Boreal Toad Distribution
Nice summary of what constitutes a distinct population segment and what it takes to get a species/subspecies listed!
Posted on 10/05/2005 8:51:03 AM PDT by GreenFreeper
USFWS Contacts: Al Pfister(970)243-2778 x 29 or Diane Katzenberger (303)236-4578
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service today announced the withdrawal of the Southern Rocky Mountain population of the Boreal Toad (Bufo boreas boreas) from the list of species being considered for protection under the Endangered Species Act (ESA).
The Service has determined that listing this population of the Boreal Toad at this time is not warranted because it does not constitute a distinct population segment as defined by the ESA. Although no further action will result from this finding, the Service will continue to seek new information on the taxonomy, biology, and ecology of the population, as well as potential threats to their continued existence.
A distinct population segment of a vertebrate species can be treated as a species for purposes of listing if that population segment satisfies specific standards set by the Service's regulations. The standards require it to be discrete from the remainder of the population and significant to the species to which it belongs. The Southern Rocky Mountain population meets the standard for discreteness because it is geographically separated from other populations of the Boreal Toad. However, it does not meet the standard for significance because 1) the population does not persist in an ecological setting unusual or unique for the subspecies (it occurs in a wide variety of habitats across the western United States); 2) the gap resulting from loss of the population would be a relatively small proportion of the overall subspecies range; and 3) the best available scientific information does not permit the Service to conclude that this particular population differs markedly from other populations in genetic characteristics.
The Boreal Toad, the nominate subspecies of the Western Toad (Bufo boreas), is found from coastal Alaska south through British Columbia, western Alberta, Washington, Oregon, and northern California, and east through Idaho, western Montana, western and south central Wyoming, western and central Nevada, the mountains of Utah and Colorado, and extreme northern New Mexico. The range of the Southern Rocky Mountain population of the Boreal Toad is south central Wyoming throughout the mountainous portions of Colorado and into extreme northern New Mexico .
In September 1993, the Biodiversity Legal Foundation and Dr. Peter Hovingh, a researcher at the University of Utah, petitioned the Service to list the Southern Rocky Mountain population of the Boreal Toad as endangered throughout its range in New Mexico, Colorado, and southern Wyoming. The Service initiated a status review and determined in March of 1995 that proposed listing was warranted but precluded by other higher priority actions. The population then became a candidate for listing.
Candidate species are plants and animals for which the Service has sufficient information on their biological status and posed threats to propose them as endangered or threatened under the Endangered Species Act, but for which development of a listing regulation is precluded by other higher priority listing activities.
After further review of new information and re-evaluation of previously acquired information, the Service determined that listing is not warranted at this time. That decision was based on the best available scientific and commercial information.
A recovery plan for the Southern Rocky Mountain Boreal Toad guides conservation efforts for the population. Management activities include annual monitoring of breeding populations, experimental reintroductions, coordinated habitat protection, and public education.
This finding regarding the withdrawal of the Southern Rocky Mountain Boreal Toad as a candidate species was published in the Federal Register on 29 September 2005.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is the principal Federal agency responsible for conserving, protecting and enhancing fish, wildlife and plants and their habitats for the continuing benefit of the American people. The Service manages the 95-million-acre National Wildlife Refuge System, which encompasses 545 national wildlife refuges, thousands of small wetlands and other special management areas. It also operates 69 national fish hatcheries, 64 fishery resources offices and 81 ecological services field stations. The agency enforces federal wildlife laws, administers the Endangered Species Act, manages migratory bird populations, restores nationally significant fisheries, conserves and restores wildlife habitat such as wetlands, and helps foreign and Native American tribal governments with their conservation efforts. It also oversees the Federal Assistance program, which distributes hundreds of millions of dollars in excise taxes on fishing and hunting equipment to state fish and wildlife agencies.
Boreal Toad Distribution
Nice summary of what constitutes a distinct population segment and what it takes to get a species/subspecies listed!
FReepmail me to be added or removed from the ECO-PING list!
And this toad is special because?..................(no Prince Charming?)
Looks like any other toad....
add me to the list, please.
Personally, I do not think the Boreal toad is that special- its just a disjunct population of the Western Toad.
"And this toad is special because?"
It croaks with a drawl.
Wow! Glad to read this wonderful article. Now I will no longer be kept up all night worrying about the Boreal Toad. Happy days are here again.
I take issue with your implied assertion that the listing process is necessarily scientific. Around here, all it took was for one bureaucrat to diametrically lie about an mtDNA study that showed coho not to be genetically distinct (he said that it showed the opposite and staff did not disagree).
The agencies listed the "Southern coho" anyway regardless of the fact that the case was a total fabrication.
When it was found that peer reviewed icthyoarcheaology journals showed no bones from those fish in indian shell middens anywhere along the coast and when the agencies were shown published records recording the date of human introduction into fish hatcheries, they informed the landowners who can't harvest billions in timber because of the listing that the bureaucrats had $700 million in projects going to restore fish habitat that just couldn't go interrupted. The fish is not native to the area in the first place.
I have recipes.
You always take issue with what I say, lol. For one, I never implied that the listing process was scientific. All I said was that the article pointed out what it took to get something listed (Something you don't see very often in news articles). Second, the listing process does attempt to be scientific (though i did not originally say or imply that). The dishonesty and corrupt politics of a few, does not necessarily negate to listing process as scientific. What would you consider scientific given that data fraud has been committee in every field of science? Now I do not fully agree with the listing process but the abusive actions of a few corrupt individuals does not make a listing process unscientific.
No, I don't always disagree. There, I did it again. :-)
All I said was that the article pointed out what it took to get something listed (Something you don't see very often in news articles).
In this case, it was a protracted and reasonably objective and balanced process that refused to list the species. It is therefore not representative of what I have seen.
Second, the listing process does attempt to be scientific (though i did not originally say or imply that). The dishonesty and corrupt politics of a few, does not necessarily negate to listing process as scientific.
This one was reasonably scientific; many aren't. IMO, It is not as representative as your post suggested.
What would you consider scientific given that data fraud has been committee in every field of science?
Repeated experiments each verified by a third party with something to lose if they don't detect fraud. One test I would like to have seen, for example, is to test if other varieties of toads do as well in that niche. The genetic distinctions may produce attributes that may or may not have anything to do with a fit to that habitat.
Now I do not fully agree with the listing process but the abusive actions of a few corrupt individuals does not make a listing process unscientific.
I don't think that it's just a few; I think it's rampant. The very definition of "species" is way out of line with its classical definition. We are more often listing varieties and races, not species. The often whimsical extension of protection to "sub-species" is, in my judgment, neither supported in law or science. Many plants and animals are merely more plastic and variable than is commonly understood.
Actually, being on the inside, I think this is representative of the majority of cases. It is nearly impossible to get a species listed as a distinct population segment. You don't hear about the cases that get turned down. I have personally worked on about a dozen or so candidates, none of which have gotten listed. Only 1 of those species do i think deserves DPS status. that one is still pending. Anyway, my work has been in the midwest and not the Left Coast. Out there it appears much more corrupt!
I don't think that it's just a few; I think it's rampant. The very definition of "species" is way out of line with its classical definition. We are more often listing varieties and races, not species.
Well the whole problem with difining species is that there are no discrete boundaries no matter what species concept is applied. Dogs, for example, have more genetic variation within species than do some entire taxanomic families. Simple reproductive isolation fails in that it does not take into account ecological niche- all of which act along gradients and not strict boundaries. The whole problem lies in that no species definition exists that can be applied to all life, period!
We've had two over enormous areas in recent years with catastrophic results for landowners.
You don't hear about the cases that get turned down.
Was that a figurative or literal "you"? One certainly hears about the subsequent sweetheart lawsuit.
The whole problem lies in that no species definition exists that can be applied to all life, period!
See? We DO sometimes agree! I've had fun with that, having hybridized two dandelion "species" that produced viable offspring. Interestingly, one is an annual and the other a perrenial.
Anecdotal story: my cat caught 5 mice in a one week period. Three of the mice looked like the "Prebles jumping meadow mouse", an endangered or protected( I misremember which) species. I determined that they were actually deermice, by interrogating the survivors, so no need to report that an endangered or protected species was on my property. :)
Can't say the same out here. The problems that arise from listed species have been listed at the state level, not the federal.
Was that a figurative or literal "you"? One certainly hears about the subsequent sweetheart lawsuit.
Both. Unless your actively looking at government grants given to DSP research, not many people hear about it. First research must conclude that it is a DSP, then research must conclude that its status is threatened. Both are difficult to conclusively prove- unless as you like to point out fudge the data or bend some rules. Only after its declared a DSP and a candidate for listing does anyone not working directly on the project usually hear about it. Most don't even make it to DSP status. Of course charismatic species and species of commercial interest get more media attention and thus more political tampering.
See? We DO sometimes agree! I've had fun with that, having hybridized two dandelion "species" that produced viable offspring. Interestingly, one is an annual and the other a perrenial.
I've actually found a small population of triploid Ambystomid salamanders that also produce viable offspring (which is very very very rare) and look nothing like the 2 species that hybridized (much much larger, different color, same body proportions). I have no idea what they fall under?
Those guys are really neat. We have the regular ole Meadow Jumping Mouse (Zapus hudsonius) out here. Occasionally I would catch some in our herp traps. Instead of running away, they jump straight up in the air.
Willow flycatchers, snowy plovers, bull trout, blackfooted ferrets, sage grouse, and desert tortoises were all classic examples of my point and were initiated at the Federal level: species that weren't really endangered or were so because of Federal mismanagement that was made worse by the listing. I know a prominent lepidopterist who is so sick of the damage the system does he refuses to notify the agencies when he finds a rare butterfly and instead teaches nearby landowners how to grow the appropriate host plants.
I've actually found a small population of triploid Ambystomid salamanders that also produce viable offspring (which is very very very rare) and look nothing like the 2 species that hybridized (much much larger, different color, same body proportions). I have no idea what they fall under?
Do two quarters of the offspring revert to their forebears, or do you not have the numbers on that? The dandelions I got broke down exactly by the Mendelian model.
I have no idea at this point, not a research priority right now (hopefully in the future though). Other than successfully raising 4 generations and getting some baseline genetic info, I haven't really gathered any data. It's a rare case of having both male and female hybrids (most often just females). My guess is that they arose as a result of one ore more hybridizations, followed by backcrossing with the diploid parents. Something I'd like to look into more but not exactly my choice!
As I view the toad's distribution, it is apparent it is huge in land mass. No way these toads are just going to disappear.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.