Puget Sound Orcas to Be on Endangered List

[riguerin]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051116/ap_on_sc/endangered_orcas

 

[archman]

I'll side with the government on this one. This small sub-population isn't a discrete species, more like a cutesy ethnic group. And even at 100 animals, it's not big enough to genetically maintain itself without outside breeding. How on earth did this make its way so far up the NMFS ladder? So much for sound science.

This is a case where the Endangered Species Act is being exploited. Protection for this population should have been deferred to another regulation. The existing MMPA should have been sufficient. All this does is shunt resources away from actual species that the ESA is actually designed to protect. I am quite disappointed. This may be a victory for environmentalists, but it is a setback for the environment.

 

[Uncle Pug]

This may be a victory for environmentalists, but it is a setback for the environment.

How is it a setback for the environment... I see it as not only protecting the Puget Sound Orca population but setting the stage for protecting Puget Sound itself.

 

[archman]

How is it a setback for the environment... I see it as not only protecting the Puget Sound Orca population but setting the stage for protecting Puget Sound itself.

The ESA has finite funds, spread quite thinly. They are designed for specific uses, namely protection of plant and animal species that are in close danger of becoming extinct. Only a fraction of critically endangered plant and animal species in the U.S. are actually on the official list and receive funding; most of the others lack the comprehensive surveying, political clout or public interest.

The Puget Sound orcas are not a discrete species, and don't realistically constitute even a viable sub-population. And if the historical records are accurate, they've only lost about 21% of their population size (21 out of 100). That's small potatoes. One is not supposed to look at numerical counts in establishing ecological legislation of this sort, but rather percentages.

This is a setback for the environment, in that there are far more species much more deserving of being put on the list than these whales. Those species will suffer continued declines, while well-meaning but misguided resources are diverted for the Puget Sound orcas. They already have outstanding regulation in the form of the MMPA, and local and state ordinances could very easily set up additional regs. This is a very localized population that does not cross state borders; even less reason to involve the feds.

Appropriate natural resource management science and ecology were thwarted by this decision. It does more net harm than good in both the long and the short term to the biological health of United States' wildlife. With the limited money and support the ESA has, managers must take great care in allocating resources for maximum benefit. Diverting some of that to Puget Sound orcas is bordering on the ridiculous.

 

[jbilicska]

I agree with Uncle Pug . If protecting the Orcas also helps protect Puget Sound I can only see good coming out of this . And isn't it true an ounce of protection is worth a pound of cure. It's less expensive to save a species that is starting to show trouble then to save species that should have been attended to long ago and now are in dire straits.
The Pacific Northwest has seen enough environmental damage already.

Just my thoughts
Joe B

 

[archman]

It's less expensive to save a species that is starting to show trouble then to save species that should have been attended to long ago and now are in dire straits.

First, they're not a species. Second, the Endangered Species Act is neither designed nor earmarked to protect species that only show moderate reductions. If that were in fact the case, almost every wild organism in the nation would be placed on the list. Third, the Pacific Northwest has some of the highest environmental protection in the United States, and some of the highest environmental quality.

It is less expensive to do preventative protection on animals that are in relatively good standing. But the ESA is not that sort of regulation. It's purpose is to protect populations that are tottering on the very edge of extinction. The Puget Sound killer whales historically exist in minute numbers, and naturally exist on the ragged edge of distinctness from other killer whales. Their habitat is too small to ever support a viable speciation shift.

Basically, they're a blip that can "extinct itself" with little interference from man.

Zoning portions of Puget Sound under the National Marine Sanctuary system would be a more effective regulation. NMS regulation would also be appropriate to the situation, whereas use of the ESA is not.

When the "intent" of regulations is abused, it opens up precedents for legislators to scale back or axe them. There is a very real danger here. The ESA is already under heavy attack in the U.S. Congress. This does not help the case.

 

[jbilicska]

There's been a lot of debate about whether they are a seperate species or not. The destruction I'm talking about has been the MASSIVE clearcutting of old growth Cedar etc. in the West along with Dam after Dam making it immpossible for Salmon to complete their life journey. The Clear cutting along with pollution, Mud runoff , overfishing, and many other factors has destroyed major Rivers and the livelyhood of countless people on these rivers as they make their paths into our Oceans.
If the listing of these Orcas gives better protection to the Sound is it worth it then?

And as shown over and over in the past some Congressman and Presidents will do everything in their power to destroy our environment. It is our responsibility to make our voices be heard and stand up for what we believe to be true.

Thanks
Joe B

 

[archman]

If the listing of these Orcas gives better protection to the Sound is it worth it then?

Not when the way gone about protecting them is wrong. Not when it takes essential funds away from more deserving programs already in place. Not when there are more appropriate regulations that this issue could have been placed under.

The people whose restoration programs will have to be cut in order to divert resources to the Puget Sound orca population would most certainly take issue.

If there is a scientific debate as to whether or not Puget Sound orcas represent a distinct species, I'd like to see those references. I find it extemely unlikely that such a claim is supportable.