Outdated essays on pocket gophers
reveal lack of evidence for ESA listing Posted
on December 2, 2014 Written by Melissa
Genson, watchdogwire.com Seventh in
a series on a new ESA listing. We will publish
additions to the series if/as they are written.
Unsupported claims
in obscure essays from 1942, 1944, and 1960 have hurt a lot of people in south
Thurston County, Washington. Oppressive laws are based on
them—including the 2014 Endangered Species Act micro-listing of four Mazama
pocket gopher subspecies. Some families have lost everything.
A brief 1960 essay
entitled “Relationship of the Pocket Gophers of the Thomomys
Mazama-Talpoides Complex in the Pacific Northwest” (The Murrelet, Vol. 41,
No. 2, pages 17–22) is what federal, state, and local officials still
rely on to identify Thurston County gophers as the Mazama
species. The top of this essay’s first page is shown at right.
This 1960 essay
claims that the pocket gophers living on the prairies around Thurston County
are not the same species as the surrounding Northern (talpoides) pocket
gophers—for an intriguing reason. The essay states that, because of the
alleged large
size
of these south Thurston gophers’ penises, they are actually members of the
well-endowed Mazama
species. That species was first discovered in 1897 in the mountains
and forests around Crater
Lake, OR and northern California, as shown at right.
Crater Lake was
formed by the massive eruption of Mount
Mazama—hence
the gopher’s name. The only evidence of this 1960 claim are the comparative
gopher penis drawings. There is no available explanation as to how or why a
small band of well-endowed forest rodents would burrow 350
miles
across mountains, valleys, and rivers, including the wide Columbia, to settle
on Thurston County prairies, which is a dramatically different habitat
from their native mountain home. Yet officials at every level of government
fiercely protect the “Mazama” pocket gopher “subspecies” of Thurston County,
based on their confidence in this 54-year-old sketch of gopher penises. Neither Mazama or talpoides need a prairie habitat
Federal, state, and
local officials also rely on the 1944 essay, “Distribution and Variation
in Pocket Gophers, Thomomys talpoides, in the State of Washington” (American Naturalist,
Vol. 77, No.777, pages 308–333), for their scientific criteria about pocket
gopher habitat. They enforce stringent laws based on their assertion
that pocket gophers can’t live in forests.
This 1944 essay
states that Thurston County’s gophers can’t live in forests. The essay
went on to claim that these gophers were even doomed to extinction because of
forests encroaching on their prairie habitat, as shown at right.
This dire prediction
from 1944 is the basis of these gophers’ current “endangered” status. Multiple
scientific studies have documented that both the Mazama and the “Northern”
(talpoides)
pocket gophers
live and breed prolifically in forests. The Northern pocket gophers
were one of the few old growth forest animals to survive the eruption of
Mount St. Helens. So, whichever species Thurston County’s pocket gophers turn
out to be–either Northern or Mazama–they sure don’t need prairie habitat to
survive.
WDFW challenges ‘subspecies’ criteria Federal, state, and
local laws protecting Thurston County’s “Mazama” pocket gophers are based on
the assertion that distinct subspecies were discovered by a young museum
employee named Walter Dalquest in 1942.
Here is the complete
two and a half page essay from 1942, claiming to identify three new Northern
(talpoides)
pocket gopher subspecies in Thurston County. The essay is followed by a
one page chart of gopher measurements:
1942
Essay – Three New Pocket Gophers (Genus Thomomys) from Western Washington This 1942 essay states
that physical appearance–varying colors, sizes, and shapes–would identify a
distinct gopher subspecies. This assertion has been refuted by scientists,
who have stated that physical appearance is determined more by a gopher’s
environment, rather than genetics.
This claim has even
been refuted by Washington
Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) on page 5 their 2013
Draft Mazama Pocket Gopher Status Update, at right. (Note:
On this same page, however, WDFW still apparently relies
on the 1960 penis drawings to identify Thurston County’s gophers as being
from the “Mazama” species.)
Even though WDFW
rejects this 1942 essay’s underlying theory of what makes a subspecies, the
agency still fights, inexplicably, to protect “subspecies” that were identified
by using this same antiquated method that they clearly discredit. 1997 DNA tests show no subspecies identified in Thurston
County
In 1997, two University
of Washington Zoologists, Eleanor Steinberg and Dana Heller, published Using
DNA and
Rocks to Interpret the Taxonomy and Patchy Distribution of Pocket
Gophers in Western Washington Prairies. In this
report, they challenged the 1942 theory of multiple gopher subspecies in
the Thurston County area, for two reasons. On page 44, they disputed the 1942
assertion that physical appearance determined a subspecies—just as WDFW
did, in 2013. On pages 45–47, Steinberg and Heller presented the results
of DNA tests performed on some of Thurston County’s different
“subspecies”—and found no genetic differences. As a result, Steinberg and
Heller asserted that, based on these DNA tests, there was no known
evidence of pocket gopher subspecies in the area.
This report has not
stopped state, local, and federal protection of
these unproven “subspecies,” with oppressive regulations and threats of
criminal and civil charges. Where’s
the proof?
All of these details
may explain why WDFW won’t give Rochester realtor Larry
Weaver
his gopher
blood
back, after they supposedly collected it from his property for genetic
research. And these details may explain why Larry Weaver’s son Chris was
arrested
in 2010 by five armed WDFW officers for admitting to trapping
two gophers on his own property. The five armed WDFW
officers took his barren mole traps and his buckets–even though he may not
have trapped a protected gopher.
Chris Weaver now has
a criminal record for admitting to trapping two gophers that may or may not
have been protected, with no evidence of his crime–thirteen years after the
1997 DNA tests results that showed no scientific evidence
of pocket gopher subspecies in Thurston County.
These details may
also explain why south Thurston County citizens face heavy civil and criminal
charges if they trap their own gophers, to have them DNA
tested. The Weavers’ gophers may or may not have been a protected
“subspecies.” Their gophers may not have been from the ESA-listed Mazama species, from 350
miles away.
Yet the federal government
states that it doesn’t need DNA proof for an ESA
listing as long as they reference an authority
with little credibility, and Washington state can create suspicious
documents
to hurt south Thurston County citizens in the future.
The 1960 gopher penis
drawings appear to be the only “proof” that the government has of the
Thurston County gophers being members of the Mazama clan. The 1942 essay appears to be the
government’s only “proof” of the existence of subspecies, which was clearly
challenged 17 years ago, by the Steinberg-Heller DNA tests.
DNA tests are the only
way to validate the results of the 1997 Steinberg-Heller report about no
gopher subspecies existing in Thurston County. DNA
tests are also the only way to prove whether Thurston County’s pocket gophers
are even members of the far away Mazama
species, rather than the surrounding “Northern” talpoides species.
This is Part 7 of a series
about a new ESA micro-listing, and its impact on a
rural community in south Thurston County, Washington. Read Part
1 here, Part
2 here, Part
3 here, Part
4 here, Part
5 here, and Part
6 here.
Related Posts
-
CommentsSo, if you have a farm and the government wants to trump up an endangered species claim, You need to find an honest biologist or a good job in town. Your property might as well be seized without receiving “just compensation” as promised in the US Constitution. The endangered species list is a Marxist excuse for taking your property. See UN Agenda 21. This gives “political science” a whole new meaning.Norb Leahy, Dunwoody GA Tea Party Leader
No comments:
Post a Comment