Another question from Richard:
I noted the Sonoran Mt. Kingsnake and Milksnake were listed. So here are some questions to consider.
With respect to the issue of ‘threats’, can you tell me what threats those two species face that are different from the threats faced in Utah by the Rubber Boa, Common Kingsnake, Gopher Snake ,Racer, Night Snake, etc.? Do those two species really have threats that are not the same for all or most species of snakes in Utah?
And for the threats that are the same as for most other snakes in Utah, is there any difference in the magnitude of those threats for the two tricolored snakes that are different from the other species?
You need to understand the "workflow" in producing the Wildlife Action Plan. First we had to build the SGCN list, because all the other required elements (content) flow from that (what habitats do they require, what threats or data gaps do they face, what actions could be taken against those threats and data gaps, etc etc).
Actually, let me step back for a second. There's no
mandate for a state to write a Wildlife Action Plan. If a state doesn't have one, all it means is they're not eligible to receive State Wildlife Grant funding from Congress. If you do write one, there's a set of
required elements (mentioned above), and some standards to indicate you've done a good enough job, or not. So there's an incentive, and a little guidance if you take the incentive, but there's no mandate. It's a relatively small incentive, in my state's case about $700K/yr (of a ~ $95M budget -
https://wildlife.utah.gov/about-us/64-w ... rview.html). The difference is, we can use that money on things like studying or managing snakes and springsnails, whereas with almost all the other money we take in (virtually none of it being tax dollars BTW), we cannot.
Anyway, back to the tricolors and that workflow. The other species you mention (boa, king, racer etc) were not included as SGCNs so they did not get threat-assessed. I would guess the main anthropogenic population regulators are common across all snakes - outright habitat conversion, isolation of remaining habitat areas, degradation of remaining habitat areas etc. But again - we didn't look at racers, boas etc due to their being either N5's, or N4's with very broad distribution in the state. So again, we only threat-assessed the tricolors, since they were both ranked N4/S3 (the most-secure ranking to make it into our WAP).
If you look in the Appendix named "Threats by SGCN Look-up Tables" you can see that our assessors had nothing for pyro, and only Housing and Urban Development for milks (rated "Moderate" - not "High", and certainly not "Very High"). (What you can't see is that there were lots of Low-rated threats that got censored out of the doc - because ipso facto, they weren't worth mentioning in a broad shallow plan that attempts to discern priorities from...all the other crap that could distract you from your mission. Right? Get it? "Low means low.")
To me, for those 2 species a much more interesting thing to consider is another Appendix - "Data Gaps by SGCN Look-up Tables". Here's what it has for pyros and milks:
Pyro Mountain Kingsnake
Taxonomic Debate
Inadequate Understanding of Distribution or Range
Climate Change
Inadequate Inventory and Assessment Methods
Utah Milksnake
Taxonomic Debate
Inadequate Understanding of Distribution or Range
Climate Change
Inadequate Inventory and Assessment Methods
Again, these are data gaps - things to be clarified or developed. They are not threats. Note that for both, there are 2 items that field herpers can (and in Utah, they DO) help out with - improving survey methods, and finding more occurrences or localities. The other 2 items are more academic - they require more resources than individual private citizens can bring to bear. If we like, we can spend State Wildlife Grant dollars on these questions. Unfortunately, being N4/S3's means these species
aren't going to rise to the top of the heap. That's OK, we aren't very worried about them getting petitioned for ESA listing, but OTOH clarifying e.g. what something even is (like, is taylori a "real thing"???) would seem to be a pretty important prerequisite to doing anything else. Such is life, such is wildlife management. Too much to do, way too little to do it with.
Hopefully this clarifies some things. It honestly feels silly to me, that some folks think there's something sinister, underhanded, or hard-hearted about a wildlife agency just trying to get organized about what it needs to do - and does not need to do. I mean, what's the alternative? Just run around and look busy? Pretend to know everything already? What? This is not about pleasing my superiors. This is not about job security. You guys have got that so, so, soooooo wrong. It's a
joke really. This is about doing the best I know how to do, for as long as I can give it. Honestly, if someone thinks they can do better, and they can convince my chain of command of that - to hire them and give them my job - I'll step aside tomorrow. I don't have a replacement for myself in mind, which sucks. I always like to know I'm leaving something in good hands.