Taxonomy by committee?

[Phil Bunch]

California's Natural Community Conservation Plans (NCCP's) are an
attempt to design preserves for the express purpose of protecting
species by protecting habitat.  The initial incentive was to prevent
the coastal California gnatcatcher (CAGN) from being listed as
Endangered by the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service.  As these efforts
have developed other species such as Stephen's kangaroo rat have
become focal or "umbrella species."  In the San Diego area habitats
beyond those occupied by CAGN are protected.  As currently constituted
the NCCP preserves may be inadequate to protect all potentially
threatened species but they are a vast improvement on the piecemeal
approach previously used.

I believe these preserves will be managed on an ecosystem level and
not with an overemphasis on any given species.  In addition, they have
received at least moderate support from the development community
because they offer a degree of predictability. Some areas are
designated for development, others for various levels of protection.

As systematic knowledge advances and our understanding of what species
really are improves, challenges will arise.  Flexibility is crucial
for success.

Phil Bunch

-----Original Message-----
From: Richard Hill <REHill at IX.NETCOM.COM>
To: TAXACOM at USOBI.ORG <TAXACOM at USOBI.ORG>
Date: Saturday, February 24, 2001 7:37 AM
Subject: Re: Taxonomy by committee?


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