Jim,

there is another reason for protecting populations at the fringes of a
species range: under the for the species extreme conditions that limit its
distribution different genes are selected for than in the main area of
occurrence. These rare genes are important to the fitness of the species, to
help it survive catastrophes, and environmental changes. Furthermore, the
fringes are the areas where speciation occurs. In a sense, protecting
populations at the fringe of a species distribution is conservation of a
process and not so much of the status of a species. I don't know whether the
lack of genetic differences between the different lynx populations was based
on thorough enough tests to find such subtle genetic processes.

Two cents from a conservation biologist.

Volker Bahn

----- Original Message -----
From: Jim Tantillo <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: March 29, 2000 8:43 PM
Subject: RE: [Canada Lynx Rare in Maine]


> Hi again everybody,
>
> I appreciated Steve's entering the discussion on the lynx issue--he's as
> close to the issue as anyone I know, so I'm going to ask a few more
> questions in the hopes of learning some more.
>
> >[snip]
> >Steve wrote:
> >In the 1980s I did a three year project throughout the Central Rockies on
> >lynx. We documented lynx in Colorado at about 15 locations going back to
the
> >late 1800s. I've examined all known specimen of lynx from Colorado and
added
> >a couple and cut a couple (including one badger!) off the list. During
our
> >field research, which used tracking and hair snags, we found that the
back
> >basin at Vail probably had a small (less then 3) population of lynx. Same
> >for the San Juan Mountains.
> >
> >With this study and the historical evidence you can conclude that the
> >southern limits of lynx in the lower 48 US states was Colorado down to
the
> >New Mexico border. We found one specimen from the 1800s which probably
came
> >from about 5 miles into NM. At no time were lynx common in Colorado, but
> >there are continuous records. Thus, the most parsimonious conclusion is
that
> >lynx are native to Colorado and deserve a "rare" status.
> >
> >The recent debate over lynx is one of the aspects of the ESA that many
> >biologists have problems with. The ESA is written so that any
*population*,
> >not a species, can be listed. This was intentional, not a mistake. The
> >intent of Congress when it drafted the ESA was to allow the listing of
local
> >populations of any taxon as endangered or threatened.
>
> I understand the need to be able to list local populations under the
> provisions of the Endangered Species Act.  But isn't it the case that
> neither the Washington nor the Colorado "populations" of lynx constitute a
> distinctly separate group (taxonomically speaking) worthy of protection
> under the act?  In contrast, for example, the Florida panther is a
distinct
> variety or subspecies of _Felis concolor_, and as such is worthy of
special
> consideration under the ESA as a separate population.  Some of the
> complaints about the lynx listing have to do with the fact that
> taxonomically, there is no significant difference between Washington,
> Colorado, Maine, or Canadian lynx.  I believe this was one important
reason
> why the USFWS decided to list the lynx nationally, because the agency
> couldn't justify treating the Washington or Colorado groups separately
> (correct me if I'm wrong).  And this lack of genetic separateness (or
> whatever you want to call it) is one reason why the state of Colorado can
> reintroduce individual animals translocated from Canada with no concern
> about negative taxonomic consequences to a subspecies.
>
> >
> >My opinion: the listing of local populations as endangered is not a
problem.
> >Saying that since lynx are common in Canada and therefore should not be
> >listed in Maine is like saying "it's not my problem."
>
> Well, I'm not really sure this is what the writer from Maine was saying.
> *My* point in citing his article was to make (perhaps unclearly) the point
> that ski resort politics in Colorado affects what happens to endangered
> species in Maine.  I think the USFWS consistently (although perhaps
> wrongly) argued throughout the 1990s that the lynx subpopulations found in
> Washington and in Colorado were not significantly distinct enough to
> warrant special protection under the ESA
>
> All species, except
> >for man, cockroaches, and European rats and mice, have limits to their
> >distribution in some place. At those locations we can assume that
habitat,
> >or chance, has somehow limited the ability to go further. It is exactly
at
> >these places that habitat alteration, or something, can have adverse
effects
> >on populations of any species. So, the conservative approach is to
protect
> >the limits of distribution even more strictly than the heart of
> >distribution.
>
> Ahhh. . .  Alright!  Fine. Okay.  This is an argument that at least makes
> sense to me.  Unfortunately, this is not an argument I see made very
often.
> I agree with Steve in one sense:  I think a positive case can be made, for
> a variety of scientific and/or aesthetic-moral reasons, that we should
> preserve the potential diversity at the fringes of the lynx's range, even
> though we can't tell any difference between a lynx in the Vail basin from
> one in Alaska.  But, on the other hand, isn't exercising the power of the
> Endangered Species Act to protect the limits of distribution going just a
> bit overboard in our efforts to manage and protect the lynx?  Why not now
> apply the same rationale for listing the lynx to other "rare" populations?
>
> For example, if one looks at the range and distribution of the ruffed
> grouse (Bonasa umbellus), one will find a finger of range that extends
> south along the Appalachian Mountains into the western parts of North
> Carolina and just barely into the states of Georgia and Alabama.  Hmmm,
> this finger of range closely resembles <grin> that long southerly finger
of
> Canada lynx range that extends through Colorado on toward the state of New
> Mexico.   Now, the grouse is spectacularly abundant in the northern parts
> of its range--Canada, the Lakes states including Minnesota, Michigan,
> Wisconsin, and New England.  In contrast, the grouse is *rare* in Georgia.
> Does the existence of that small Georgia population of grouse at the
> absolute fringes of the bird's range now warrant the grouse's protection
> under the Endangered Species Act?  And even though the Georgia population
> of grouse can't be distinguished from any other grouse in the East, should
> we now list the grouse nationally as "threatened" on the basis of our
> concern for that rare population in Georgia?
>
> This is basically what happened politically with the lynx listing (or at
> least that is what the lynx's detractors are saying).
>
> To relate the discussion back to Vail and to the ecoterrorism threads:
> Steve says they estimated a lynx population of "less than" 3 individuals
in
> Vail basin.  Let's just say there are three lynx in Vail basin.  The range
> of a lynx is anywhere from 5 to 94 square miles
> (http://lynx.uio.no/jon/lynx/p-usa03.htm).  When food is scarce, lynx have
> been known to travel up to 1200 kilometers to find food
> (http://lynx.uio.no/catfolk//lynxca04.htm).  Let me ask of Steve or Ben or
> anyone else--since the lynx is now officially "threatened," should the
U.S.
> Forest Service rescind its approval of the Vail ski resort expansion into
> the 800 or so acres adjacent to the existing ski facility?  What should
> happen now?
>
> Does Steve's "conservative approach . . . to protect the limits of
> distribution even more strictly than the heart of distribution" require
> blocking the Vail resort expansion?
>
> Jim T.
>
>
>
> >
> >The ethical choice is the same. There is no reason to say that the
ethical
> >rule for endangered species has to be applied to the entire species. If
you
> >follow the logic you have to conclude that if you have a strong ethical
> >regard for a species, that has to extend down to an individual.
> >
> >Well, I was going to stay out, but there you go.
> >
> >Steven
>
>



%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%