Taxonomy by committee?

[Richard Hill]

The problem with switching the focus to habitat protection is that regulators and others lose focus on the species and populations and stop funding research.  It is much simpler for them to buy land and walk away.  Some overworked and understaffed/underfinanced land manager will then become responsible for the land and will manage for some goal to the best of his or her ability.  How should the habitat be managed?  There have been too many interesting habitats converted to duck production or other charismatic taxa to the detriment of, say, invertebrates and other less charismatic taxa.  How many habitats have been protected to death?

We need an n-dimensional approach, but the public will not buy it.  So, at least we need both a species and a habitat approach with a now and future perspective.  We need to develop recovery plans and survey methods that are both currently robust and conservative; we need to recognize minority issues and uncertainties so we can plan for research and implement changes needed to address new information.

Engineers do not build structures they think will stand.  They build standard and other contingencies into their designs to account for normal variations and extreme conditions that can be realistically anticipated.  We need to build standard contingencies into our conservation structures to account for uncertainties in much the same way.  We should also continue to improve our estimates.  We may as well use "good engineering practices" and "best management practices" patterned after a successful model.

Doug?

----- Original Message ----- 
From: Doug Yanega <dyanega at POP.UCR.EDU>
To: <TAXACOM at USOBI.ORG>
Sent: Friday, February 23, 2001 9:55 AM
Subject: Re: Taxonomy by committee?


> Barry's situation has only one realistic and practical solution, which
> involves lateral thinking: revise environmental protection legislation so
> it is habitat-based instead of taxon-based. Thanks to fences and highways,
> it's easier to define boundaries on a habitat than it is on a taxon - and
> it would put an end to this miserable PR problem of trying to convince
> people that some piece of land has to be protected because it contains some
> endangered species they personally consider to be worthless. Chanting "Jobs
> versus forests!" won't win as many weak-minded converts as "Jobs versus
> owls!"
> Of course, all of us know this will never, ever happen, because it's far
> too sensible a thing to do, and would run counter to the present political
> climate. Far more likely that a conflict such as Barry describes will be
> considered by the government as evidence that endangered species are a
> myth, the same way they said "Well, the scientists can't agree on global
> warming - therefore it obviously must not be a real problem at all!"
> 
> Feeling pessimistic on a cold, wet day,
> 
> 
> Doug Yanega        Dept. of Entomology         Entomology Research Museum
> Univ. of California - Riverside, Riverside, CA 92521
> phone: (909) 787-4315 (standard disclaimer: opinions are mine, not UCR's)
>            http://entmuseum9.ucr.edu/staff/yanega.html
>   "There are some enterprises in which a careful disorderliness
>         is the true method" - Herman Melville, Moby Dick, Chap. 82