Taxonomy by committee?

[Richard Hill]

Phil,
I agree that NCCPs can be an incremental improvement over past practices,
but have you read management plans for specific properties and/or observed
the actual management practices?  I have not, and am curious as to what
state the NCCPs are in.  I need to begin paying more attention to them.
Always too much to read....  In relative ignorance, I feel that many are
expedient contrivances rather than well developed holistic plans.  But much
of that view references early attempts at HCPs and NCCPs.  I have a recent
bad taste from interacting with CalFed.

Many of the NCCPs are relatively new and I suspect they have not yet reached
a management plan implementation stage.  I will be pleased to be informed.
My concern is that they will be managed at the ecosystem level, and the loss
of non-charismatic taxa will not be noticed or of concern.  I note the
Forest Products Industries television commercials that show a corn field of
trees and talk about the great things they do for the environment.

Glossary:
HCP:  Habitat Conservation Plans
CalFed:  A plan to manage water development in California (like watching
sausage production from the live pig to the plate; by a vegetarian).


----- Original Message -----
From: Phil Bunch <pbunch at CTS.COM>
To: <TAXACOM at USOBI.ORG>
Sent: Saturday, February 24, 2001 12:08 PM
Subject: Re: Taxonomy by committee?


> 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