I believe there are very few of us who can object to the intent and purpose of Endangered Species Programs - restore rare species to historic ranges, and ultimately, remove them from Endangered and Threatened status. However, over the last decade, I have become very familiar with state programs in the Upper Midwest where I have collected listed species, compiled and mapped data records, and served on a committee reviewing status designations. My conclusion is, at least with fish, methods used to evaluate status and manage species suspected of being at risk are inherently flawed and should be abandoned for more effective approaches.

Probably the paramount issue which I feel goes largely ignored is investigators who study rare fish must deal with a completely foreign medium - water. Surveys can blindly probe aquatic habitats with electroshockers and seines, and SCUBA or snorkeling gear permit a brief visual picture, but the results are usually incomplete and difficult or impossible to repeat.

Standardized survey methods, ineffective sampling gear, and a general lack of verifiable data on distribution and abundance further impairs judgment in status reviews. Sampling methods and techniques are generally very limited in scope and do not account for common "quirks" which many species exhibit on a daily and seasonal basis. Surveys are almost always conducted during the day, however, catches generally vary greatly not only in species composition, but also abundance to results from the same site sampled at night when many nocturnal and prey species (e.g., minnows, madtoms, and darters) venture out from cover. Fish communities also under go radical changes with fluctuating stream flows and changing seasons. Survey efforts for rare fish generally produce better results during droughts and low summer flows which tend to concentrate fish into confined habitats. However, the opposite can also be true with fishes associated with large rivers where recent collections and reports of rare species (e.g, Lake Sturgeon, Paddlefish, and Skipjack Herring) from new and historic localities in Minnesota occurred during floods and prolonged high flow periods. Many stream fishes are migratory and travel long distances to spawning habitats in the spring as water temperatures warm and the days become longer. A second, less pronounced migration follows in the fall as fish abandon riffles to winter in deeper habitats. Streams contain several types of habitats which support different species and also age classes at different times of the year. However, in large rivers, many habitats are not routinely sampled due to accessibility (e.g., shallow backwaters, over flow pools, and tributary mouths).

Sampling gear selection also lacks acknowledging individual species habits and physiology. Streams, with few exceptions, are always surveyed with electroshockers, however, most fishes exhibit varying degrees of vulnerability to different types of sampling gear. Darters and many minnows have poorly developed swim bladders and inhabit crevices of boulders in riffles, rapids, and rip-rapped banks. If the water is turbid or the electrical settings are not set correctly to pull these species out from cover, surveyors will rarely see anything visible (and nettable) near the surface because most of the quarry will have been knocked out by the electric field and securely wedged among the rocks. When used competently and under the appropriate conditions, electroshockers can be very effective on trout, suckers, and carp; gillnets on paddlefish and sturgeon, seines on minnows, and kicknets on darters. However, with the exception of the controversial and ever growing restrictive use of rotenone, there is no single gear or method which will comprehensively sample the entire fish community, and limited staffs and funding will always bar the routine use of multiple gear surveys.

Management funding, priorities, and personnel always has and will continue to focus and direct efforts toward game fishes. Fisheries offices conduct the lion's share of surveys and could provide more and valuable information than any other agency or institution. However, many surveys regularly target individual (game) species such as Sauger and trout while other fishes are ignored or at best noted as abundant, common, occasional, and present. Furthermore, at least in Minnesota, voucher specimens are rarely preserved for verification or deposited in museum collections which can result in identification errors that are rarely if ever detected. In one of many instances, I came across reports of several Minnesota streams which listed the Channel Darter (Percina copelandi) in the survey results, but the nearest known population is in eastern Michigan. I also noted the reports did not list the Slenderhead Darter (Percina phoxocephala) which is relatively common in that part of the state. I contacted the Fisheries office which had conducted the surveys and of course no specimens were saved and they were also unaware that this was the first report of the species in Minnesota. In the end, I learned all they had on hand was a general key for all of North America and I suggested some regional references which would probably better suit their needs. I also encountered another common and widespread survey reporting practice which persisted into the late 1980s. I was attempting to establish fish species lists for 65 Minnesota state parks. However, lake and stream surveys continually stymied my efforts because nongame fishes were rarely identified to species, and instead lumped as bullheads, redhorse, darters, and minnows. These incomplete results compounded with a preponderance to survey primarily lakes and trout streams on any type of regular basis, make it impossible to determine with any degree of certainty either the historical or current distribution and abundance of most species believed rare today.

When a fish is listed to Endangered or Threatened status, laws and recovery efforts are misguided and usually ineffective. Environmental reviews of development projects do provide some protection of listed species, but measures mandated through mitigation still result in a net loss of habitat. Instead, political expediency targets the individual species which is automatically "locked up" and prohibits collection, harassment, or transportation. However, it would be very difficult, if not impossible, to prove that an extinction or extirpation has occurred from the non-commercial harvest or incidental taking of a species. Yes, permits can be applied for to conduct research studies, but are rarely issued to anyone who is not affiliated with an academic institution or government agency. However, even in this exclusive club, conditions of the permit can be very restrictive. In one instance, Wisconsin initially informed me a permit would be granted to survey listed species, but could not collect even a single voucher specimen for a museum where I intended to have an ichthyologist verify my identification and document localities. Peripheral species present another dilemma and are frequently listed as Endangered or Threatened even though they are common and widespread over most of their historic ranges. Should these species ever carry the same weight in making management decisions and allocating always scarce funds as others of the same status which are exhibiting an overall decline? Finally, I see a conflict of interest with listed species which provides additional and continued sources of funding for recovery and research. Where is the incentive to succeed if a financially strapped program is continually "punished" for each "ward" removed from the list?

If there will ever be a "true" commitment to saving rare fishes, action should be taken long before Endangered or Threatened status is warranted. Recovery efforts must shift away from individual species management and focus on maintaining diverse communities which can be largely achieved through protection and restoration of water quality and habitat. Establishing and enforcing mandatory buffers in riparian zones along all streams and ditches would probably reap more benefits than any other single action. Natural vegetation strips of sufficient width based on stream size filter sediments and chemicals before entering streams. Dams pose another problem because they often isolate populations and prevent access to historic spawning habitats. Old dams requiring costly repairs or replacement should be removed and proposals for new dams should be rejected for plausible and viable alternatives. Crop irrigation and peak type hydro-power can desiccate miles of streams and minimum flows required to support aquatic life must be determined and guaranteed. Additional benefit bearing avenues to pursue would include wetland restoration, storm water retention in urban areas, elimination of ditching and channel maintenance, and controlled livestock grazing in riparian zones.

Surveys and research studies must also continue as funding permits. Every state should conduct systematic multiple gear basin by basin fish inventories on a regular basis even every 10 or 20 years to monitor changes in fish communities, identify and prioritize threats to water quality and habitat, and evaluate status of rare species. Endangered species legislation needs to be revised to adequately protect water quality and habitat while penalties for the incidental and non-commercial "taking" of listed species should be revoked. Anglers should actually be encouraged (or even offered recognition rewards) to turn in a voucher specimen of rare species whenever encountered. "Roving" nongame fish observers should be assigned to periodically survey the catches of commercial fishermen and bait dealers which far outnumber fisheries researchers and also put in much more time and effort in habitats that are not regularly sampled. Fisheries offices should always conduct entire community surveys and deposit voucher specimens in a statewide designated collection. Finally, all environmental threats and species occurrences should be mapped, compiled, and regularly updated in accessible data bases for environmental and status reviews.

I have in no way provided or pretend to know all the answers, but under the current system, the general trend over the last ten years has been a rapid increase in fishes listed as Endangered, Threatened, and Special Concern (Schmidt 1994). Real recovery will demand a radical departure from the status quo, but time will tell whether or not our legislators and resource managers can muster the political courage to achieve that goal.

Literature Cited
Schmidt, K.P. 1994. Endangered, Threatened, and Special Concern Fishes of North America. Appendix II. American Currents.