Mo. Department of Conservation removes some endangered species

By Gretchen Mahan

Published Oct. 14, 2008

Earlier this month, three species were removed from the Missouri endangered species list, but on the same day, international reports announced at least one in four mammals in the world were endangered, an estimate far exceeding what was previously thought.

In Missouri, the bald eagle, the barn owl and the western fox snake were eliminated from the list.

Adding or removing species to the list does not necessarily indicate whether that species is experiencing a change in its actual population. Instead, the status can be updated because the organizations receive more data about the species, said John George, a natural history biologist for the Missouri Department of Conservation.

The department does not have a set definition for animals being put on the endangered species list.

"The criteria for being on the list really comes down to someone convincing us as an agency that the plant or animal is in trouble in our state," George said.

George is referring to biologists within or outside the department.

Next, the department might agree not enough is known about the organism and will place it on the list. Then, after monitoring the animal for some time, the department will update its rank if it discovers the species needs more or less protection.

The fact Missouri was able to de-list three species while other animals were added to the global endangered species list could be due to the process of monitoring rather than a direct result of program efforts.

"We have not done significant management actions for them, except for the bald eagle," George said in reference to the three species. George also said that the department is increasing monitoring of the three species when they were first added to the list.

The department is funded by a one-eighth of 1 percent sales tax in Missouri, which provides a stable financial base for research and monitoring. This is something some other states or nations do not have, George said.

It takes this funding, combined with time and work, to accurately categorize a species, an area in which many states are still attempting to improve.

"You have to spend time," George said. "You can't just make quick judgments."

Although funding is a major part of conservation, Dylan Kesler, a professor in the department of wildlife and fisheries, said conservation has never been assigned a dollar value, a topic that has been a recent discussion among conservationists.

"We have not yet set a hard threshold for the cost of recovery," Kesler said.  "We have never chosen extinction because the budget for recovery was too great."

Cost is a practical issue with conservation efforts, and the way money is distributed is not always "scientific."

Many times, more funds are given to "charismatic mega-vertebrates", Kesler said.

"There is definitely a political side to it," he said.

Mark Ryan, director of the School of Natural Resources, describes these animals that have more aesthetic value to the public as the "large, fuzzy things."

Despite these preferences, conservationists treat all species equally in terms of devoting its resources.

"Usually in conservation we try not to try harder for more charismatic species," Kesler said.

Biology professor John Faaborg said people often focus too much on a single species rather than other important issues such as the declining grasslands in Missouri, which serve as the habitat of many avian species.

The department has adopted this method of focusing on habitats rather than individual species.

"We try to focus more on community management than on single species management," George said. "It's just much more efficient that way."

At the same time, Ryan said the decline in a species can be a harbinger for other environmental issues, and people should realize when conservation is necessary to preserve the Earth's resources.

"We've got one Earth to live on," Ryan said.