at Fri May 6 16:54:13 2011 [ Report Abuse ] [ Email Message ] [ Show All Posts by RichardFHoyer ]
A second issue in Zach's post pertains to the listed status of the SRB. Form my perspective, unquestionably the subspecies should never have been listed in the first place. There is absolutely NO factual information that remotely suggests the SRB should be listed as a 'Threatened' subspecies in Calif.
I suspect that most individuals believe that state wildlife agencies list species via professional, science-based standards and processes. After all, just like myself, agency biologists graduated with degrees in wildlife science with the emphasis on 'Science'. Nothing could be further from the truth. The state of Calif. is not alone in using unprofessional and unethical methods for listing non-game species in some category of concern. The listing of the SRB is a classical example.
In 1971, the SRB was listed as "RARE" (later changed to 'Threatened') in S. Calif. Rather than using accepted science-based methods, the CDFG based their listing on the personal opinions and perceptions of a panel of herpetologist that the SRB was rare along with the fact there were few locality records and vouchers. The latter may seem as the type of evidence to justify listing but in reality, few numbers of vouchers and sight records have more plausible explanations other than a species being rare.
Richard F. Hoyer
[ Reply To This Message ] [ Subscribe to this Thread ] [ Show Entire Thread ]