What is a ‘significant portion’ of a range? Reply to Nelson et al. (2016)

Rs Waples,Ja Bohnsack,Bl Taylor,Pb Adams

doi:10.3354/esr00742

Abstract

ESR Endangered Species Research Contact the journal Facebook Twitter RSS Mailing List Subscribe to our mailing list via Mailchimp HomeLatest VolumeAbout the JournalEditorsSpecials ESR 30:191-192 (2016) - DOI: https://doi.org/10.3354/esr00742 REPLY COMMENT What is a ‘significant portion’ of a range? Reply to Nelson et al. (2016) Robin S. Waples1,*, Peter B. Adams2, James A. Bohnsack3, Barbara L. Taylor4 1Northwest Fisheries Science Center, 2725 Montlake Blvd. East, Seattle, WA 98112, USA 2Southwest Fisheries Science Center, 110 Shaffer Road, Santa Cruz, CA 95060, USA 3Southeast Fisheries Science Center, 75 Virginia Beach Drive, Miami, FL 33149, USA 4Southwest Fisheries Science Center, 8604 La Jolla Shores Drive, La Jolla, CA 92037, USA *Corresponding author: robin.waples@noaa.gov ABSTRACT: Contrary to the claim by Nelson et al. (2016; Endang Species Res 30:187–190), no court has rejected the biological framework we proposed for interpreting the ‘significant portion of its range’ (SPOIR) language in the US Endangered Species Act. The relative importance placed on current vs. historical range during implementation will be important in determining the success of the new ESA SPOIR policy. KEY WORDS: Endangered species · Risk analysis · Policy · Anthropocentric Full text in pdf format PreviousNextCite this article as: Waples RS, Adams PB, Bohnsack JA, Taylor BL (2016) What is a ‘significant portion’ of a range? Reply to Nelson et al. (2016). Endang Species Res 30:191-192. https://doi.org/10.3354/esr00742 Export citation RSS - Facebook - Tweet - linkedIn Cited by Published in ESR Vol. 30. Online publication date: May 31, 2016 Print ISSN: 1863-5407; Online ISSN: 1613-4796 Copyright © 2016 Inter-Research.

Highlights

The claims by Nelson et al (2016) that the significant portion of its range’ (SPOIR) framework we developed has been rejected by the courts do not hold up to scrutiny
That Court concluded that the arguments of the US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) in that case amounted to claiming that a species is currently threatened or endangered in all or a significant portion of its range only if it is currently threatened or endangered throughout its entire range
Contrary to the statement by Nelson et al (2016), the SPOIR framework we developed does not formalize SPOIR interpretations that were rejected by the courts

Summary

Introduction

The claims by Nelson et al (2016) that the SPOIR framework we developed has been rejected by the courts do not hold up to scrutiny. That Court concluded that the arguments of the US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) in that case amounted to claiming that a species is currently threatened or endangered in all or a significant portion of its range only if it is currently threatened or endangered throughout its entire range.

Results

Conclusion