November 4th, 2009
University Of Oregon | Who’s killing Rudolph?5 comments
October 28th, 2009
Metro | A blowhard answer to global warming? 5 comments
October 21st, 2009
Michael Ruppert | Peak trouble for an Oregon author.23 comments
October 7th, 2009
Beaverton Police | Zero tolerance for video recorders.11 comments
September 30th, 2009
Lynn Peterson | C’mon, Dems. Are Kitzhaber and Bradbury that formidable?3 comments
September 23rd, 2009
Denny Doyle | Beaverton mayor hits a foul ball.3 comments
September 2nd, 2009
Oregon Bankers Association | For bailouts, then against them.6 comments
August 19th, 2009
Wal-Mart | Save money. Live worse.9 comments
August 12th, 2009
Rep. Earl Blumenauer | Phoning it in.15 comments
August 5th, 2009
Brenda Sturdevant | Offended by a miniskirt.3 comments
 |
[April 11th, 2007] Who cares about a tiny minnow that lives in puddles, stagnant marshes and beaver ponds?
According to scientists at the Institute for Wildlife in Eugene, you should. And they've even provided a Rogue to blame, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, which the institute says is breaking the law by failing to protect the skinny minnows.
Oddly known as the Oregon chub (Oregonichthys crameri), the minnow has been listed under the Endangered Species Act since 1993. But according to a lawsuit filed March 9 in U.S. District Court in Portland, the feds have failed to take steps required by that law to save them.
The lawsuit filed by the Eugene-based nonprofit asks the court to order Fish and Wildlife to establish critical habitat for the fish, and to begin five-year reviews on efforts to save them—safeguards required under the Endangered Species Act.
The chub doesn't have the sex appeal of the salmon, baby harp seal, grizzly bear or bald eagle. But all species are worth saving, says Randy Webb, senior ecologist at the Institute for Wildlife. "Just because humans don't really care about it," Webb says, "does that mean we should get rid of it?"
Story continues below
advertisement
According to Webb, it's important to establish the critical habitat, because then landowners can't damage it. Sand and gravel pits, sewage plants and road projects would be the biggest losers, he says.
Joan Jewett, spokeswoman for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's Portland office, says the agency hasn't designated critical habitat for the chub because it couldn't be determined. The five-year plans were dropped "due to the press of other business," but one is planned for this year, she says.
The chub is "doing very well," Jewett says, and is close to being upgraded from "endangered" to "threatened." But Webb says that's beside the point because the law says the chub should be getting the protections of an endangered species.
And the Rogue desk agrees. "The idea is that these things need to be recovered," Webb says. "And that is not happening."
RECENT COMMENTS ON “U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service”
Because i actually work for the Service, i can see right through this- this article is totally irresponsible and careless reporting.
One thing you are correct on: Yes, the Service ...
Hey since you are all into protecting endangered species how about we send you a few of our rock star status biologist which have well trained and habitualized Mexican Gray Wolves? After all they are...
As a professional fish biologist who has worked with Oregon Chub for over a decade, I would like to respond to the
"More than $750,000 has been spent for monitoring and recovery since the chub was listed under the ESA."
Your tax dollars at work. I bet a lot more than is being claimed has been s...
