08-13-2008, 07:51 AM
Well, the proposal states near the beginning that the justification for de-listing is that "range wide" populations have been stable for 20 years. But as Cat pointed out - this island is only part of the 'Io's historic range. Although I kinda doubt any efforts will be made to reintroduce them to Moloka'i or Kaua'i, it does put the matter in a different perspective.
As Carey wisely mentioned, another big issue is the low genetic diversity of the remaining 'Io population. With pathogens moving ever more rapidly around the planet, we cannot rule out the effects of unforeseen epidemics.
Quote from the proposal:
The IRWG (2001, p. 3) identified disease as a potential factor that might lead to a decline in the size of the Hawaiian hawk population by reducing future reproduction and survival. In their report (IRWG 2001, p. 3) they state: ‘‘[d]isease could have a serious negative impact on ‘io as the population does not appear to be separated into disjunct subpopulations that could more easily evade an outbreak.
further:
Emergent diseases, such as West Nile virus, have the potential to influence Hawaiian hawk viability in the future. West Nile virus, which is primarily transmitted by infected mosquitoes, has been reported in all of the 48 conterminous United States and is potentially fatal to many species of birds, including members of the genus Buteo (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) 2005, 2007). Hawaii and Alaska are the only two States that have reported no occurrences of West Nile virus to date (State of Hawaii 2006; CDC 2007).
I personally can't see any real benefits to de-listing the 'Io.
Carey, what does it mean to have "critical habitat resources"? Are you saying that if one species is de-listed, then there's more money/time to help another, more needy species?
I understand the sad reality of gov.t funding for conservation efforts and I know saving species is a pretty low priority these days. But if the message is there's only room for "so many" on the list, this is seriously messed up. I can see allocating the most money for species and habitat that are the most at risk, or the most able to recover - but how much time and energy does it really take to leave a creature on the list? Something about that smells.
Perhaps getting closer to the stink, the proposal also states that a petition to de-list the 'Io was delivered to USFWS by the National Wilderness Institute, a group that has been called "anti-environmental" activists, headed up by large land developers and polititians. Check em' out:
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?tit..._Institute
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=75
http://www.nndb.com/org/530/000103221/
At the end of the day, I'm not convinced that being on the endangered species list really assures all that much protection by itself. It's the habitat we need to focus on preserving, but that is less sexy and has a way of pissing off those who would profit from its exploitation.
Nevertheless, I beleive it's worth fighting to keep our friend the 'Io on the list. Thanks to all for your support and thoughtful replies.
Aloha,
Mitzi
As Carey wisely mentioned, another big issue is the low genetic diversity of the remaining 'Io population. With pathogens moving ever more rapidly around the planet, we cannot rule out the effects of unforeseen epidemics.
Quote from the proposal:
The IRWG (2001, p. 3) identified disease as a potential factor that might lead to a decline in the size of the Hawaiian hawk population by reducing future reproduction and survival. In their report (IRWG 2001, p. 3) they state: ‘‘[d]isease could have a serious negative impact on ‘io as the population does not appear to be separated into disjunct subpopulations that could more easily evade an outbreak.
further:
Emergent diseases, such as West Nile virus, have the potential to influence Hawaiian hawk viability in the future. West Nile virus, which is primarily transmitted by infected mosquitoes, has been reported in all of the 48 conterminous United States and is potentially fatal to many species of birds, including members of the genus Buteo (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) 2005, 2007). Hawaii and Alaska are the only two States that have reported no occurrences of West Nile virus to date (State of Hawaii 2006; CDC 2007).
I personally can't see any real benefits to de-listing the 'Io.
Carey, what does it mean to have "critical habitat resources"? Are you saying that if one species is de-listed, then there's more money/time to help another, more needy species?
I understand the sad reality of gov.t funding for conservation efforts and I know saving species is a pretty low priority these days. But if the message is there's only room for "so many" on the list, this is seriously messed up. I can see allocating the most money for species and habitat that are the most at risk, or the most able to recover - but how much time and energy does it really take to leave a creature on the list? Something about that smells.
Perhaps getting closer to the stink, the proposal also states that a petition to de-list the 'Io was delivered to USFWS by the National Wilderness Institute, a group that has been called "anti-environmental" activists, headed up by large land developers and polititians. Check em' out:
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?tit..._Institute
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=75
http://www.nndb.com/org/530/000103221/
At the end of the day, I'm not convinced that being on the endangered species list really assures all that much protection by itself. It's the habitat we need to focus on preserving, but that is less sexy and has a way of pissing off those who would profit from its exploitation.
Nevertheless, I beleive it's worth fighting to keep our friend the 'Io on the list. Thanks to all for your support and thoughtful replies.
Aloha,
Mitzi
Uluhe Design
Native Landscape Design
uluhedesign@yahoo.com
Native Landscape Design
uluhedesign@yahoo.com