thing. Some took an attitude that basically translated into "No More Rare Critter Reports, Period". Also probably not in the critters' best interest.
The part about delisting them for the sake of development is fact, the state itself has come out and said as much in the media. The turtles were "Blocking" projects that would otherwise go forward.
So now we got way more McMansions and strip malls than the world could ever need. The turtles get retaining ponds to swim in and lawns to nest on.


Mike Zaborowski
I don't know, maybe it was the roses.

#10 fundulus

fundulus
  • Global Moderator

Posted 18 February 2015 - 11:03 AM

The Oregon Chub was delisted earlier this week, because it really did recover in much of its original range. You don't really need conspiracy theories to explain such an action.
Bruce Stallsmith, Huntsville, Alabama, US of A

#11 smbass

smbass
  • Board of Directors

Posted 18 February 2015 - 02:20 PM

There are some examples of what Mike said where a species was listed prior to any good knowledge of where they really were. Then as sampling methods improved and more data came in people realized something was much less rare than previously thought. There is an ongoing "correction" of the state lists in OH and PA due to changes in knowledge and or actual changes in distribution. Unfortunately it is not all good news. Yes many big river species seem to actually be re-expanding but we are loosing our glacial lake and wetland fish species at an alarming rate. Iowa darter in Ohio was probably once found in nearly all of our about 50 small natural lakes in Ohio. The first real survey specific to them was conducted in 1982 and they were found in 26 locations. This got them listed as species of concern. I personally conducted a repeat of those 26 sites plus some older ones from 2011-2013 and found just 12 locations for them and only 7 of those could be described as "good" populations. We actually have nearly lost an 8th "good" one from 2010-2014 due to common carp and other habitat issues, this is one Matt knows that is right against a little county road and may be gone now. This most recent survey has resulted in the species being changed to State Endangered. I hope to begin a recovery project with this species in the near future. I'm just pointing this all out to show that at least on the state level a lot of recent changes are due to new and improved information. I feel things should be listed appropriately so the little money available gets spent on the right species and not on species that were listed long ago just because we didn't know much about them.

Brian J. Zimmerman

Gambier, Ohio - Kokosing River Drainage


#12 Matt DeLaVega

Matt DeLaVega
  • Forum Staff
  • Ohio

Posted 18 February 2015 - 02:39 PM

Right against a county road is right. Almost in the road.

I think you hit the nail on the head. More effort should go in to determining which species actually warranted protection in the first place. Those that did not due to lack of data should be delisted so that those deserving can be concentrated on. Maybe this is the case with this sucker, or quite possibly it has come back very well. I hope this is the case. The more species that are delisted with good reason, the less likely people will smell a "rat".

The member formerly known as Skipjack


#13 Sean Phillips

Sean Phillips
  • NANFA Member
  • Allegheny River Drainage, Southwest PA

Posted 18 February 2015 - 04:35 PM

You guys may very well be right with this sucker I know nothing about that situation... However I know first hand that this is not the case with the darters in PA. They really have re-expanded in distribution much like many of the moderate to large stream species here in Ohio. Actually it is many of the same species. They are being de-listed there because there is no longer a reason to have them listed, not because of some outside interest. The changed distribution maps over time are quite impressive. One really good example is the gilt darter. This species was considered extirpated from OH last seen in the late 1880's in Ohio. They have become so abundant in the Allegheny and upper Ohio River in PA they have now expanded back down stream and are once again found in Ohio after just over 120 year absence. They are now listed as endangered instead of extirpated in Ohio and soon to be de-listed in PA. There is reason to be skeptical about changes in listings sometimes but sometimes things do in fact recover and can be removed.


I really hope that's true but I'm still skeptical. On one hand, I like the fact that maybe someday soon I'll be able to keep gilts and tippecanoes. But at the same time if they're not a very stable population then I'll always put conservation before captive care unless some conservation group is trying to captive breed them for reintroduction.
Sean Phillips - Pine Creek Watershed - Allegheny River Drainage

#14 Matt DeLaVega

Matt DeLaVega
  • Forum Staff
  • Ohio

Posted 18 February 2015 - 05:27 PM

Brian has spent a couple of years trawling the Ohio. If he sees this range expansion it simply is. This is a good thing. Your thoughts about pushing for delisting due to fracking may not be unfounded. They may be pushing, but the data supports that these fish do not need as much protection. Were it not for somebody pushing, they may stay listed. Good or bad, I am not certain. But it should be monitored to be certain that fracking does not change things.

The member formerly known as Skipjack


#15 olaf

olaf
  • NANFA Member

Posted 19 February 2015 - 01:17 PM

I just put up a post about this.
http://moxostoma.com...comment-period/
I agree with some of the comments here that delisting CAN be the right thing to do and that species CAN recover, but I remain skeptical in this case, given the relatively thin population data. The removal of critical habitat protection is the scariest part for me. A perfect storm of drought, non-native species, and agricultural missteps could take things in a very bad direction very quickly, without anyone noticing.
And if delisting is a long, difficult process, imaagine how hard it would be to re-list this species. If it were to become critically imperiled, I doubt it could be relisted in time to save it.
Redhorse ID downloads and more: http://moxostoma.com

#16 Matt DeLaVega

Matt DeLaVega
  • Forum Staff
  • Ohio

Posted 19 February 2015 - 05:13 PM

This topic is very thought provocative. I keep going back and forth myself due to all of the good points brought up. I hope we can trust governmental organizations to make the right decisions, after all the people who work for them do generally care.

The member formerly known as Skipjack


#17 mattknepley

mattknepley
  • NANFA Member
  • Smack-dab between the Savannah and the Saluda.

Posted 20 February 2015 - 06:39 AM

This topic is very thought provocative. I keep going back and forth myself due to all of the good points brought up. I hope we can trust governmental organizations to make the right decisions, after all the people who work for them do generally care.

Great point, Matt. I keep seesawing on this too. My instinct is to distrust business, and this smells "money-driven" to me. On the other hand, if we are going to work so hard to accurately understand, protect and foster our native fishes; how can we take ourselves seriously if we don't recognize our successes, or fix our mistakes, or understand that there is wider human element in this? If there is good science to validate delisting, and there is no good evidence to suggest "intent to profiteer" or "rape" is behind the motive pushing for it; then why don't we support a delisting? Not all human economic endeavor is evil, of course. I was given a piece of wisdom by a friend of mine while I lived in Oregon. We were stuck behind a herd of cattle being driven down a road in the middle of nowhere, and I made an off-hand comment as to the fecal havoc being wreaked on the road, and on the environment in general. My friend, who is also a nature-lover, said "Yeah, but those cows are that rancher's kids' college fund, too..." And my own family, a couple generations earlier than me, benefited from leasing natural gas rights on their property. They didn't become millionaires, but it sure helped them stay comfortable. I doubt that the immediate environment remained pristine, but it also does not appear as if any lasting damage was done, either.

So like Matt, I keep going back and forth. But like Olaf, I keep coming back to the fact that proposal also seeks to strip protection of all the supporting environment, not to just delist the fish, and I get suspicious.
Matt Knepley
"No thanks, a third of a gopher would merely arouse my appetite..."

#18 mikez

mikez
  • NANFA Guest

Posted 20 February 2015 - 08:54 AM

Yes, I 'm going back and forth too. Trying to be honest with myself and absorb the good points being made.

My bias, or willingness to believe the dreaded "conspiracy theory" comes from living too long in a state that has seen political power shift away from conservation and toward development. No spooky theories there, it's very well documented and data is everywhere.

Of course good things are still being done, but it's way harder and more and more folks my age are throwing up our hands and walking away. Seems the younger folks want their chunk, silly fish & turtles be damned. It is currently a good time to be a developer in Ma. and I've heard they're going after other species that are blocking the bulldozers.

I admitted the turtles in my example probably didn't need as much protection as they once had. My problem is there is no such thing as "protected" status for land [wetlands being limited exception]. Every housing development, strip mall or McMansion that was blocked by the turtles, was a huge piece of land full of worthwhile organisms which had no other protection.

Someone like Bruce who once roamed the woods and wetlands of Ma. would not recognize the asphalt jungle the state has become in the last 20 years. For me anyway, it's hard not look back and say "How could THEY let this happen?" Call me a conspiracy theorist, I think I'm a realist.


Mike Zaborowski
I don't know, maybe it was the roses.

#19 mikez

mikez
  • NANFA Guest

Posted 20 February 2015 - 09:11 AM

Went and read another article on the modoc sucker, flipped back to my conspiracy nuttiness. Looking who benefits from delisting and seeing how the cries to protect the fish in order to protect the environment are being dismissed as "carrying no weight" in the argument kinda makes it hard to feel OK about it.


Mike Zaborowski
I don't know, maybe it was the roses.

#20 gerald

gerald
  • Global Moderator
  • Wake Forest, North Carolina

Posted 20 February 2015 - 10:36 AM

Not sure how other states work, but in NC the Wildlife Resources Commission has a career staff of (mostly) conscientious and dedicated biologists intent on good management and conservation practices, and a governing body (the Commissioners) who are political appointees.  Commissioners may or may not have a strong conservation mindset and appreciation for non-game species.  They are the guys who control what the staff biologists can or can't do, and direct official policy and interaction with the federal agencies US-FWS and NMFS.  NC-WRC recently petitioned FWS to abandon the Red Wolf reintroduction program and declare the species extinct in the wild. 

 

This topic is very thought provocative. I keep going back and forth myself due to all of the good points brought up. I hope we can trust governmental organizations to make the right decisions, after all the people who work for them do generally care.


Gerald Pottern
-----------------------
Hangin' on the Neuse
"Taxonomy is the diaper used to organize the mess of evolution into discrete packages" - M.Sandel





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users