Prospects for recovering endemic fishes pursuant to the U.S. Endangered Species Act

Fisheries

Volumn 30, Issue 6, 2005, Pages 24-29

  Williams, Jack E ^a   Macdonald, Catherine A ^b   Williams, Cindy Deacon ^c   Weeks, Hal ^d   Lampman, Georgina ^e   Sada, Don W ^f  

^a Trout Unlimited   (United States)

^b THE NATURE CONSERVANCY   (United States)

^c Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife ^*

^d OREGON DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE   (United States)

^e USDA FOREST SERVICE   (United States)

^f DESERT RESEARCH INSTITUTE   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

PISCES; SIPHATELES BORAXOBIUS;

EID: 21744454980     PISSN: 03632415     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1577/1548-8446(2005)30[24:PFREFP]2.0.CO;2     Document Type: Review

References (28)

1. Abbitt, R. J. F., and J. M. Scott. 2001. Examining differences between recovered and declining endangered species. Conservation Biology 15(5):1274-1284.
2. Bean, M. J. 1983. The evolution of national wildlife law (revised and expanded edition). Praeger Publishers, New York.
3. Bender, M., K. Day Boylan, and E. L. Smith. 1998. Turning the corner towards recovery. Endangered Species Bulletin 23(2-3):4-9.
4. Deacon, J. E., and W. L. Minckley. 1991. Western fishes and the real world: the enigma of "endangered species" revisited. Pages 405-413 in W. L. Minckley and J. E. Deacon, eds. Battle against extinction: native fish management in the American West. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.
5. Diamond, J. M. 1975. The island dilemma: lessons of modern biogeographical studies for the design of natural preserves. Biological Conservation 7:129-146.
6. Doremus, H. 2000. Delisting endangered species: an aspirational goal, not a realistic expectation. The Environmental Law Reporter 30:10434-10454.
7. Doremus, H., and J. E. Pagel. 2001. Why listing may be forever: perspectives on delisting under the U.S. Endangered Species Act. Conservation Biology 15(5)1258-1268.
8. Driscoll, D. A. 2004. Extinction and outbreaks accompany fragmentation of a reptile community. Ecological Applications 14:220-240.
9. Gilpin, M. E., and M. E. Soulé. 1986. Minimum viable populations: processes of species extinction. Pages 19-34 in M. E. Soulé, ed. Conservation biology: the science of scarcity and diversity. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, Massachusetts.
10. Lovejoy, T. E., R. O. Bierregaard, Jr., A. B. Rylands, J. R. Malcolm, C. E. Quintela, L. H. Harper, K. S. Brown, Jr., A. H. Powell, G. V. N. Powell, H. O. R. Schubart, and M. B. Hays. 1986. Edge and other effects of isolation on Amazon forest fragments. Pages 257-285 in M. E. Soulé, ed. Conservation biology: the science of scarcity and diversity. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, Massachusetts.
11. Minckley, W. L., and J. E. Deacon. 1968. Southwestern fishes and the enigma of "endangered species." Science 159:1424-1433.
12. Motivans, K., and M. Balis-Larsen. 2003. Species on the brink of recovery. Endangered Species Bulletin 28(4):10-11.
13. Plater, Z. J. B. 2004. Endangered Species Act lessons over 30 years, and the legacy of the snail darter, a small fish in a pork barrel. Environmental Law 34:289-308.
14. Rohlf, D. J. 2004. Section 4 of the Endangered Species Act: top ten issues for the next thirty years. Environmental Law 34:483-553.
15. Sada, D. W., and G. L. Vinyard. 2002. Anthropogenic changes in biogeography of Great Basin aquatic biota. Pages 277-293 in R. Hershler, D. B. Madsen, and D. R. Currey, eds. Great Basin aquatic systems history. Smithsonian Contributions to the Earth Sciences 33. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C.
16. Schwartz, M. W. 1999. Choosing the appropriate scale of reserves for conservation. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 30:83-108.
17. Soulé, M. E. 1983. What do we really know about extinction? Pages 111-124 in C. M. Schonewald-Cox, S. M. Chambers, B. MacBryde, and W. L. Thomas, eds. Genetics and conservation: a reference for managing wild animal and plant populations. Benjamin/Cummings Publishing Company, Menlo Park, California.
18. Suckling, K., R. Slack, and B. Nowicki. 2004. Extinction and the Endangered Species Act. Center for Biological Diversity, Tucson, Arizona.
19. Terborgh, J. 1974. Preservation of natural diversity: the problem of extinction prone species. BioScience 24:715-722.
20. Tilman, D., R. M. May, C. L. Lehman, and M. A. Nowak. 1994. Habitat destruction and the extinction debt. Nature 371:65-66.
21. USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 1982. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; endangered status and critical habitat for Borax Lake chub (Gila boraxobius). Federal Register 47(193):43957-43963.
22. _. 1987. Recovery plan for the Borax Lake chub, Gila boraxobius. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, Oregon.
23. _. 1990. Recovery plan for the endangered and threatened species of Ash Meadows, Nevada. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, Oregon.
24. _. 2003. Recovery report to Congress: Fiscal Years 1997-98 and 1999-2000. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C.
25. _. 2004a. Number of U.S. species listings per calendar year. Available online at http://endangered.fws.gov/stats/List_cy2002.PDF.
26. _. 2004b. Threatened and Endangered Species System delisted species report as of 02/02/2004. Available online at http://ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/ TESSWebpageDelisted?listings=0.
27. Williams, J. E., and C. E. Bond. 1980. Gila boraxobius, a new species of cyprinid fish from southeastern Oregon with a comparison to G. alvordensis Hubbs and Miller. Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington 93:293-298.
28. Williams, J. E., and C. A. Macdonald. 2003. A review of the conservation status of the Borax Lake chub, an endangered species. Unpublished report. Southern Oregon University, Ashland.