Threatened Freshwater Fishes of the United States
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Threatened Freshwater Fishes of the United States ROBERT RUSH MILLER 1 Museum o] Zoology, The University o/ Michigan Ann Arbor, Michigan 48104 ABSTRACT Threatened, native freshwater fishes are listed for 49 of the 50 U.S. States, the first such compilation. Over 300 kinds are included in a formal classification, cross-indexedto states (Table 1), followed by statelists and the statusof each fish, whether rare, endangered,depleted, or undetermined. The concern for native fishes and the important factors responsible for threats to their existence are briefly outlined. Although the lists vary from those based on extensive recent state surveys to others in which current information is sparse, publication is expected to enhance the chances for survival through protective legislation (already enacted by a number of states) and stronger concern for such natural resources. INTRODUCTION committeesduring the period that the infor- It is only within the past decade,princi- mation presentedbelow was being prepared. pally since 1963, that seriousthreats to the Since the late 1960's, particularly in the survivalof many of our uniquenative fishes West but also. in the East, states have been have becomewidely recognized.Committees enactinglegislation and enforcingprotection concernedwith vanishingU.S. wildlife have of endangeredspecies and subspeciesas well been established within scientific societies as as maintainingnatural habitatsand creating well as by the statesand the federal govern- refugia for some of the more critically ment. On a globalbasis, action has been taken threatenedfishes (see, for example,Miller and by the SurvivalService Commission of the In- Pister, 1971). This type of effort must be ternational Union for Conservation of Nature extendedinto every state. In June, 1971, a and Natural Resources,based in Morges, bill was introducedinto Congressto establish Switzerland.This has resultedin the prepara- a DesertPupfish National Monumentto save tion of lists of fishes that are or may be in the threatenedpupfishes living east of Death trouble. The EndangeredSpecies Preservation Valley (Deacon and Bunnell, 1970). Such Act of 1966 marked the first concerted effort activitieshave evolvedthrough efforts at pri- to protectour nativefauna. vate, state and federal levels, including the The present effort is the result of the newsmedia, and are increasingas we advance activities of both the Conservation Committee throughthe "environmentaldecade." of the AmericanSociety of Ichthyologistsand This is the first attemptto list the native threatened fishes for each of the 50 U.S. Herpetologists(ASIH) and the Endangered SpeciesCommittee of the AmericanFisheries States;all presentedlists except Rhode Island, Society(AFS), whosemembers have worked which has no threatened fishes (John M. for severalyears to compilelists of threatened Cronan, pers. com., June, 1971). A total of native fishes of the United States. We have 305 kinds are threatened in the United States also utilized the Red Book of Rare and (Table 1). Rare and endangeredfishes of Canada have been treated by McAllister EndangeredFish and Wildlife of the United 11970), with a revisionnow in preparation. States (1968, revisededition in preparation), Recognitionthat speciesor subspeciesof publishedby the U.S. Departmentof the fishesare threatenedlocally or nationally Interior, and the IUCN Red Data Book (Vol. constitutesa primary step that can lead to 4, Pisces,1969). Coordinationof this project the perpetuationof many of them. Without was made easier because the writer has served up-to-datelists of those being threatened, as chairman of the AFS, ASIH, and IUCN however,appropriate action cannotbe taken. Chairman, EndangeredSpecies Committee, Amer- Although the status of many fishes here ican Fisheries Society. treated is not clear and the completenessof 239 240 TRANS. AMER. FISH. SOC., 1972,NO. 2 the statelistings varies greatly, the present Holton, Clark Hubbs,Robert A. Kuehne,A. C. account is believed to be a reasonable current Lopinot, John S. Ramsey,and William B. assessment(as of July, 1971). For a few Smith. states,the listsare complete;for manythere The arrangementof familiesand the usage is urgentneed for ongoingsurveys; for some, of commonand scientificnames, with only currentinformation is almostnil. Despite a few exceptions,are thoserecommended by theseshortcomings, it is felt that publicationthe Commiittee on Names of Fishes of the of theselists will be of valuein stimulating American FisheriesSociety (Bailey et al., protective legislation for forms known to be 1970). A referenceis providedfor species under threat as well as initiatinggreater describedsubsequent to that contribution.All concern for all native wildlife. The states have lists were submittedfor approvalby the the direct responsibilityfor managingand statesprior to publication. regulatingthe taking of fisheswithin their The definitionsemployed for determining borders,and they must provide the required the statusof each fish are thosedeveloped legal protection and enforcementfor threat- by the IUCN, as givenbelow. Onecategory, ened species. "peripheral"fishes, that mighthave been used Someof the factorsresponsible for dimi- in assessingstatus, concerns those fishes nutionof our fish faunashave been pollution common elsewhere but rare in a state. Such (industrial, agricultural,and domestic,in- specieshave been listed as rare for some cludingtoxic chemicalsand pesticides),ex- statesbut not for all. These populations, cessivedamming o.f rivers (producing lentic oftendisjunct, merit inclusionbecause isolated versuslotic habitats), deforestationand over- genepools may have practicaland scientific grazing, channelization,excessive removal of value. ground water, and introduction of exotic species(especially predators or those with Endangered:Actively threatened with extinc- broader ecologicaltolerances than native tion. Continuedsurvival unlikely without the implementationof special protective forms). Exoticsmay alsotransmit parasites measures. and diseases. The role of such factors in depleting,decimating, or exterminatingfishes Rare: Not under immediate threat of extinc- has been treated by Deacon and Bunnell tion, but occurringin suchsmall numbers (1970), Hubbs(1963), Lachneret al. (1970), and/or in sucha restrictedor specialized Larimore and Smith (1963), McDowall habitat that it could quickly disappear. (1968), Miller (1961), Mills et al. (1966), Requirescareful watching. Mincklyand Deacon(1968), Myers (1965), Scott (1963), Smith (1971), Trautman Depleted:Although still occurringin numbers (1957), and others. adequatefor survival,the specieshas been There is an urgentneed to maintain diver- heavily depletedand continuesto decline at a rate substantiallygreater than can sity of life so as to providefor the variety be sustained. of wildlife neededfor recreation,commerce, and scientificstudy. It will take moneyand Indeterminate: Apparently threatened but the effortsof dedicatedand skilledpeople, insufficient data currently available on combiningtheir talents and workingthrough which to base a reliable assessmentof status. legal channels,to produceeffective programs The factor commonto a/l threatenedspecies for halting the depletionof fish resources. is notdeterioration of status,but vulnerability The following served as membersof the to extinction in the foreseeable future. Thus EndangeredSpecies Committee, 1969-1971, populationsof many "rare" speciesare rela- and participatedactively in this endeavor: tively stable,and a "depleted"species may DonaldAndriano, James G. Armstrong,III, be retainedin the lists for a period, after Howard M. Bassett,Carl E. Bond, Robert L. its populationshave startedto increaseas a Borovicka,Alex Calhoun,Leonard Fisk, James result of better management.Numerous fac- R. Gammon,Richard H. Goodyear,George D. tors,both genetic and environmental, affect the MILLER--THREATENED FRESHWATER FISHES 241 probabilityof a species'survival if it is rare whetheror not they are threatened,decisions or subjectedto pressure.Although the status on borderlinecases must, of necessity,be of many speciesleaves little doubt as to made on their individual merits. TABLE1.--Threatened fishes o! the UnitedStates. •4n asteriskindicates ]orms nationally recognized as endan- gered; the stateslisting eachfish are given. Lampreys, family Petromyzontidae Mooneye,Hiodon tergisusLesueur. Mich, Neb, Ohio lamprey, Ichthyomyzonbdellium (Jordan). Ohio, S Dak, Vt, W Va. Md. Trouts, family Salmonidae Chestnutlamprey, Ichthyomyzoncastaneus Girard. *Longjaw cisco,Coregonus alpenae (Koelz). Mich, Kan, Neb. Wisc. Southernbrook lamprey, Ichthyomyzon gagei Hubbs Cisco or lake herring, Coregonusartedii Lesueur. and Trautman. Mo. Ohio, Penn. Allegheny brook lamprey, Ichthyomyzon greeleyi Lake whitefish,Coregonus clupea]ormis (Mitchill). Hubbs and Trautman. Penn. N Y, Ohio, Penn. Silver lamprey,Ichthyomyzon unicuspis Hubbs and Kiyi, Coregonuskiyi (Koelz). Mich, Wisc. Trautman. Neb, S Dak, W Va. Blackfin cisco,Coregonus nigripinnis (Gill). Wisc. American brook lamprey, Lainpetra lamottei (Lesu- Shortnose cisco, Coregonus reighardi (Koelz). eur). Conn, Mass, Mo. Wisc. Pit-Klamath brook lamprey, Lainpetra lethophaga Shortjawcisco, Coregonus zenithicus (Jordan and Hubbs (1971). Ore. Evermann). Mich, Wisc. Sturgeons,family Acipenseridae Bear Lake whitefish, Prosopiumabyssicola (Sny- *Shortnose sturgeon,•4cipenser brevirostrum Lesu- der). Ida, Utah. cur. Conn, Del, Md, Mass, N J, N Y, Penn. Roundwhitefish, Prosopium cylindraceum (Pallas).