Supreme court to consider dusky gopher frog issue

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/22/us/politics/supreme-court-considers-a-raucous-party-and-an-endangered-frog.html

The frog has been listed as an endangered species since 2001, when the known adult population was about 100, all from a single pond in Mississippi.

The Fish and Wildlife Service delayed specifying the protected habitat for several years, but when it did, it concluded that designating land in Mississippi alone wasn’t sufficient for conserving the species.

The service also chose to include in its designation a 1,500-acre tract of private land in Louisiana 50 miles away that it said contained a unique collection of ponds that could serve as a breeding ground for the frogs if a population were transported there. The frogs were known to live in the area as late as 1965.

Weyerhaeuser Co. , which brought the case to the Supreme Court, owns part of the land at issue and leases the rest to grow and harvest timber. The company and other landowners have been exploring using the area for residential and commercial development.

The government’s critical habitat designation didn’t automatically shut down the owners’ development plans for the land, but it could, which would mean $34 million in lost development value, according to a Fish and Wildlife Service estimate.

Click to expand...

I wonder what everyone's thoughts are on this issue. There are only about 100 individuals left. I think it would be wrong to let a species go extinct.

aman said:

I wonder what everyone's thoughts are on this issue. There are only about 100 individuals left. I think it would be wrong to let a species go extinct.

Click to expand...

You read that wrong. According to the source you quoted, there were 100 known adults in 2001. What is the count now?

molliesmaster said:

You read that wrong. According to the source you quoted, there were 100 known adults in 2001. What is the count now?

Click to expand...

You are right!

I did some more research to figure out a more up to date number. I couldn't find the adult population but I did find this

One example of an ongoing dusky gopher frog recovery effort specified in the recovery plan is a frog rearing project at the Mississippi Sandhill Crane National Wildlife Refuge. In March and April of this year, 1,596 tadpoles were stocked in the refuge’s 50 rearing tanks. To date,1,226 juvenile frogs have been released into Sawdust Pond. The goal of the project is to have a self-sustaining, breeding population of dusky gopher frogs. Partnering with the Service in this project are Western Carolina University, the U.S. Forest Service, De Soto National Forest, U.S. Forest Service’s Southern Research Station Harrison Experimental Forest, Mississippi Department of Wildlife, Fisheries and Parks, and The Nature Conservancy.

Click to expand...

https://www.fws.gov/southeast/news/2015/09/recovery-plan-for-endangered-frog-available/

molliesmaster said:

You read that wrong. According to the source you quoted, there were 100 known adults in 2001. What is the count now?

Click to expand...

Less than 250 individuals

https://www.nature.org/ourinitiativ...issippi/explore/dusky-gopher-frog-profile.xml

I'm from Mississippi and have never heard of these frogs. I wonder what makes the 1500 acres of Weyerhaeuser land so special? There's thousands of acres of public land in south MS that has plenty of swamp land.

I’d say protect the 1,500 acres. If need be, find a conservation group to buy it.

Weyerhaeuser planned to develop housing on this land and they think they would lose about $34 million.

BHA is hosting a Pint Night and gonna talk about it.

Seems like a shame to let a species go extinct for the sake of making money.

There is a large philosophical debate in the scientific ranks about this topic. You have these tiny remnant populations of animals that, for a variety of reasons important to conservation of populations, will likely never recover to a level that will be naturally self sustaining. Should we spend millions of dollars trying to keep these organisms from going extinct by undertaking efforts (captive rearing in this case) that will likely need to occur in perpetuity to keep this species in existence? Should we triage species, and admit that some species are unrecoverable so we can focus our time and resources on those that actually have a chance of recovering? I used to think we should try to keep them all, but after working on a couple of endangered species now, I’m just not sure that’s the best option anymore. Given continued budget cuts, and changes to the climate and environment that we can’t control, should we be focusing time and money where we have the best chance of success? Or do we spend money on the “lost causes” while letting those species who haven’t yet reached quite such critical levels continue to decline towards some point of no return? There simply isn’t enough money/time/manpower to do it all. Unfortunately no easy answer.