Grassroots Conservation of Biological

Diversity in the United States

February 1986

NTIS order #PB86-181997
Recommended Citation:

U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Grassroots Conservation of Bioiogical Diversity in the United States—Background Paper #1, OTA-BP-F-38 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, February 1986).

Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 85-600633

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents

U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402
Preface

In recent years an increasing number of individuals and citizen-based groups

in the United States have undertaken activities that contribute to the maintenance

of biological diversity, While many do not define their activities in these terms,

their contributions—through activities devoted to conservation of ecosystems, wild

species, and agricultural crops and livestock—have had significant beneficial impact. Although grassroots efforts are not likely to replace public or national efforts,

they form an integral part in the Nation’s efforts to maintain biological diversity,

They, however, can accomplish some activities unlikely to be undertaken by government agencies and large national conservation organizations. These individuals

and groups commonly have a number of constraints that can limit their effectiveness. This background paper examines the contributions of grassroots organizations and individuals by illustrating the diversity and range of efforts and indicating,

where possible, the present and potential impacts of these activities on the overall

effort to maintain biological diversity.

This paper is part of the Office of Technology Assessment’s forthcoming

assessment of Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity. A concurrent background paper, Assessing Biological Diversity in the United States: Data Considerations, examines the technological and institutional aspects of biological data

relevant to maintaining biological diversity in the United States focusing primarily on Federal data collection efforts. This assessment was prepared by OTA in response to requests from the House Committee on Science and Technology, Senate

Committee on Foreign Relations, and the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry, and supported by the House Committee on Foreign Affairs,

House Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, and the House Committee

on Agriculture.

OTA wishes to thank and acknowledge the participants of the grassroots workshop, the advisory panel, authors of the four OTA commissioned papers on grassroots activities, and a number of other individuals who provided helpful materials

and reviews to the OTA staff. In addition, OTA is grateful for the support, assistance,

and cooperation of the various groups and individuals working to maintain biological diversity in the United States and described herein.

ii;
Kenneth Dahlberg, Chair

Department of Political Science, Western Michigan University

Stephen Brush

International Agricultural Development

University of California, Davis

Peter Carlson

Director

Crops Genetics International

Rita Colwell

Office of the Vice President for Academic

Affairs

University of Maryland, Adelphi

Raymond Dasmann

Department of Environmental Studies

University of California, Santa Cruz

Clarence Dias

president

International Center for Law in

Development

Donald Duvick

Vice President of Research

Pioneer Hi-Bred International

David Ehrenfeld

Department of Horticulture and Forestry

Rutgers University

Major Goodman

Department of Crop Science

North Carolina State University

Grenville Lucas

Keeper, the Herbarium

Kew Royal Botanic Gardens

Richard Norgaard

Department of Agricultural and Resource

Economics

University of California, Berkeley

Robert Prescott-Allen

PADATA, Inc.

Paul Risser

Chief

Illinois Natural History Survey

Oliver Ryder

Research Department

San Diego Zoo

Michael Soule’

Center for Wildland Management Studies

School of Natural Resources

University of Michigan

John Sullivan

Vice President of production

American Breeders Service

iv
OTA Biological Diversity Project Staff

Roger Herdman, Assistant Director, OTA

Health and Life Sciences Division

Walter E. Parham, Food and Renewable Resources Program Manager

Analytical Staff

Susan Shen, Project Director

Edward F. MacDonald, Analyst

Michael Strauss, Analyst

Catherine Carlson, Research Assistant

Carolyn Jabs, Freelance Editor’

Administrative Staff

Beckie Erickson, Administrative Assistant

Nellie Hammond, Secretary

Carolyn Swarm, Secretary

I F’111. t t) I\ t),i[ k~roli n(i [J,i[)f,r (III IL
Contents

Chapter Page

1. INTRODUCTION ... , . . . , . . . ., , . . . . . , , ., ., , , . . . ... , , ., ... , , .. ....3

Importance of and Motivations for Grassroots Activities, ..., , . . . . . . . , ...3

Scope of Background Paper ., ., . . . . . . . . ..., . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........4

2. REPRESENTATIVE GROUPS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,, ......9

Species and Ecosystems—On-site . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .......10

Prairie Preservation Society of Ogle County . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,10

Desert Tortoise Preserve Committee. ., . . . , , , . . . , , , , , ., , ., . . . . . ....,12

The Land Trust Exchange , , , , , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . , , . . . . . , ....13

Wildlife Education Program for a Living Future ..., , ., ., . . . , , ..., , , .15

Desert Fishes Council ., , ..., . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . ..., ., , , . . . . . , ...16

Greater Yellowstone Coalition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , ..., , , . . . . . ..,18

Southeast Alaska Conservation Council . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , ..., ...,20

Florida Audubon Society . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .......22

Wild Plants and Animals—Off-site ..., , , . . . , , ..., , , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,24

Off-site Preservation of Wild Plants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..,.....,,24

Rhododendron Species Foundation , ..., . . . . . . . . . . . . ..., , ..., , , , ..24

Desert Botanical Garden ..., . . . . . , . . . , , . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . , , ., ..., , .26

Center for Plant Conservation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..., . . . . .......27

Off-site Preservation of Wild Animals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .....,.30

American Federation of Aviculture, , . . . . . . . . . . . , ..., . . . . . . , , . . . . .31

Texas Game Ranches, ..., . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..32

Agricultural Crops and Livestock .,.... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .....34

Preservation of Agricultural Plants. ., , ..., , . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . .......34

The Seed Savers Exchange . . . ..., , ..., , . . . . . , , . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . , .35

North American Fruit Explorers ., . . . , , . . . . . ., ., . . . . . . , . . . , ., ....37

Regional Seed Exchanges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , , . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . .......38

Living Historical Farms. . . . ..., , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .......39

Preservation of Agricultural Animals. . ..., , . . . . . , . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . .41

Individual Animal Breeders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..., . . . . . . . . . .42

Animal Breed Associations. ., . . . . . , ..., . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . ..., ..43

American Minor Breeds Conservancy . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . ..., ..., ., ,44

3. SUMMARY FINDINGS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , .....,,.,,.,49

Appendix Page

A. Acronyms ., , . . . , . . . . . . . . . . ., . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . ..........,57

B. Glossary , . . . ..., ..., , . . . , , . . . . . . . . ., ..., , , . . . . . . ..., . . . . . . . , . . . , .58

C. List of Grassroots Workshop Participants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .......60

D, Commissioned Papers and Authors. ,,...,, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .,,61

REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

List of Tables

.,.,, . . . . . . . . . . . . ..,, . . . . . . . . . . . .,., 65

Table No. Page

I. Distribution of the Total Acreage Encompassed by the Land

Conservation Activities of U.S. Land Trusts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

2. Open Pollinated Vegetable Varieties Dropped From

Seed Company Catalogs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

vii
List of Figures

Figure No. Page

1. Map of the 17 Million Acre Tongass National Forest Which

Encompasses Most of Southeast Alaska, Showing Distribution of

the 14 Wilderness Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

2. Regional Responsibilities for Gardens and Arboreta Participating in the

Center for Plant Conservation Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

3. Major Exotic Wildlife Species Held by Private Ranchers in Texas . . . . . . 33

4. Numbers of Bean and Tomato Varieties Held by Seed Savers Exchange

Contained in the U.S. National Seed Storage Laboratory. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

.

Vlll
Chapter 1
Chapter 1

Introduction

Individuals in every generation must decide

what they will preserve for those who follow.

Some hope to leave fortunes, homes, or works

of art. Others want to pass on peace, freedom,

or religious faith. Today, growing numbers of

people are trying simply to save the other living things that populate our planet. They want

their children to know whooping cranes and

blue whales, Esopus Spitzenburg apples and

Hopi blue corn (33).

The human species has the dubious distinction of being able to modify and manipulate its

habitat and that of other species that share it

more profoundly than any other taxon. Notwithstanding, humans remain inextricably

linked to the natural world. We rely on it for

food, fiber, and other vital products such as

medicines and pharmaceuticals (39,47). In

addition, these ecosystems govern, support, or

strongly moderate essential ecological processes such as moderating climate; concentrating, fixing, and recycling nutrients; producing

and preserving soils; controlling pests and diseases; and degrading wastes and pollutants

(18,55,78). Finally, natural systems and their

component species provide humans with esthetic pleasure, emotional well-being, and

spiritual enlightenment (17,57). Though these

contributions are more difficult to measure,

they are no less noteworthy.

In recent years, there has been a growing

concern over an accelerating loss of biological diversity on the planet. Biological diversity

is the variety and variability within and among

living organisms and the ecological complexes

in which they occur. Biological diversity is

indispensable to the ecological processes described above. It supplies raw materials and

ideas for scientific and technical advancement.

Genetic diversity is basic to the breeding programs which protect and improve cultivated

plants and domesticated animals. For these reasons, the maintenance of biological diversity

is generally perceived as both a matter of insurance and investment as well as a matter of

moral principle (31].

IMPORTANCE OF AND MOTIVATIONS FOR GRASSROOTS ACTIVITIES

The benefits from maintaining biological

diversity such as improvements in agriculture

and the ecological processes that support life

accrue to all individuals though they seldom

pay for them. The public nature of these benefits makes it impossible for the private sector

to assume full responsibility for protecting biological diversity. Private commercial interests

maintain a limited amount of diversity by preserving germplasm from some commercially

important plants, animals, or micro-organisms.

Other private citizens also have assumed responsibility for maintaining biological diversity. They preserve anything from a particular

breed of livestock to an entire ecosystem for

personal reasons, but their contributions cannot be expected to cover the broad range of species and ecosystems which biological diversity

encompasses.

The major responsibility for maintaining biological diversity in the United States, therefore,

falls on the public sector. The national network

of forests, parks, refuges, and related protected

areas comprise some 400 million acres, The

Federal Government, through the National

Plant Germplasm System (NPGS), also has

responsibility for collecting, storing, and disseminating germplasm of agricultural crop

species.

Nonetheless, private sector activities—e.g.,

those described in this report—complement

Government efforts in important ways. The

activities of some individuals or groups may

3
4

backup national programs and, thus, reduce

vulnerability through duplication of those efforts. In other cases, private activities maintain

biological diversity in ways that the public sector does not, cannot, or will not. The range in

scope and effectiveness, as well as the sheer

numbers of activities undertaken by private individuals and groups make it difficult to measure, in any quantitative sense, the full extent

of grassroots contributions.

There are many reasons why people conserve biological resources, Some people collect

diverse kinds of livestock, seeds, or wildflowers

for reasons similar to those who collect stamps,

coins, matchbooks, baseball cards, or seashells.

Although their activities result in the preservation of biological diversity, this may not be

the stated goal. Other people want to preserve

a simpler or older way of life. The strength of

this motive is evident in the proliferation of

“living historical farms” where plants and animals typical of an earlier era are seen in their

original settings, For many, the determination

to preserve a personal heritage leads to a larger

work preserving biological diversity.

Conservation is linked to a religious or cultural heritage in some communities. Mormons,

Mennonites, Hispanic, and native Americans

have persisted in local exchange and preservation of seed and livestock which generally

are not commercially available (26,41). The

fields and gardens of native American communities, for example, are considered one of the

richest potential sources of genetic resources

in the United States (41,75).

Groups can be driven by concern for environmental integrity. Members of such organizations frequently champion organisms or

environments which might be overlooked by

the broad mandates of a government agency

or call attention to perceived consequences of

threatening developmental activities. Groups

may also emerge to integrate, support, or challenge the varied and sometimes conflicting

goals of government agencies that administer

large tracts of public lands.

Although the contributions of many grassroots groups to the maintenance of biological

diversity are a consequence of other complimentary activities, some are motivated by a desire to maintain the diversity of life forms per

se. Some individuals or groups begin with this

focus, others evolve into it as they become

aware of the biological diversity issue. Their

efforts span the full range of on-site and offsite activities and from individual species to

ecosystems.

SCOPE OF BACKGROUND PAPER

This Office of Technology Assessment (OTA) tal efforts are examined, attention is almost

background paper was prepared in support of exclusively focused on large environmental

a broader study which will identify available organizations such as the National Audubon

and emerging technologies to maintain biologi- Society, the National Wildlife Federation, The

cal diversity. In assessing national efforts to Nature Conservancy, and the Sierra Club.

maintain biological diversity, emphasis inevi- While these groups play a vital role in maintably is placed on large government programs taining biological diversity in the United States,

and agencies responsible for preserving the Na- their high visibility often overshadows the imtion’s natural heritage. When nongovernmen- portant contributions of a more dispersed
— ———

5

sector—those ind ividuals and small groups not

affiliated with large national or public institutions.

For the purposes of this background paper,

these contributions will be referred to as

“grassroots activities, ” For the most part, these

activities are undertaken by individuals or

groups whose essential focus and base of support are local and regional. They do not include

government agencies, intergovernmental coordinating councils or government-appointed

advisory commissions, diploma or degreegranting educational institutions, or private research institutions.

Grassroots groups vary in size, professionalism, permanence, and affiliation. They range

from individual efforts or small, ad hoc collections of amateurs that operate independent of

any larger body to sizable, long-established

organizations staffed by professionals and affiliated with national organizations. Their

activities may include maintaining an obscure

breed of horses, maintaining a diversity of heirloom vegetables, or acquiring and managing

natural areas.

The bulk of this background paper highlights

and assesses specific “showcase” examples of

grassroots individuals and groups maintaining

biological diversity in the United States. A concluding section elucidates the major issues that

stem from their activities. The individuals and

groups were chosen to represent a range in

scope, size, and geographic location. Their actions differ significantly in ideology; methodology and style; willingness and ability to

coordinate their activities with government

agencies, national organizations or other grassroots efforts; level and security of financial support; stability and longevity; and level of professionalism and access to talent (43].
Chapter 2
Chapter 2

Representative Groups

In the United States, there is a very large pies. This report is not intended to rank these

number of groups and individuals preserving groups above others but to display the range

biological diversity at the grassroots level, The of activities and contributions of such groups

following showcase examples were selected and individuals to the maintenance of biologiwith the realization that numerous groups ex- cal diversity,

ist which would provide equally suitable examSynopsis of Groups Highlighted in This Background Paper ———

Page

Grassroots group: Major activities number

Abundant Life Seed Foundation: Regional seed exchange in the Pacific Northwest . . . . . . . . . . . ., . .

American Cream Draft Horse Association: Registering, [certifying, and promoting a single breed of

livestock . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ., , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ., . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

American Minor Breeds Conservancy: Coordinating conservation activities for rare domestic breeds

livestock . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Center for Plant Conservation: Coordinating preservation activities of 18 U.S. botanical gardens and

arboreta . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . .

Desert Botanical Gardens: Maintaining, researching, and displaying common and rare desert plants

Desert Fishes Council: Preserving species and habitats of fishes in arid regions of the Southwest . .

,..

. .

of

, . ,

. .

. .

. , .

Desert Tortoise Preserve Committee: Conserving the Desert Tortoise through establishment of a 38-acre

tortoise preserve . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Florida Audubon Society: Regional society engaged in a broad range of ecosystem and species

conservation activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Greater Yellowstone Coalition: Advocacy group and coordinating body for groups concerned with

preserving the Greater Yellowstone ecosystem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Individuals, agricultural animals: Maintaining and breeding one to several minor breeds of livestock . .

Individuals, American Federation of Aviculture: Organization serving individuals engaged in the

keeping and breeding of nonnative birds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ., . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Land Trust Exchange: Providing legal and technical support to land preservation groups ... . . . . . . . . .

Living Historical Farms: Recreating and interpreting historic agricultural settings

Native Seeds/SEARCH: Collecting, preserving, and disseminating native crops and

of the Southwest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

North American Fruit Explorers: Exploring, maintaining, and exchanging informa

varieties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

their wild relatives

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

ion on fro it and nut

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Prairie Preservation Society of Ogle County: Preserving an 1 l-acre tall grass prairie site in Illinois . . .

Rhododendron Species Foundation: Collecting, preserving, and propagating wild species of

Rhododendron . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Seed Savers Exchange: Preserving heirloom and endangered commercial varieties of garden vegetables .

Southeast Alaska Conservation Council: Advocacy group and coordinating body for groups concerned

with management of the Tongass National Forest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Texas game ranchers: Maintaining and breeding large, nonnative mammal species . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Wildlife Education Program for a Living Future: Environmental education with emphasis on

human/predator interactions . . . . . . . . . . . ... , ., . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

38

44

44

27

26

16

12

22

18

42

31

13

39

39

37

10

24

3 5

20

32

15

9
10

SPECIES AND ECOSYSTEMS--ON-SITE

Maintaining biological diversity of wild species on-site offers unique advantages over living collections maintained off-site. On-site preservation permits efficient maintenance of far

greater species diversity than is possible through

off-site methods. With on-site methods, entire

communities of species and their diverse

habitats can be preserved with the result that

natural selection and evolutionary processes

continue. In addition, both the known and currently valued as well as unknown and potentially valuable species are maintained. Both onsite and off-site techniques are important components in an integrated program for preservation of all segments of biological diversity (42).

About 40 percent of all lands in the United

States are publicly owned. Within this Federal

land system, a network of natural areas with

various degrees of protection (e. g., national

parks, wildlife refuges, marine sanctuaries, wild

and scenic rivers, national forests, and wilderness areas) maintains components of biological diversity. These Federal efforts are reinforced by a number of private groups working

actively to preserve land and the natural diversit y it supports. Some of these groups play a key

political role in supporting legislative safeguards protecting natural areas. Others watch

over and care for specific areas that might otherwise suffer from neglect, inattention, or shortage of funding. Both the government and the

private sector hold land, but private groups do

so largely to fill in gaps where the government

will not, cannot, or should not (43).

Interested citizens and groups commonly provide information that aids in the administration

of government programs. The efforts of concerned citizens and organizations have precipitated government actions at the Federal, State,

and local level. Individuals and groups have

worked to initiate, modify, or cancel government policies and actions that affect the environment (43), They promote environmental

quality in legislative, legal, and administrative

arenas and, like the government, function at local, State, interstate, national, and international

levels (43).

The actions taken by these organizations

range from relatively passive (e. g., commenting on agency proposals) to confrontational (e.g.,

stopping construction of a dam). Indeed, a few

groups consider civil disobedience a valuable

tool. In most cases, however, lawsuits in State

or Federal courts are the intervention method

of choice. Few of these groups explicitly promote the maintenance of biological diversity,

yet many of the programs and actions they encourage have direct bearing on it, Environmental advocacy groups often focus, refine, and

articulate public needs by providing leadership,

information, or organization. They can be sensitive and highly responsive to conditions or situations overlooked by government agencies because they are diverse, local, and adaptable

(43,45), They can, in addition, provide an avenue for public comment on particular government proposals, which may effect biological

diversity.

The methods of on-site preservation vary and

include acquiring land, providing assistance

to private landowners or local conservation

groups, facilitating communication or concerted action by mediating between large and

sometimes competing interests, and environmental advocacy, The following descriptions

illustrate the variety of activities and approaches

taken by on-site preservation groups.

Prairie Preservation Society

of Ogle County

Prairielands are one of the most threatened

ecosystems in North America. In Illinois, for

example, studies indicate that less than 1 percent of the original tallgrass prairie remains in

its native form (30). Prairies have been converted

mainly into agricultural production and now

support the Wheat Belt and Corn Belt of the Nation’s Midwestern States. Many of the remaining vestiges of native prairie appear in old graveyards, along railroad right-of-ways, and as

private landholdings. Because these remnants

are scattered, Federal consolidation and protection is difficult, and local grassroots organ i-
. . —

11

—.

v

Photo credit: Praire Preservafion Society of Ogle County

Members of the Prairie Preservation Society of Ogle County, Illinois conducting a controlled burning of Bicentennial

Prairie as part of their regular management activities for this preserve

zations are attempting to fill this void in Federal ecosystem protection.

One of these organizations is the Prairie Preservation Society of Ogle County, Inc., a land

trust of individuals concerned with native

prairielands in I11inois. The organization grew

from the collaboration of a Soil Conservation

Service soil scientist with a local “prairie enthusiast” who also was a prairie nursery owner

and prairieland restorer. Their idea was to purchase a remnant prairie parcel to bring recognition to the native prairies in Illinois during

the Nation’s 1976 Bicentennial Celebration.

The society organized in 1975 as a not-forprofit organization whose purpose was to "

. . . engage in or promote charitable, scientific,

and educational activities in the fields of natural history and environmental quality protection . . .,” particularly relating to local prairie

habitats (54). The organization obtained funds

from the State Bicentennial Commission with

a matching grant from the County for purchase

of a local prairie remnant. The organization became fee-title owners of an 111⁄2-acre parcel of

native prairie previously held by a private individual in 1980. It was appropriately named Bicentennial Prairie.

Most of the society’s 360 members are from

Ogle County, Illinois, The governing body, officers, and consultants are all volunteers. Like

many nonprofit groups, a core of about 20 individuals does most of the work of the organization, including restoration work on Bicentennial Prairie. Work crews conduct controlled

burning operations on the site during the spring

to restore the Prairie to pristine condition. They
12

also cut brush and wood to maintain the prairie habitat. The prairie site is available for scientific and educational projects, and a checklist

of plant species on the site has been developed.

Many grade-school groups and college classes,

as well as individuals, visit the site each year,

The society features programs for members on

activities and educational opportunities relating to prairie ecosystems.

Because of its success the society has become

an organizational model for individuals in other

Illinois counties concerned with prairie preservation. Since the Ogle County organization

was founded, at least four other county level

prairie preservation organizations have become

incorporated in Illinois, The society sponsors

local prairie workshops in the Midwest, and

summaries of the society’s work also have been

distributed to others in the region,

Finances severely limit the effectiveness of

the organization. Membership generates little

income because the minimal dues are a onetime-only fee, Local fundraisers are another

source of income, since the society’s leadership

is influential in the community. Labor and materials also are donated. For example, local consultants in prairie ecology and restoration volunteer their technical or ecological expertise. The

patchwork of donations has allowed the group

to maintain their prairie and prepare a publicly

available slide presentation on Illinois’ prairies.

In the future, they plan to continue the restoration of Bicentennial Prairie, support further

educational projects, and perhaps acquire additional remnant prairie habitats along railroad

right-of-ways within the county.

Another impediment to the group’s effectiveness is the age of the members, At least half the

current membership is over 65, and younger

members are needed to perform the labor at the

prairie site. perhaps future projects will bring

to this organization the commitment of local

young people necessary to protect and/or restore

many prairie remnants in Ogle County. The

Prairie Preservation Society is a showcase example of how local organizations with limited

resources can maintain important natural ecosystems by working together to preserve a

“piece of their own backyard. ”

Desert Tortoise Preserve Committee

Less than 25 years ago, it was not uncommon

for people living in southern California to take

trips through the local desert and return with

a newly found family pet—the desert tortoise

(Gopherus agassizii). A reptile of the deserts of

the southwest United States, the tortoise was

once common from northwest Mexico to southwest Utah (8). Reports of sightings of several

hundred per square mile were not uncommon

and populations may have exceeded 2,000 per

square mile in some parts of the Mojave Desert

(8). The tortoise today can no longer be found

in many areas, and its numbers are declining

in others.

The desert tortoise is an example of an animal

which, though still abundant in a few localities,

is declining in others. The species is confined

to a narrow range of elevations in the lowland

deserts of the Southwest and is particularly sensitive to disturbance of its habitat, Populations

are rapidly declining and disappearing in areas

of California, Nevada, and Arizona. Only two

populations in California remain somewhat intact (9). In September of 1985, the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) found that listing the tortoise

as an endangered species throughout its range

is “warranted, but precluded” by other pending proposals of higher priority (73). Additional

data from several areas will be needed before

the desert tortoise can be designated as endanAdult desert tortoise (Gopherus agassizii) typical of

those found in the Desert Tortoise Research Natural

Area, DTNA
gered. Where Federal

provide protection for

ulations of animals like

group may be willing

.

agencies cannot act to

locally threatened popthe tortoise, a grassroots

and able to do so.

Tortoises are long-lived reptiles (60 to 80 years

and over) that do not breed before 12 to 20 years

of age in the wild. Once of reproductive age,

a female may lay from 2 to 10 ping-pong ballsized eggs in an excavated nest in late spring.

Hatchlings, which emerge from the nest in early

fall, are about 2 inches long and very fragile.

Less than 5 percent survive to maturity as they

are food for numerous desert animals. Vandalism, collection, and habitat deterioration also

threaten the tortoise (8).

The Desert Tortoise Preserve Committee was

formed in 1974 when several concerned desert

residents of southern California banded together with a biologist from the Bureau of Land

Management (BLM). Their goal was to work

with BLM to establish a preserve for the tortoise on a 31-square-mile parcel of land, Largely

as a result of the committee’s efforts, the preserve was expanded to 38 square miles in 1976

and remains essentially the same size today.

BLM closed the area to off-road vehicles and

to sheep grazing in the 1970s. In 1980, BLM formally designated the preserve as the Desert Tortoise Research Natural Area (DTNA) and an area

of critical environmental concern. At that time,

public lands within the preserve/natural area

were officially withdrawn from the general mining laws to protect the habitat from mining.

The Desert Tortoise Preserve Committee is

entirely devoted to improving and acquiring

land for DTNA and educating the public about

the need to protect the tortoise through preservation of its habitat, The committee often lobbies BLM to fulfill its mandated obligations to

maintain DTNA since much of the area is under

BLM jurisdiction. Portions of DTNA are privately owned, and the committee has raised

enough money for The Nature Conservancy to

purchase some of those parcels. They have

helped BLM exchange land with private landholders in other cases. Funds raised by the committee and a 1976 congressional appropriation

to BLM paid for fences around much of DTNA

as well as for an interpretive center. The com13

mittee also has signed an agreement with BLM

to cooperatively manage the natural area.

Funding for the committee has come from

sales of various products, including T-shirts and

pendants. Contributions also have been received

from individuals, turtle and tortoise clubs, garden clubs, and gem and mineral societies, as

well as chapters of the Sierra Club and the Audubon Society. The Desert Tortoise Preserve

Committee became a Project Committee of The

Nature Conservancy in 1976, and much of the

money raised since then has gone to The Nature Conservancy for purchase of privately held

land within the natural area. About 2.5 square

miles of private parcels have been acquired to

date and 11 square miles (about 400 parcels)

remain.

The Desert Tortoise Preserve Committee devotes considerable effort to monitoring the activities of a Federal agency—BLM—within their

area of concern. Further, they are engaged in

negotiations to purchase privately held lands

within the natural area. The committee is a

grassroots group that is addressing a local conservation need and anticipating a more general future decline in the populations of a wild

species.

The Land Trust Exchange

Local and regional organizations called land

trusts are preserving lands with special natural, scenic, recreational, agricultural, or historic

qualities throughout the United States. They

maintain trout streams, forests, prairies, farmlands, and historic sites among other things. Of

the 500 or more land trusts, some are small,

all-volunteer organizations; others are sizable

groups with paid professional staffs. Their aggregate membership is estimated at 350,000 individuals (19),1 and their preservation activities

encompass a total of 1.7 million acres of land

(table 1).

The Land Trust Exchange was formed in late

1981 by the Brandywine Conservancy y in Pennsylvania, Iowa Natural Heritage Foundation,

1~} comparison, “1’ho Nat~lrr (:(JIIs(;I.I;iII[.} an(i National ALldub on So(:if;ty hale memberships of approxl matf!ly 200,()()(1” d I)(1

50[),000,” l.(;s])[:c;tii’~?l~.
. . 74

Table 1 .—Distribution of the Total Acreage

Encompassed by the Land Conservation Activities

of U.S. Land Trusts

Percent

Nature of holdings Acreage of total

Owned by purchasing land trust . . . . 289,000 17

Conservation easements . . . . . ., 448,000 26

Transferred to a third party (e.g.,

a National Park) ... . . . . . 975,000 57

SOURCE B E-mory Exec;[{ve Director Land Trust Excha; ge personal commu

m cat I on Seriem her t 985

Maine Coast Heritage Trust, and Napa County

Land Trust in California. Their purpose was to

establish “. . . a national communication network for local and regional private land conservation groups. ” They emphasize local and

regional preservation of land and water. The

list of sponsoring organizations currently exceeds 40, and a growing number of other organizations and individuals are associate members.

The Land Trust Exchange holds no land itself. Rather, they provide assistance and expertise to conservation organizations throughout

the United States. They publish a professional

journal, Exchange, that includes in-depth case

studies and articles on conservation techniques,

program development and management, and

public policy. They also distribute a series of

memoranda on Federal tax matters affecting

land conservation, a directory of land trusts, and

numerous special publications on specific

topics. One recent project is a national survey

of all government and nonprofit conservation

easement programs in the United States. Another is a movie documenting the public benefits

of conservation easements which features the

Blackfoot River in Montana; Freeport, Maine;

and the Chesapeake Bay.

The exchange runs an information exchange

service called the Peer Match Program which

allows a land trust with a specific problem to

obtain low cost consulting help from another

land trust which has had a similar problem. The

exchange also sponsors meetings and conferences which educate members, address policy

issues, and stimulate exchange of ideas and information. A part-time Washington, DC, representative, supported by the exchange, responds

to specific political issues affecting land trusts.

. ——

Finally, the exchange provides opportunities for

land trusts to participate in group insurance

plans such as Blanket Bonding, Volunteer Accident Coverages, Property Coverages, and various forms of liability insurance necessary for

groups which hold land.

The governing body of the Land Trust Exchange is a board of directors, which is elected

by the sponsoring organizations (the legal tax

status of the exchange is derived from the tax

status of their sponsors). The board is deliberately composed of land trust professionals from

different parts of the country.

Grants from private, national, charitable foundations, and a few corporations provide approximately two-thirds of the general operating

budget of the exchange. The remaining third

comes from sales of services as well as individual and group memberships. Sponsoring groups

contribute 1 percent of their administrative

budget as their membership fee. To ensure that

no single group can exercise excessive control

over the organization the fee cannot be less than

$100, or more than $1,000. Funds for special

projects and programs come from foundation

grants. The staff includes two full-time and two

part-time people in Maine and one part-time person in Washington, DC.

The organization hopes to develop a more stable base of support, founded on greater individual membership and on a larger market for

exchange services, Though the exchange has

earned a reputation in the conservation community, that constituency has limited funds.

Consequently, they are continually seeking opportunities for increased support of their own

activities and those of their sponsors.

Political sophistication, particularly about tax

law, is essential in the land trust community,

Changes in deductions for the value of donated

conservation easements have caused difficulties for some groups and individuals. The exchange has addressed this problem through both

its Washington representative and publications.

The goal of these activities is to provide information to exchange constituents as well as to

make the political and conservation community

more aware of the valuable role played by land

trust groups,
15

The sole purpose of the Land Trust Exchange

is to improve the effectiveness of a segment of

the grassroots conservation community. The

organization’s framework is designed so it can

be nationally representative, but locally oriented. By providing technical conservation

skills and information to local and regional land

trusts, it allows organizations that lack internal expertise to develop their programs in ecosystem conservation efficiently.

Wildlife Education Program

for a Living Future

Environmental education is a component of

most grassroots activities described in this background paper, but for some groups education

is the major thrust of their efforts. Environmental education has been described as:

. . . the process of recognizing values and

clarifying concepts in order to develop skills

and attitudes necessary to understand and appreciate the interrelatedness among man, his

culture, and his biophysical surrounding (71).

The Environmental Education Act of 1970 was

passed by Congress to provide funding in support of environmental education, and represented a national commitment to its importance.

Supporting these efforts are a large number of

grassroots groups who focus, to varying degrees,

on the importance of maintaining biological

diversity.

One individual who has taken an active and

innovative approach to environmental education is Karlyn Atkinson-Berg, co-founder of the

Wildlife Education Program for a Living Future

(WE PLF). Karlyn Atkinson-Berg has long been

interested in the timber (grey) wolves of northern Minnesota. She created WEPLF in 1973 to

bring her knowledge and insights to people of

all ages who might not ordinarily be exposed

to human-wildlife interactions. Her programs

cover not only wolves and wildlife, but also environmental ethics of man’s impact on the natural environment.

One of her objectives is to dispel popular

myths about predators, particularly the wolf,

so her programs demonstrate how predators are

an integral part of the natural environment and

explain the interrelationships of all species. The

programs also explore historic and contemporary attitudes towards nature and discuss

how nature is an integral part of our lives.

Ms. Atkinson-Berg uses a wide range of techniques to bring an ecological message to the general public. At one time, she visited schools with

a wolf born and raised in captivity to capture

the attention of the students. She later stopped

this practice, concerned that it detracted from

the ecologic content of the program by encouraging her audience to view the wolf as a

pet. Presentations with live wolves now are only

held at the WEPLF premises in a “wolf woods

compound” which does not encourage visitors

to view the wolf as a pet. These presentations

commonly are accompanied by field trips into

the woods for howling and tracking events.

WEPLF also converted a bookmobile into a

traveling museum of exhibits and presentations.

In addition to an extensive display on the history of the wolf, the museum houses bird nests;

animal pelts; skulls, bird, and mammal specimens; and illustrations of ecological cycles in

nature. The mobile museum visits schools; civic,

social, and service organizations; and even interested individuals. Films, workshops, and

slide presentations on wolves, human attitudes,

or animal communication are also available.

Ms. Atkinson-Berg works with teachers

throughout Minnesota to develop appropriate

curricula on nature. She has developed a widely

circulated educational packet on the coexistence, competition, and conflict between wolves

and humans which she promotes at National

Science Teachers Conventions and Environmental Educators Conventions. Ms. AtkinsonBerg feels that this educational package has

made an important contribution in presenting

a well-rounded picture of the wolf to the public, Rather than designing separate programs,

she encourages teachers to integrate consideration of the natural environment and man’s interactions with it into other lessons. Through

her efforts, information on biological and ecological principles has been incorporated into

everyday learning.
16

The educational programs offered through

WEPLF are entirely supported by program fees

and donations. Fees are based on travel, time,

mileage, and the number of programs offered.

Though Ms. Atkinson-Berg hopes to continue

adding to the museum with cash or display-item

donations, the income from education programs

and her other work is meager.

Beyond the problems of limited funding, Ms.

Atkinson-Berg believes people may attempt to

discredit her because she lacks a doctorate degree (67). In addition, because she has developed a close, personal relationship with timber

wolves, critics question her objectivity. Nonetheless, Ms. Atkinson-Berg has won wide recognition for her work. She has served as a consultant on the Science Museum of Minnesota

exhibit, “Wolves and Humans” and assisted in

the creation of a public television documentary,

“Legend of the Wolf, ” She travels around the

country and has appeared on numerous radio

and television shows. In fact, her many activities on behalf of wolves have earned her the designation “the wolf lady” (5).

Ms. Atkinson-Berg, since 1978, also has been

active in public hearings and litigation involving wolf management, both directly and indirectly by contributing information on wolf

behavior and ecology to other environmental

groups and attorneys. Although her philosophies and opinions on management practices

frequently are in conflict with those of other local residents and government officials, her

presentations and dedication have earned her

a high degree of respect, even from some who

disagree with her approaches.

Despite real or perceived limitations, Ms.

Atkinson-Berg has raised the environmental

consciousness of many people in Minnesota and

across the Nation, by making an active effort

to reach many different people with her knowledge about wolves and the importance of a balanced environment. Her programs help people

understand that predators are not creatures to

be eradicated but a necessary part of the natural world. Her efforts may reduce destruction

of natural predators in Minnesota and elsewhere, helping to maintain these elements of

biological diversity.

Desert Fishes Council

The native fishes of the American deserts are

increasingly threatened by the impacts of man,

The survival of many native fish species depends on adequate water in the springs or water

drainages of this arid environment. Yet development in the deserts of the Southwest has endangered several species of native fishes by

blocking streams and rivers with dams, draining marshes, eliminating native vegetation along

water courses, depleting groundwater supplies,

and causing silt deposition in fragile habitats

(52), Native fish also are threatened by the introduction of game fish, which displace or devour them (52).

Human activities in the Southwest desert have

caused the loss of habitat for many native fishes,

resulting in extinction for as many as a dozen

species (51). Up to 50 other species and subspecies are considered threatened by the Federal Office of Endangered Species or other Federal and State agencies.

Growing concern about the overall decline

in desert fish populations, particularly the Devil’s

Hole pupfish, led a group of individuals to hold

a conference in 1969 and establish a Pupfish

Task Force. At their second symposium in 197o,

82 scientists, resource managers, and other interested individuals formed the Desert Fishes

Council. The council’s present membership of

nearly 400 includes scientists and researchers

from Federal and State agencies, universities,

representatives of conservation organizations,

and other interested citizens.

The Desert Fishes Council engages in intensive efforts to preserve desert aquatic communities and their associated life forms. Council

members conduct research projects to determine the best management strategies for particular species. They help local fish populations

recover by manually rebuilding stream areas

and reintroducing native stocks into them. The

council lobbies on behalf of desert fish habitat

with Federal and State agencies which make

decisions on land and water use, particularly

when those decisions would divert water from

streams or springs where native fish are found.
17

Photo credit: LouIs Myers, Bureau of Land Management

Jackrabbit Spring in the Ash Meadows Conservation

Area as it appears today and before the installation of

an irrigation pump In 1970 by a private landowner

The extensive labors of the membership have

resulted in several successes. For example, the

council worked with Federal and State officials

to protect the spring habitat of the Devil’s Hole

pupfish by reducing pumping that was depleting underground water in the area. Because of

this action, coupled with reintroductions and

creation of some artificial habitats, the fish population appears to be slowly recovering (53).

Other successes include the protection of Fish

Slough in eastern California and Ash Meadows

in western Nevada, both important fish habitats

which represent unique clusterings of plant and

animal species.

In addition to field research and conservation

efforts, the council conducts annual symposia

on desert fish species and related problems. Publications and other educational materials also

are available through the council, and individual members publish articles concerning desert fishes in professional journals.

The success and strength of the council appears to lie in its scientific and technical expertise. When information is needed on individual populations, the knowledge usually can be

found among the council members. Though the

group has maintained a high degree of participation among its members, it remains small and

flexibile enough to focus its attentions quickly

and effectively where the need is greatest. One

Photo credit: D.W. Sada, U S Fish and Wildlife Service

Jackrabbit Spring after installation of the irrigation

pump. The Desert Fishes Council has been instrumental

in bringing about FWS acquisition and restoration of

Ash Meadows. The council has reintroduced two FWS

endangered fish species to this spring, the Ash

Meadows Amargosa pupfish, Rhinichthys osculus

nevadensis, and the Ash Meadows speckled dace,

Cyprinodon nevadensis mionectes

recent editorial on the Devil’s Hole pupfish, described the Desert Fishes Council as”. . . a tiny

group–but fierce” (3).

Funding for the Desert Fishes Council is minimal. Most of their annual budget of approximately $6,000 comes from the small annual dues

and is used primarily to finance its publications.

Virtually all other funds come from individual

members. The council has never applied for a

grant to support its efforts, though members

have little doubt that such funds could assist

them greatly, When additional funds have been

needed, registration fees for their annual symposium were increased slightly, Publications

are distributed free to members and at cost to

libraries and others.

The survival of this group is largely dependent on the enthusiasm of its leadership and the

willingness of its members to donate considerable time, effort, and expertise. A few members,

affiliated with government agencies or universities, receive funds for travel to some meetings,

but most must travel and work at personal expense. One group member says:

No doubt we could be more productive with

better funding, but a high level of participation

from a group of low-income members, many
18

of them graduate students, has been the key

to our success. We are therefore reluctant to

increase dues much beyond the current $10 per

year (53).

The Desert Fishes Council illustrates how a

grassroots organization with a high level of technical expertise and commitment can be effective in preserving animal species. The issues

surrounding desert fishes and their habitats fall

under multiple jurisdictions and several Federal and State species protection laws. The council feels they have been particularly effective

in an arena where Federal and other agencies

are unable or unwilling to move swiftly and efficiently. As a consequence, its efforts contribute significantly to the biological diversity of

species, habitats, and ecosystems of the Southwestern deserts,

Greater Yellowstone Coalition

Early in 1872 president Ulysses S. Grant made

what has been characterized as a “daring political act” (56) by signing the Yellowstone Park

Act (13) which set aside 2.2 million acres as a

park to be the “flagship” of the American National Park System (13). The scenic wonders and

geologic curiosities of Yellowstone include majestic waterfalls, geysers, forests, wildlife, and

historic structures from the early days of the

National Park System (13). Today, however, the

future of Yellowstone is largely affectedly activities and influences from private landholders

and national forestlands outside the park’s

boundaries (13).

Yellowstone National Park is part of the

Greater Yellowstone ecosystem, considered by

some to be one of the largest essentially intact

terrestrial ecosystems in the temperate zone (10).

This area covers more than 6 million acres and

is governed by more than 25 separate political

jurisdictions. Within the ecosystem are two national parks (Yellowstone and Grand Teton), two

national wildlife refuges, six national forests,

portions of 3 States and 13 counties. Speaking

of the Greater Yellowstone ecosystem, William

Penn Mot-t, Jr., Director of the National Park

Service, said:

. . . the time has come to take positive, creative,

and forceful steps to set an example of how

even with human pressures a total ecosystem

can be preserved and managed (38).

The Greater Yellowstone Coalition (GYC) was

formed and incorporated in 1983 to coordinate

the activities of several national and regional

organizations. One of their goals is increased

national public awareness of the Greater Yellowstone ecosystem, particularly the special

values and legacy of the ecosystem and the multiple risks facing it. The organization articulates

the collective concerns of its members and coordinates the actions and activities that stem

from those concerns.

GYC proposed national legislation recognizing the Greater Yellowstone ecosystem as a

unique entity at its 1984 annual meeting. They

want all Federal lands in the ecosystem to be

managed to give highest priority to preservation of wildlife habitat and populations. In addition, GYC has been working with the Forest

Service as that agency develops forest management plans mandated by the National Forest

Management Act (Public Law 94-588). GYC’s

annual meeting includes scientific sessions in

which environmental scientists discuss issues

important to conservation within the region.

Conservation groups, representatives from Federal agencies and State governments, and Members of Congress have participated in annual

meetings.

One of the coalition’s first members, the Jackson Hole Alliance for Responsible Planning,

works for protection of the scenery, wildlife,

and recreation of Jackson Hole, Wyoming. Its

850 members, primarily residents and landowners in the Jackson Hole region, participate

in the planning process for public lands such

as Grand Teton National Park, the Bridger Teton National Forest, and the National Elk Refuge. Specifically, they want development of private lands in Teton County to be compatible

with the preservation of ranching, wildlife habitat, and open space. Through GYC, the Jackson Hole Alliance obtains regional support for

the local issues they encounter.

The coalition amplifies the voice and influence of smaller groups within the organization.

For example, GYC worked with an ad hoc group

known as the Grizzly Caucus to develop a posi-
. —

Photo credit: Haynes Foundation Collection, Montana Historical Society Helena MT

Lower Yellowstone Falls taken from Red Rock in Yellowstone National Park by F. Jay Hayne, 1899

tion statement on the Grizzly bear (Ursus arctos),

They later modified the statement to make it

applicable to the greater Yellowstone region and

then formally adopted it. These actions delineated the concerns of a small group so they could

be disseminated to a larger audience.

GYC is administered by a board of 15. Nine

of the board members represent the 45 member organizations, 3 are elected by the general

membership of approximately 1,000 individuals, and the remaining 3 are chosen by the

board itself, This structure keeps the board responsive to the concerns of member organizations, Three paid staff members carry out the

coalition’s work.

A relatively young organization, GYC receives

half its support from foundation grants. Most

of the remaining funds come equally from dues

and individual donations. Income from sales

of a book about the region are modest because

the aim is more to educate the public than to

raise money, Though private corporations do

not provide support at this time, the group plans

to approach them and has enlisted the aid of

a private marketing firm.

As might be expected, the size of the Greater

Yellowstone region makes it difficult to manage GYC programs. Nonetheless, the group unifies its member organizations making it more

likely that they will attain their goal—preservation of an intact ecosystem. Their regional

approach, if successful, can provide an important model for preserving other broad geographic areas, such as the Chesapeake Bay ecosystem. Although GYC members are vocal about

their desire to maximize preservation of the

area, they also are making serious efforts to
20

gain the support of Federal agencies with interests in the region. Certainly, GYC makes it

clear that successful regional conservation efforts should include input from numerous, and

often competing, agencies, citizens groups, private landholders, and corporations. Such efforts

maintain biological diversity by promoting the

preservation of species and ecosystems.

Southeast Alaska Conservation

council

The American people and the residents of

Southeast Alaska enjoy a priceless natural resource heritage—our public lands. Our National Forests, National Parks and Monuments,

State Forests and State Parks all have one thing

in common. They are owned by all of us: each

citizen has an equal right to hunt, fish, trap or

recreate on these lands. Every citizen has an

equal right to speak out and participate in decisions regarding the management of public

lands and their resources.

Public lands are managed, in theory, by public servants and agencies who should take

direction from the people. In reality, corporate

interests continually pressure the public agencies to favor their narrow concerns. Organized

citizens bear the burden of reminding our public servants that their responsibility is to the

people who live here (59).

This statement from the Citizen’s Guide to the

Tongass National Forest clearly defines the role

of on-site groups concerned with environmental

advocacy in general and the Southeast Alaska

Conservation Council (SEACC) in particular.

SEACC, a nonprofit group, devotes its energies

to issues surrounding the management of the

Tongass National Forest which covers 17 million acres in southeast Alaska (figure 1), The

group reacts to and helps shape management

plans and legislation which has a direct bearing on the ecological diversity of the region.

SEACC began in the late 1960s as a loose coalition of environmental groups in southeast

Alaska. Its purpose then was to improve communication and cooperation with one another

and to address mutual concerns about roads,

logging, and mining in that region. The group

also wanted to protect the subsistence and traditional economies of the area. The organization

remained an informal coalition until 1976 when

it incorporated. Today issues important to

SEACC remain essentially the same: protection

of critical fish and wildlife habitat, preservation of local economies, and multiple-use management of the Tongass National Forest. One

of SEACC’s products is “A Citizen’s Alternative” to the Tongass Land Management Plan

of 1979, which proposed protection for 45 sites

with unique formations, environments, or

stands of old growth forest,

The 1980 passage of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA) (Public Law 96-487) gave SEACC a stronger voice

in the affairs of the Tongass, ANILCA requires

that a report on the status of the Tongass National Forest be prepared in cooperation and

consultation with several interested groups including SEACC. Much of the group’s efforts

have gone into evaluations and alternative management plans for the National Forest.

Presently, SEACC’s membership includes approximately 600 individuals and 9 communitybased organizations’ with a total membership

of approximately 2,000 (35). The board of directors is composed of a representative from each

sponsoring organization and an approximately equal number of at-large representatives.

SEACC’s paid staff ranges from three to six, depending on the number of special projects (35).

The organization provides its member groups,

interested individuals, communities, and other

parties with information and support on issues

of land use and management in the Tongass,

SEACC’s funds come from a variety of

sources. Membership dues and donations provide the major share of the budget. Member

groups are not required to provide any financial support, but all are encouraged to do so,

and a few make large donations of $1,000.

SEACC raises additional money by selling Tshirts or raffle tickets and by sponsoring an

‘1. ynn Cana] Conservation, ]uneau GFOUp sierra C]ub, Sitka

Croup Sierra Club, Narrows Conservation Coalition, Sitka Conservation Society, Taku Conservation Society, Tongass Conservation Society, Friends of Glacier Bay, and Wrangell Resource

Council.
21

Figure 1.— Map of the 17-MiIlion-Acre Tongass National Forest Which Encompasses Most of Southeast Alaska,

Showing Distribution of the 14 Wilderness Areas (transportation within the region is complicated by the numerous

long fjords which separate major land areas)

VICINITY MAP SEATTLE %~

Legend

U Wilderness areas

71 Waterways

t–- Glacier Bay

National Monument

SOURCE Southeast Alaska Conservation Council
22

annual pledge drive. An important portion of

their funding for operational programs and

some special projects comes from the Alaska

Conservation Foundation.’ Though SEACC receives some money from national foundations,

the time-consuming application process diverts

staff efforts from other projects (35). SEACC occasionally receives support from local recreational, fishing, and native interests as well as

local businesses.

Operating in the southeast region of Alaska

adds to SEACC’s costs. Transportation in the

region frequently is difficult, very expensive,

and subject to unpredictable weather. Telephone, rent, and supplies all are more expensive than in other regions of the country. Periodic visits to Washington, DC, to participate in

congressional hearings or agency reviews also

are a significant expense.

SEACC’s location also makes communications a major problem, both inside and outside

the region. Within Alaska, geography and climate complicate communications between

member individuals and organizations. Groups

in remote, rugged areas frequently are isolated

by adverse weather and lack of adequate telephone facilities. Further, the group’s lack of exposure in the “lower 48, ” makes it difficult for

them to get a hearing nationally.

Despite the hardships of working in a remote

area, SEACC staff derives considerable satisfaction from the “real sense of community” in

the region. As an advocacy group whose interests are centered on a specific region, SEACC

provides an important link among diverse

groups in southeastern Alaska which allows

them to have a greater voice in development of

legislation and future management plans for the

Tongass National Forest.

3Alaska Conservation Foundation was established to provide

funding to four environmental groups in Alaska. While funds

provided are only a portion of their total funding, they are largely

for general operations, a budget item that is often difficult to fund

(35). In this respect they are very important to SEACC,

Florida Audubon Society

The National Audubon Society was formed

at the beginning of this century to conserve

mammals and birds, particularly species under

pressure from hunters, Today as one of the largest grassroots conservation organizations in the

United States, the society’s activities have expanded to include preserving natural areas, educating the public, and lobbying for legislation

to protect plant and animal life.

In 1900, shortly before the founding of the National Audubon Society, the Florida Audubon

Society (FAS) was organized to end destruction

of the State’s wading bird populations by the

millinery trade. FAS was and remains administratively independent of the National Audubon

Society and their focus has grown to include

ecosystems preservation. The 46 chapters of the

society within Florida range in size from 100

to 3,000 and have a total membership of 35,000.

Most local chapters are associated with both

FAS and the National Audubon Society, so

when Florida residents join the National Audubon Society they become members in FAS

and part of their dues goes to it. Some people

join just FAS, and FAS shares those dues with

local chapters.

Local chapters of FAS are essentially independent groups that vary not only in size but

in involvement with environmental issues. They

receive assistance from the State group in developing programs and pursuing local environmental issues. In turn, the State organization

often seeks local support for its issues. Local

chapters participate in field trips and national

activities such as the annual Christmas Bird

Count. A chapter also may elect to manage one

of the 38 wildlife sanctuaries that have been donated to FAS. While the society retains legal

ownership, the local chapter assumes caretaking responsibilities for the sanctuary.

Funding for FAS comes from a number of

sources. Besides membership dues, which are

shared with local chapters, the society has several corporate sponsors. When necessary, special appeals are made to the membership, Some

programs of the society are supported by grants
23

from government agencies or industry organizations. Fundraising activities are handled by

a full-time staff member and part-time secretary.

FAS supports a paid staff of 24 and is governed

by a 31-member board.

FAS seeks cooperative working relationships

with industry, business, and developers on environmental issues. To avoid difficulties, including possibly damaging litigation, FAS tries to

enter consultations on environmental matters

at an early stage. Their programs encompass

such broad ranging issues as water quality; air

pollution; protection of the Everglades; oil exploration; rescue of injured birds of prey; marine turtle conservation; environmental education through films; television, workshops and

public appearances; and protection of the West

Indian Manatee (Trichechus manatus).

FAS’s Save the Manatee Committee is one example of how grassroots activities can draw attention to the plight of a species. Manatees are

large coastal mammals protected by both Federal and State statutes. They are frequently killed

or injured by human activities such as fishing

and motor boating. Working with State and Federal agencies, the committee has increased public awareness of the need to protect the manatee through a newsletter, a network of “Save

the Manatee Clubs, ” and an “adopt a manatee”

program that provides donors with information

and updates on a particular animal. The result

is increased public consciousness not only of

the manatee itself, but also of the legal protection it receives from Federal and State law.

FAS has also been active in environmental

issues within the State. They successfully opposed oil drilling in Florida’s estuaries and

worked for passage of the State’s Water Quality Assurance Act of 1983 which protects surface and groundwater from hazardous wastes.

The society continues to lobby for and inform

its members of important legislation and policies affecting the Florida environment.

Photo credit: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Denver Wildlife Research Center

and Blue Spring State Park

West Indian Manatees (Trichecus Manatus) regularly

winter at the Blue Spring State Park near Orange City,

Florida. This animal, a large male, is part of the “Adopt

a Manatee” program sponsored by the Florida Audubon

Society to raise support and awareness for the

conservation of these animals

FAS is an example of a State organization that

aids its chapters in addressing local issues and

also unifies those chapters to address broad regional issues. They have a record of effective

and informative interaction with Federal and

State agencies, as well as with private industry. Their programs have helped maintain biological diversity by encouraging preservation

of important environments as well as protection of specific species,
24

WILD PLANTS AND ANIMALS--OFF-SITE

For most wild plants and animals, on-site preservation maintains a far greater range of species than is possible through off-site preservation, However, where interest is focused on

particular animals or plants or when a species

is nearing extinction in its natural habitat, offsite methods of captive propagation maybe necessary and expedient. Many groups and individuals maintain various species of wild plants

and animals, though not always for the purpose

of conserving biological diversity. This section

highlights the efforts of groups who, for a variety of reasons, maintain wild species of plants

and animals away from their native environments.

Off-site Preservation of Wild Plants

An estimated 3,000 of the approximately

20,000 plant species which comprise the flora

of the United States are threatened or endangered, and equal numbers are in serious decline

(68). Most of these plants are wild and threats

to them include agricultural and urban expansion, pollution, road construction, forest clearing, recreational activities, and wild plant collecting.

Conservation efforts to date have focused on

preserving the natural habitats of entire plant

communities. While there is broad consensus

that this on-site approach should remain the primary method for protecting this biological diversity, these conservation efforts are now being

supplemented through living collections of wild

plants (11).

A heightened public awareness of the need

to conserve plant diversity has emerged only

within the last 15 years, This concern at the Federal level led to the Endangered Species Act of

1973. Individual States also have implemented

programs to conserve native species. In addition, a number of private institutions, societies,

and individuals are working actively to preserve

threatened plant species, in some cases by preserving and promoting living collection of wild

plants indigenous to the United States.

These grassroots activities include individual

efforts to maintain private collections of individual species, plant societies with amateurs

and professional members, and institutional

activities, such as botanical gardens and arboreta, that maintain extensive living collections

of wild plants. The contributions and motivations of these various groups vary considerably.

The conservation impact of grassroots activities is somewhat clouded by individuals who

think of collecting wild plants as a hobby much

like stamp collecting. Their overcollecting, in

some cases, is actually a significant threat to

rare wild plants. This threat, however, is increasingly counterbalanced by national and international legislation with penalties for overcollection of species from the wild. In addition,

specialist plant societies have begun to emphasize conservation as an objective, thereby becoming important contributors to efforts to

maintain biological diversity (36).

The following highlights three examples of

groups maintaining living collections of wild

plants in the United States. The Rhododendron

Species Foundation exemplifies groups which

seek to preserve a single taxonomic group of

plants. The Desert Botanical Garden illustrates

the contributions that locally supported botanical gardens and arboreta can make in conserving both exotic and regionally threatened plants.

Finally, the Center for Plant Conservation typifies the contributions a network of regional botanical institutions can make to preserving indigenous, threatened, and endangered plants.

The Rhododendron Species Foundation

Many horticultural societies and organizations exist to disseminate, collect, and exchange

information on a particular group of plants.

Some people associated with these groups have,

in the past, contributed to loss of rare species

in the wild by overcollection. Recently, however, groups like the American Orchid Society

have become concerned about protecting plant

species in the wild; some even encourage re-
25

Photo credit Rhododendron Species Foundation

Propagation greenhouse facilities of the Rhododendron Species Foundation display some of the approximately 10,000

plants which are produced and distributed annually

search on reintroducing plants into their former

habitats (36). The collections of these groups,

or individual members, in many instances, contain a greater diversity within the taxonomic

group than is available anywhere else.

Early in the 1960s, several members of the

American Rhododendron Society formed a

group to collect Rhododendron species from the

old, established gardens of Great Britain. They

soon realized that they needed a permanent garden site to ensure the survival of these plants.

The Rhododendron Species Foundation was

incorporated in 1964 in Oregon, and a garden

was established in Eugene on the estate of one

of the group’s founders. Seven years later the

collection moved to Salem, Oregon, to the property of a retired director of the Strybing Arboretum of San Francisco. Finally, the Weyerhaeuser Co. prepared a permanent home for the

garden on a 24-acre site on its corporate headquarters property near Puget Sound in Washington State. The property is leased at no cost

to the foundation, and ownership of all improvements on the property was transferred to the

foundation in 1979, The foundation provides

for all further development, maintenance, and

operation.

The taxonomic genus Rhododendron includes nearly 1,000 species which are found all

over the world. The largest diversity of species

is in eastern Asia, from south China to the Himalayas and Japan (82). Species native to North

America are second in abundance. The familiar ornamental rhododendrons or azaleas available throughout the United States represent only

a small variety of the genus which ranges from

forest trees to alpine creepers. Some species of

rhododendron are nearing extinction because
of deforestation in many parts of Asia, and development endangers wild species in Florida

and British Colombia (50).

The foundation’s purpose is to create a center for acquisition, study, cultivation, display,

and distribution of rhododendron species. They

already have what is probably the largest collection of rhododendron species in the world

with at least 600 documented species and more

than 2,000 clones. The species have come from

existing British, American, and European collections, as well as expeditions to collect wild

material in East Asia, the Himalayas, Europe,

and America. Although the collection provides

a broad species diversity for this genus, it does

not encompass the genetic diversity within

those species which would be available in onsite reserves.

A recently completed Master Plan for Development provided a 22-acre display garden arranged according to botanical subdivisions of

the genus. During the spring and fall, visitors

pay a nominal fee to tour the garden. The foundation produces printed materials about rhododendrons and shares a large array of plant

material with its members, botanic gardens, National Plant Germplasm System (NPGS), and

other interested parties. The foundation continues to collect species, with particular emphasis on variants with cold hardiness or heat tolerance. The foundation also sponsored the Third

International Rhododendron Species Symposium which brought together professionals and

amateurs from around the world to discuss a

variety of topics related to the biology and horticulture of rhododendrons.

Approximately half of the foundation’s operating budget comes from sales of plants and publications and the garden Visitors Program. The

rest is from membership dues and, to a lesser

degree, grants and contributions from individuals and private foundations. Even though they

maintain a paid staff of six to eight, the foundation depends on volunteers to assist in tending

the garden, distributing plants, maintaining the

library, and doing general office work. The

volunteers are organized into committees with

responsibilities that reflect the expertise of the

members. The reference library, for example,

was organized by a committee of retired professional librarians and educators; the finance

committee includes knowledgeable people with

backgrounds in business and finance.

To improve their financial stability, the foundation hopes to establish an endowment to pay

for the daily operation of their programs. They

have solicited grants, private contributions, and

bequests. They have continued to improve the

garden and hope to expand their income from

visitor programs by completing a visitor’s center.

The Rhododendron Species Foundation illustrates how a grassroots group can use limited

resources effectively to develop an important

and widely respected plant collection. Their

association with the Weyerhaeuser Co. is an excellent example of how private industry can help

a grassroots effort to become established by providing significant assistance at an early stage.

Desert Botanical Garden

The 270 public gardens and arboreta in the

United States vary greatly in size, professionalism, and perceived function (4,14). However,

these gardens exist in general for public display,

education, research, and conservation. Their

priorities are usually plants with ornamental

or scientific interest rather than economic value

(61).

Botanical gardens are logical repositories for

living collections of endangered plants because

they are integrated into the scientific community and have in-house expertise in plant propagation, specimen maintenance, and taxonomy.

Despite this, only 4 percent of the threatened

or endangered plant species in the United States

are cultivated in public gardens (7). Historically,

gardens have placed low priority on conservation, in part because visitors are attracted by

showy ornamental. Most endangered plant

species lack such esthetic appeal (61).

Several developments in recent years, however, have encouraged botanical gardens to cultivate the conservationist role. The American

Association of Botanical Gardens and Arboreta,
27

for example, established a Plant Conservation/

Endangered Species Committee in 1984. The

newly formed Center for Plant Conservation

also has encouraged individual gardens to assume greater responsibility for cultivating endangered and threatened indigenous wild plant

species. While only a handful of gardens have

risen to this challenge, the number appears to

be growing.

One such garden is the Desert Botanical Garden, a nonprofit institution located on 150 acres

of Arizona desert surrounded by the Phoenix

metropolitan area. The garden site was part of

Papago Saguaro National Monument, founded

in 1914 to preserve the biological richness and

unusual rock formations of this area. The land

reverted to State control when the monument

was abolished by Congress in 1930. Under that

authority the Arizona Cactus and Native Flora

Society, a hobbyist group, was granted a petition to build the botanical gardens. Their aim

was to develop “a natural garden of desert plants

from the deserts of the world, so arranged that

it will be pleasant for the layman to view and

yet can be studied by scientist. ”

The garden boasts a naturalistic display of

about half the world’s cacti and other succulents as well as trees and shrubs from arid regions of Asia, Africa, Australia, and the Americas. It maintains 33 species of crops or their wild

relatives native to the North American center

of diversity. Fifty-six species are listed in its index Seminum, which catalogs seeds available

to other botanical institutions, research stations,

and universities (12). The garden also harbors

plants that have endangered species status.

The Desert Botanical Garden is a science and

research-oriented operation, using the best technology available to botanists. Its staff has grown

over the last decade from a few self-trained

amateurs to several biologists and horticulturalists with advanced degrees, Records for the

collection are computerized. Seeds are carefully

replenished by methods that prevent inadvertent outcrossing, and are maintained in good

quality, medium-length storage facilities. Living

collections of vegetatively propagated materials receive considerable weekly care. Garden

staff members still have difficulty propagating

rarer plants and often must use trial and error

to discover suitable techniques to germinate

seeds and establish cutting,

The garden supports itself by membership

(currently 2,271), contributions, and admissions

(12). The benefits of membership include a

magazine; discounts on classes, lectures, workshops, and field trips; and bonus packets of desert plant seeds. The garden also maintains ties

with other similar institutions through several

professional associations. It is the lead desertregion institution for the new consortium, the

Center for Plant Conservation, and propagates

U.S. endangered species in association with the

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and Office of Endangered Species (OES). Although

genetic conservation is only a part of the Desert Botanical Garden’s mandate, it makes a substantial contribution for its size,

Center for Plant Conservation

The center was formed in 1984 to create a network of regional botanical institutions with the

goal of preserving living collections of all threatened and endangered U.S. plant species. These

collections are intended to supplement rather

than replace efforts to maintain species in their

natural habitats. The center’s role is:

. ,. to coordinate a permanent, comprehensive, systematic, and accessible living collection of rare and endangered plants native to

the United States [and] through use of this collection, . . . [to] promote botanical research,

public education, and distribution of plant material (61).

The two organizations spearheading this initiative are the Arnold Arboretum, which serves

as the headquarters for the center, and the New

England Wild Flower Society. The arboretum

is a major botanical research center maintaining over 7,000 varieties of plants on 265 acres,

funded solely through its own endowment,

membership dues, and contributions. The New

England Wild Flower Society is a private nonprofit organization which maintains the largest

landscaped collection of wildflowers and na-
28

tive plants in the Northeastern United States.

The society maintains the 45-acre Garden in the

Woods in Framingham, Massachusetts. Six additional sanctuaries in New England total 438

acres (11).

Thus far, 18 major gardens and arboreta operating in 14 designated regions across the United

States have committed themselves as participating institutions (61) (figure 2).

The center’s Program Development Plan outlives four components:

1.

2.

3.

A national network of botanical gardens,

arboreta and other scientific institutions

which will collaborate in endangered species preservation. These institutions will

serve as scientific advisors to provide the

center with the most up-to-date information about species endangerment and research efforts, Selected institutions will also

serve as regional programs to house the live

plant collections for their respective areas

of the country.

A computer-based Information Management System and Endangered Species Data

Bank having two parts:

● a national inventory of species in need

of ex situ protection; and

● a listing of accessions held by the cooperating regional programs, together with

horticultural information gathered from

them.

The data bank thus will allow coordination

among the member institutions, and guide

the center in selecting priorities for accession and research.

A comprehensive live collection of planted

specimens, seeds, and cutting, maintained

by the cooperating regional programs. The

collection emphasizes species of national

significance, especially those with particular research, horticultural, or educational

potential, Propagation capabilities will be

an integral part of the live plant collections.

This will enable the center to provide living material to other gardens and arboreta;

to botanical, medicinal, and horticultural

research; and to conservationists engaged

in species reintroduction and habitat reconstruction.

4, Support of research and education activities furthering public awareness and scientific understanding of the issues of species

extinction.

The center cites several reasons for its program. First, botanical institutions are integrated

with the scientific community. Second, their

staff members already have expertise in such

areas as plant propagation, transplants, and tissue culture. Third, they have unique opportunities to raise public awareness of species extinction, The center also has identified specific

functions that could be fulfilled by a botanic garden/arboretum-based conservation program

(11), It seems, however, many of these functions

could be carried out only by larger botanical

institutions (61):

emergency sanctuary for populations or

whole species facing imminent extirpation

in the wild;

a cooperation in a “species alert” network

among botanical and conservation institutions;

critical species research facilities to study

a target population which begins to decline,

even on protected land;

propagation of rare plants for applied research and horticulture, thus decreasing

collection pressure on wild populations;

development of new cultivation techniques

for the handling and growth of rare plants;

propagation of plants for reintroduction

into the wild, in reconstructed or protected

habitats;

research on species biology, in many cases

the first opportunity to perform even basic

study on these species; and

public awareness of species extinction, including unique living exhibits of regionally

rare flora.

The 1985 annual budget for the center is about

$150,000 to $200,000. The 1986 budget is expected to be about double this, largely reflecting an increase in plant collection and management activities. Financial support for the center

comes from grants and gifts from foundations,

corporations, and individuals with two foundation grants comprising about three-quarters

of the total budget (69),
29 — —
30

It is too early to assess the potential of this

program in meeting its goals. Nonetheless, by

cultivating the conservation potential of existing botanical institutions, the Center for Plant

Conservation is making an important contribution in maintaining biological diversity of wild

plant species,

Off-site Preservation of

Wild Animals

Grassroots activities to preserve wild animals4

are diverse both in terms of the people involved

and the nature of their efforts. They range from

individuals raising or breeding wild birds at

home to consortiums collecting animals from

the wild, protecting and reproducing them in

a network of zoological gardens, and reintroducing them to their original habitats, A number

of groups are concerned with the large populations of formerly domestic animals now found

wild (feral) primarily on public lands (28), Examples include the wild burros (Equus asinus)

of the West which are remnants from the early

gold rush era and the wild pigs (Sus scrofa) and

goats (Capra hircus) of Hawaii which are

descendants from animals left by the early European explorers, These animals are viewed variously as potential reservoirs of disease, detriments to preservation of native species, and

sources of valuable genetic resources (28).

Concern about maintenance of diversity

among wild animals is unequally distributed

among taxonomic groups (36). By far the greatest efforts have been made on behalf of “mammals ranging from the large and awe-inspiring

to the small and cuddly” (36). One survey revealed that 17 of the 19 known orders of mammals are represented by species in captivity (60).

Captive breeding of birds has tended to concentrate on relatively few species, notably parrots

and birds of prey, chosen for factors other than

~Some disagreement exists over use of the terms ‘‘wild and

‘‘exotic. For many, wild species are those foo nd i n natural environments and exotics refer to feral populations of domestic a nimals. 1 n other cases, exotics are simply wild an i mal.s not nati~’e

to this continent (e.g., African antelope species). In this background paper, wild animal species are those presently or pre\riousl} found to exist in the ~t’ild i n essent ia 11} the same form as

i n their capti~re state.

their status in the wild, The existing public and

private collections of fish, apart from those of

interest to hobbyists, are almost entirely assembled and replenished from the wild (36). While

breeding of the American alligator (Alligator

mississippiensis) and Indian mugger (crocodylus palustris) has been highly successful, the

management and breeding of reptiles and amphibia in zoos is a relatively new field. Invertebrates have scarcely been considered,

Zoos have made the major efforts to breed diverse wild animal species in captivity (36), Most

of these institutions have evolved beyond their

earlier mission to gather and display a diverse

collection of animals and devote a great proportion of their resources to the maintenance of

rare species of birds and mammals. Zoos, however, are limited by the size of their facilities,

and decisions about which species should receive their limited resources are a chronic problem. In addition, responsible genetic management requires maintenance of large populations

which may be impractical for a single facility.

The American Association of Zoological

Parks and Aquariums (AAZPA) is a professional

organization representing approximately 175

facilities in the United States and Canada (23).

Its primary objective is to conserve species by

coordinating the efforts of the zoo community

to gain the greatest benefit from the available

space. The AAZPA Species Survival Plans (SSP]

currently oversee proper genetic management

of some 30 captive animal species (l).

Some efforts to preserve wild animals focus

on maintenance of viable populations on-site.

This requires captive breeding of a species, in

some instances, so it can be reintroduced to its

native habitat. Zoos have participated, through

AAZPA, in such efforts, but rarely for native

animal species. By contrast, the FWS Patuxent

Wildlife Research Center has bred and reintroduced over 60 threatened species of reptiles,

birds, and mammals native to the United States

(21,36), They also have been successful inbreeding desert fishes in captivity at the FWS National

Fish Hatchery in Dexter, New Mexico.

The efforts discussed in this section illustrate

two very different ways in which grassroots
31

groups contribute to the maintenance of biological diversity, The American Federation of

Aviculture (AFA) supports a large number of

private individuals who keep and breed exotic

birds and is an example of wild animal hobbyists

groups, On the other hand, Texas game ranchers

collect and breed animals on a scale even greater

than most zoos.

American Federation of Aviculture

Many private citizens maintain collections of

birds, reptiles, and mammals, For some of these

hobbyists maintaining diversity is a consequence, not a goal, of their efforts, Animals, for

example, are usually raised for reproduction,

with the hope of profiting from sales of their

offspring. On the other hand, many privately

owned reptile and bird collections are extensive and professionally managed to conserve

species. It is claimed that their efforts to reproduce species which are difficult to breed under

controlled conditions, when successful, may

discourage the illicit trade in endangered and

threatened species by lowering prices enough

to make collection in the wild unprofitable—a

point of considerable disagreement.

National and regional societies support individuals interested in captive breeding of wild

animals. The sophistication and scope of such

groups varies with the interests and goals of the

individuals involved. Some simply exchange

cultural information; others are making efforts

to establish detailed records of the breeding histories for captive species to assure genetic diversity of the animals,

The World Pheasant Association of the United

States (WPA/USA) is an example of a small conservation-oriented association with the twin

goals of habitat and species preservation (58).

Field studies are supplemented by captive

breeding programs with qualified breeders. The

organization, with its small membership, has

had to rely on intensive public and private fund

raising endeavors to accomplish its goals.

AFA is a large, well-organized, national organization that serves private breeders of exotic

bird species, AFA holds an annual convention

and is politically active in support of its members’ interest. A bimonthly magazine, The AFA

Watch bird, informs members of important national and regional matters related to keeping

wild, nonnative, bird species. The group also

funds conservation projects, and research on

avian diseases and the conditions necessary for

the maintenance of healthy animals. They have

encouraged cooperation of members on projects

involving captive breeding of birds.

One example is their recent cooperation with

AAZPA to develop a breeding consortium for

the rare Black Palm Cockatoo (Probosciger aterrim us) (58). Approximately 100 of these birds,

brought into this country illegally in the fall of

1983, were intercepted by U.S. Department of

the Interior officials. Through a concerted effort by AFA and AAZPA, DOI allowed these

birds to be distributed among consortium members. AFA members are maintaining a breeding registry and will participate in a master plan

overseen by AAZPA designees at the Baton

Rouge Zoo in Louisiana. Such cooperation has

been possible, in part, because private citizens

have both the capabilities and facilities to accept these birds.

Photo credit U S Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Law Enforcement

Black Palm Cockatoos (Probosciger aterrimus) at the

National Zoo, Washington, DC, February 1984. Amateur

bird breeders, in cooperation with the American

Federation of Aviculture, the American Association of

Zoological Parks and Aquariums, and Federal agencies

have formed a consortium for the captive breeding of

this rare bird
32

AFA conducts a regular survey to determine

the type, population, and reproduction success

of bird species being maintained in captivity.

While not exhaustive, this survey provides better information on the private breeding and

maintenance of birds than is otherwise available. Such information is essential to locate individuals for breeding programs like that designed for the Black Palm cockatoo. They also

monitor the success of individual captive breeding efforts and award successful efforts as well

as those member activities which encourage

other bird keepers to gain and pass on skills in

captive breeding.

Some people are concerned that private collectors contribute to the trade in endangered

species, particularly native birds of prey. Numerous statutes limit the possession of such

birds (25), and at least one State forbids the sale

of any wild collected bird in order to limit trade

in endangered and illegally imported animals.

Private collectors argue that such laws restrict

legitimate efforts to propagate rare species and

actually encourage illicit trade (34,37). Societies

such as AFA discourage illegal activities by

refusing membership to persons who have”. . .

been convicted of violation of any State or Federal law concerning the importation, interstate

shipment, possession or inhumane treatment

of any avian species” (76). Such peer pressure,

while not fully effective, can make the marketing of illegally imported animals more difficult.

A second problem is that importing exotic bird

species may inadvertently introduce diseases

of serious consequence for domestic fowl. For

example, the discovery that the highly contagious Newcastle’s disease (Velogenic Viscerotropic Newcastle Disease) can infect exotic birds

has been of great concern to aviculturists and

animal health officials. Finding a single infected

bird generally requires the destruction of a collection. AFA has established telephone networks among its members to alert them of emergencies such as disease outbreaks. They also are

working to gain improvements in postquarantine holding and transfer facilities that would

prevent healthy imported stock from being mixed

with infected birds already in this country.

Individuals keep wild animals for diverse reasons, ranging from personal taste to a desire to

conserve rare and endangered species. Most of

these people keep animals as a hobby and probably contribute little to the overall preservation

of biological diversity. However, the success of

a few private breeders with some exotic, endangered species may, it is argued, reduce the prices

for those species and make collection from the

wild unattractive. By monitoring the activities

of individual breeders, groups like AFA can be

important links to a large, diverse sector from

which accurate, well-maintained records of

activities are otherwise unavailable (58). Such

records can provide breeders with valuable technical information and access to larger, more genetically diverse populations.

Texas Game Ranches

Individual interest sparks some grassroots

conservation projects, including the present

efforts to breed exotic animals on ranches in

Texas, Colorado, Missouri, New Mexico, Florida, and Hawaii (77,83). The work, which began

more than 50 years ago in Texas, has been both

highly praised and sharply criticized. Although

these efforts are similar to those of other individual collectors previously discussed, the scale

of these operations as well as the high costs associated with acquisition and maintenance of exotic mammalian stock restricts this pursuit to

a few individuals whose inclination is backed

by adequate resources.

The first Texas game ranch dates back to the

1930s when the King Ranch purchased several

Nilgai (Boselaphus tragocamelus), a prolific species of Asian antelope (83). In their south Texas

home, the antelope readily grew into a sizable,

though reportedly ill-tempered, herd. Another

Texas ranch in the 1940s established herds of

blackbuck antelope and exotic deer species.

Intrigued by this latter success, other Texas

ranchers soon boasted varied collections of African and Asian species. Ranchers, by 1960, were

allowing interested parties to hunt exotics (some

nearing extinction in their native lands) for

trophies. They began, over the next several

years, to form associations with zoos to gain ac-
—

33

cess to animals which were otherwise restricted

by USDA quarantine, In many cases, ranchers

purchase parent stock, donate them to zoos, and

purchase the offspring.

The present scope of exotic wildlife ranching in Texas is impressive (figure 3). The Texas

population of the blackbuck antelope (Antilope

cervicapra), for example, exceeds that in its native Asia (58). Texas has at least 600 ranches,

and “private reserves” are forming in other

regions (77), The success of many ranches has

made the United States a net exporter of some

species of exotic deer, antelope, and other hoofed

animals (77). Trophy hunting still occurs, and

a market has developed for the meat from surplus animals, Many ranchers also are becoming more conservation oriented and animals

Figure 3.— Major Exotic Wildlife Species Held by

Private Ranchers in Texas

31 640/0

I 15.63%.

12810 0

12.19 %

12.37 %

8.74 %

6.62 %

a“Others” consists of at least 49 species w!th populations statewide ranging from

1 to 5,636 For 32 of these the total animals in Texas IS less than 50

SOURCE Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, 1985

from some ranches have been reintroduced into

former native habitats, The potential to “recreate” lost populations of animals in their original lands is often cited as justification for working with exotic animals nearing extinction.

Because space limits the captive breeding programs in zoos, participants in AAZPA’s SSP (see

p. 30) have turned to Texas ranchers for help

in breeding large vertebrates such as Grevy’s

zebra (Equus grevyi), Scimitar-horned oryx

(Oryx tao), and black (Diceros bicornis) and

white (Ceratotherium simum) rhinos. The ranchers provide land, fencing, shelter, and maintenance for the designated animals; AAZPA contributes selected animals and a comprehensive

management plan. Some ranches have been reluctant to join because AAZPA restricts hunting of the offspring in such programs. Nonetheless, the program has grown to include ranches

outside Texas. A New Mexico ranch, for example, is cooperating with SSP on a plan to propagate Grevy’s zebra (Equus grevyi), Przewalski’s

horse (E. przewalski), and the Tukmenian kulan (E. hemonius kulan).

Some of the efforts of Texas ranches have been

controversial. When five black rhinos were imported for breeding on two Texas ranches, some

observers hoped the project would contribute

to the preservation of a rapidly disappearing species (6,83). Those hopes were dashed when one

rhino died shortly after arrival and two others

died within the first year (77). In addition, the

animals were found to be carrying an exotic tick

species which could be a hazard to livestock.

The incident raised questions not only about

the importation of wild animals by ranchers but

also about the quarantine practices which admitted the infested animals (83).

Another concern is whether individual

ranchers have the expertise to breed exotic animals. Conventional wisdom says that people

who successfully manage large domestic herds

can be equally successful with exotics. Though

this certainly has been true of many species,

such as the axis deer (Axis axis), blackbuck (Antilope cervicapra), and sika (Cervus nippon; figure 3) (83), it may not hold for species such as

the rhino. Without long-term genetic manage-
34

ment some experts fear these animals may become so adapted to their ranch environments

that they will no longer survive if reintroduced

into their native habitats. The growing numbers

for some species in Texas, however, presently

exceed those found in their declining natural

populations. Numbers can, in some cases, be

somewhat misleading as the animals may all

be descended from a very few initially imported

individuals. The large number of Nilgai, for example, can all be traced back to the original imports by the King Ranch.

Finally, ranchers are frequently reluctant to

institutionalize or to allow their projects to be

managed by outside experts. These collections,

as big as they are, still belong to private individuals. As such, they may not survive unless they

provide sufficient income to at least cover the

costs. Many ranchers have made efforts to provide long-term stability by establishing foundations, donating stock to universities or zoos in

Texas, or other mechanisms which would continue the work beyond their lifetimes (70),

Limited resources of zoos make it difficult to

save many large vertebrates, Individual ranchers,

by providing much needed space and resources,

can make a valuable contribution. Many organizational and long-term management problems

still exist, but ranches have the potential to preserve numerous large animal species in large,

genetically diverse populations.

AGRICULTURAL CROPS AND LIVESTOCK

Conservation of a broad range of genes in

seeds, gametes, and living organisms is necessary for the development of new crop and livestock breeds as well as other advances in agriculture including scientific study to understand

the life processes of agricultural crops and livestock. The historical or cultural significance of

some breeds or crops (e. g., the place of Texas

Longhorn cattle in U.S. history) also provides

a motivation for their conservation.

The groups highlighted in this section represent examples of a wide range of activities and

motivations. They are united by their concern

for plants and animals of agricultural significance. Their methods reflect constraints of

finances, expertise, and facilities with which

they operate.

Preservation of Agricultural Plants

The greatest service which can be rendered

to any country is to add a useful plant to its

culture.

—Thomas Jefferson

If Americans had to subsist on those food

crops native to the United States, staples such

as cereals and potatoes and most standard fruits

and vegetables would be absent from their diets.

Even corn and most of the bean and squash varieties, on which much of the native American

Indians depended, were developed from species introduced much earlier from what is now

Mexico, and Central and South America. Early

immigrants to the United States quickly learned

that, if they wanted their traditional crops, they

would have to bring seeds and plants with them

(72). As wave upon wave of immigrants came

to this country, the diversity of introduced crops

grew.

Introducing new crops became an official government activity in 1819, when the Secretary

of the Treasury enlisted the help of foreign diplomats and U.S. Navy personnel to collect plants

from abroad. Prompted initially by the desire

to introduce new plants into the United States,

and later by concern over inadvertent loss of

crop germplasm and the narrowing genetic base

of American agriculture, the Federal Government instituted various national systems to

collect, describe, maintain, evaluate, and distribute plant germplasm, These activities have

evolved to what is today known as the National

Plant Germplasm System (NPGS) (81).

NPGS historically has focused on foreign

germplasm, collecting landraces and wild relatives of commercial crops from their centers of
35

diversity located primarily in developing countries. Relatively little action has been taken to

ensure that traditional American varieties are

preserved—particularly heirloom vegetables

and fruits, In addition, some concern now exists over how little Federal attention has been

paid to the preservation of many commercial,

open pollinated varieties of garden seeds being

dropped by major seed companies in the United

States—an accelerating trend that has been associated with consolidation in the U.S. seed industry (32,79),

Grassroots individuals and organizations

today are preserving a significant amount of

crop genetic diversity not found in government

or institutional collections (24,33,41). The rapid

increase in membership in these organizations

over the past decade is evidence of the growing

interest in, and concern for, threatened traditional varieties. This section of the background

paper highlights a number of grassroots groups

addressing the two gaps in the Federal germplasm system described above—lack of attention to traditional varieties and to varieties no

longer available from commercial sources.

The Seed Savers Exchange

The Seed Savers Exchange (SSE) is a networking and seed banking organization which stands

out not only in the scope and importance of its

work but also in the role it plays in the grassroots genetic conservation movement (24,41).

The organization’s founder, Kent Whealy, became involved with heirloom seeds in the fall

of 1973 when his wife’s grandfather gave him

seeds of three garden plants his family brought

to the United States from Bavaria four generations earlier. Sparked by a determination to preserve those varieties and a curiosity about the

prevalence of heirloom plants, Whealy formed

SSE which began, in 1975, as a loosely knit network with six members who exchanged seeds

and information on heirloom plants. It has since

evolved into a not-for-profit, tax exempt organization whose 450 member/gardeners are working together to save heirloom and endangered

garden seeds from extinction (80).

The backbone of the organization is its yearbook, The 1985 Winter Yearbook lists names

and addresses of all members with the seeds they

have available for exchange and those they are

trying to locate. The 256-page yearbook includes

3,500 varieties, most unavailable from commercial sources. During the last 10 years, SSE members have supplied other gardeners with enough

seed samples of heirloom or unusual garden varieties to make an estimated 300,000 plantings

of noncommercial vegetable varieties that were

not in any seed catalog and were, in some cases,

on the verge of extinction (41,80).

Although the yearbook’s primary function is

to facilitate seed exchanges between members,

it includes other features. A plant finder service assists those who are searching for historic

seed stock or for varieties that are no longer commercially available because they have been

dropped from seed catologs. Articles by experts

educate members on backyard techniques for

maintaining genetic integrity of rare seedstocks

and maintaining viability of stored seeds. Published correspondence informs members about

other organizations and individual curators who

are conserving rare vegetable varieties and provides a forum for discussion of genetic conservation and related agricultural issues (41).

SSE also is concerned with endangered commercial varieties of garden vegetables, An SSE

publication, The Garden Seed Inventory, is an

effort to document the loss of garden vegetable

seeds offered commercially. The 448-page inventory covers 239 seed companies in the

United States and Canada and describes the

5,785 nonhybrid vegetables they still sell, While

the inventory illustrates impressive diversity in

the vegetables available commercially, it also

reveals some disturbing facts (table 2). Of most

concern is the revelation that 2,792 varieties

(48,3 percent ) of all nonhybrid garden varieties

were available from only one of a possible 239

commercial sources, and 3,434 varieties (59.4

percent) were available from only one or two

commercial sources. The number of open pollinated varieties dropped by the seed companies increased during the course of the 3-year

inventory (79,80).

Using the inventory as an early warning system, SSE has identified those varieties most

threatened with commercial extinction and is
36

Table 2.—Open Pollinated Vegetable Varieties Dropped From

Seed Company Catalogs

Companies Number of Dropped during Percent of

Year inventoried varieties that year the total

1982 . . . . . . . . :, . . . . . . . . . . 138 — 117 —

1983 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 184 — 237 —

1984 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... 239 5,785 263 4,5 ”/0

SOURCES K Whealy (ed ), The Garden Seed Irrvenfory (Decorah, 1A Seed Saver Publlcatlons, 1985) K Whealy, “Role of the

Seed Savers Exchange In Mairrtatntng Genetic Diversity, ” discussion paper prepared for the Of ftce of Technology

Assessment Workshop on U S Grassroots Actlvlties In Maintaining Blologlcal Diversity August 1985

trying to acquire as many of these varieties as

possible. They purchased 1,200 of these varieties in 1985 and intend to double this number

in 1986. Whealy’s own collection of heirloom

material now totals 4,000 accessions; including

2,200 beans, 600 tomatoes, 400 squash, 200 potatoes, 200 corns, 100 peppers, 100 watermelons

and 100 muskmelons. One recent study found

that the SSE collection contains a significant

number of varieties not maintained by NPGS,

In each of five crops investigated (beans, tomatoes, watermelon, spinach, and beets) a large

percentage of the SSE collection was not included in the National Seed Storage Laboratory

(NSSL) [24) (figure 4).5

A Growers Network of amateur gardeners

helps multiply and replenish SSE seedstock,

Though many growers are reliable, the network

as a whole returned seed with a “mistake” factor of 8 to 10 percent, raising serious questions

about whether such a network can permanently

maintain such a large collection (80). As a

backup to the Growers Network, Whealy plans

to grow out his entire collection, using a 3-year

rotation, on a rented 5-acre field in Decorah,

Iowa. In the first grow-out in 1985 Whealy,

assisted by his son and one volunteer SSE member, planted some 2,000 vegetable varieties. All

vine crops and corns were hand-pollinated, and

peppers were caged to preserve seed purity. The

grow-out also allowed Whealy to evaluate unique

characteristics and record valuable data on the

relative performance of the varieties.

‘This stud}’ only examined which SSE varieties were held at

the NSSL, While, in principle, NSSL is responsible for maintaining duplicate samples of all varieties held in other National Plant

Germplasm System (NPGS) collections, this has not been the case

in practice. Thus, numbers cited for the NSSL may not reflect

total collections in the NPGS.

Figure 4.— Numbers of Bean and Tomato Varieties

Held by Seed Savers Exchange Contained in the

U.S. National Seed Storage Laboratory

1,8 0

1.70

1.6 0

0.30

0.20

0.10 - 1

SSE hopes eventually to develop its own

“preservation farm” with a large trial garden

as well as a system of specialized greenhouses

and underground root cellars. The organization

also would like to expand its conservation activities to include livestock, poultry, fruits, nuts,

berries, and wild relatives of food crops. Ultimately, it hopes to develop a network of a dozen

such farms in different climates around the

country, maintaining and evaluating such collections (80). SSE will have to broaden its funding base significantly to accomplish all this. Currently, SSE operates on an annual budget of
.—

37

— .

$40,000 mostly from membership and sales of

publications. Grant funding, averaging about

one-quarter of SSE’s budget, has been received

from private foundations, and for one project,

from a private seed company.

In sum, SSE serves to maintain biological

diversity by maintaining its own collections of

heirloom and commercially endangered varieties; promoting the adoption of these rare varieties among other gardeners; and educating

its members and others on issues important to

the maintenance of biological diversity. As a

network organization, it has been able to pool

the dedication, knowledge, and resources of a

core group of vegetable growing enthusiasts,

enhancing their overall contributions to vegetable variety protection than would be possible

if these individuals did not interact. SSE also

has become a focal point for information exchange on rare varieties, a clearinghouse of information on what heirloom vegetable varieties

are being maintained at the grassroots level, and

where to acquire them. In this capacity, SSE

could serve as an intermediary between the numerous grassroots individuals preserving crop

diversity and the government activities with

responsibility to do so.

North American Fruit Explorers

NAFEX, the North American Fruit Explorers,

is a nonprofit organization of 3,000 hobbyists

who locate, test, and preserve superior or special fruit and nut varieties regardless of their

commercial importance, NAFEX deals regularly with 21 woody, nut- or fruit-bearing species native to the North American continent (46).

NAFEX began with a few dedicated fruit enthusiasts circulating round robin letters in the

early 1960s. This informal network had grown

so large by 1967 that it took 21⁄2 years for the

collection of letters to get through the entire

group, so the group decided to publish a quarterly magazine called The Pomona after the Roman goddess of fruit. Today the leadership and

membership of NAFEX are widely dispersed,

Its president lives in Michigan, its vice-president

in Indiana, The Pomona is edited in Illinois and

printed in Wisconsin. The 1985 annual meeting was held in West Virginia (24),

The now rare “rusty coat” apple being maintained by

NAFEX member Dr. Elwood Fisher. It originated in the

Southeastern United States some 200 years ago, and

was commonly grown by early pioneers because of

its good keeping qualities

Although they call themselves “hobby ists,”

NAFEX includes many amateur horticulturalists with specialized skills in plant propagation.

They share their technical knowledge with

others through workshops on grafting, air-layering, pest control, and plant propagation and

management techniques (24,40). The organization also maintains a lending library through

the mail, and they occasionally give small research grants. Moreover, they sponsor groups

to evaluate and research some 30 types of fruit.

In many cases, the collections of NAFEX members contain rare clones or varieties not available elsewhere. Members frequently seek abandoned orchards to locate and rescue unique or

threatened varieties.

One NAFEX member for whom preserving

biological diversity is a major goal is Dr. Elwood

Fisher, a biology professor from Virginia, who

maintains what is believed to be the largest private collection of heirloom fruit in the United

States. On only half an acre of land, he has created a preservation orchard containing 840

kinds of apples, 160 pears, 52 cherries, 27 plums,

15 peaches, 47 apricots, 20 grapes, 21 blueberries, and many varieties of other fruits and berries—about 2,000 different varieties in all (24).

Although NAFEX had difficulties obtaining

samples from the USDA regional plant intro-
38

duction stations during its early years, a more

reciprocal relationship has been developed with

certain scientists at Federal Clonal Repositories

and Plant Introduction Stations. While some

grassroots groups such as NAFEX praise individuals in government for their support, they

remain critical of the lack of formal government

commitment to greater cooperation with and

support for grassroots genetic conservation

work (24).

While NAFEX is a relatively strong and growing grassroots organization, its limited funding

restricts its potential. Its staff is unpaid and

funds are raised through membership. No outside funding from government or foundations

has ever been sought or received. Currently, the

organization uses a computer only for its mailing list, but members would like to create a computerized list of fruit and nut varieties and their

locations—a grassroots version of the Federal

Government’s Fruit and Nut Germplasm Inventory (24), Although such a database could help

identify threatened varieties which exist only

in private collections, current funding does not

permit such an ambitious project.

Government breeding activities have focused

largely on preserving and developing fruit varieties with qualities suited to commercial production, including appearance and transportability. In contrast, NAFEX members are less

concerned with these commercial qualities,

focusing more on maintaining fruits with exceptional qualities such as particular taste, texture, or qualities well suited to backyard

gardeners.

NAFEX members are thus engaged in maintaining, promoting, and researching a broad

range of fruit varieties that would otherwise be

ignored. Their research, acquisition of foreign

varieties, and breeding activities have enabled

them to enhance the quality and growing range

of numerous types of fruits which, in some

cases, has encouraged public or commercial research activities on a particular variety. To this

end, their activities in genetic conservation has

served not only the interest of their membership but, more broadly, the public interest.

Regional Seed Exchanges

Many regions of the United States now have

either a nonprofit seed exchange or a small seed

company specializing in garden vegetables,

fruits, or wildflowers which are adapted to local soil and climate. Most of these organizations

are less than 10 years old. Many have arisen

from grassroots concern over trends in the seed

industry, particularly the tendency for larger

seed companies to replace regionally adapted

varieties with more profitable all-purpose varieties (41). While this trend toward consolidation is not unique to the seed industry (reports

of mergers and buy-outs in various industries

have become a staple in the media), its consequences are particularly unsettling in the seed

industry because varieties which lose the protection of a seed company may become extinct,

contributing to the loss of biological diversity.

Small regional seed companies often encounter unique problems. For some, customer demand is too great for them to grow their own

seed yet too small to justify the relatively large

minimum orders required by commercial seed

growers. Some States assess an annual registration fee for each variety marketed, While the

fees generally are inconsequential for large highvolume companies, they can be substantial for

a small company selling only a few packets each

of a relatively large number of varieties. The

greatest problem, however, is that small companies cannot generate enough customers to be

self-supporting. Regional nonprofit seed exchanges are one solution to this problem.

The Abundant Life Seed Foundation is an example of a small seed company that became a

nonprofit regional exchange. Abundant Life

was founded 10 years ago as a small solely

owned seed business. Forest Shomer, its

founder, gradually decided that his goal was to

distribute seeds rather than profit from them,

so he formed a nonprofit organization dedicated

to teaching people about growing and collecting seeds, The 10,000 member organization, located in northwestern Washington State, deals

mainly with indigenous or naturalized plants

of the Pacific Northwest. Its services to the peo-
ple of that region include seminars, apprenticeships, a catalog of seeds and books for sale, and

a calendar listing seed-collecting time for 350

wild plants. Proceeds from these activities provide the foundation’s annual budget (in 1983)

of $80,000 (64).

The Abundant Life Seed Foundation sells

seeds of 500 species (44). Of those, they grew

their own seed for 200 crops on 2 acres of land

in 1985. They hope to expand their propagation

efforts in the future to increase stocks of heritage varieties received from other collections,

as well as regionally adapted varieties that have

become commercially scarce (2). Another goal

is to gather 2,000 plant species native to the

region.

Native Seeds/Southwestern Endangered

Aridland Resource Clearing House (Native

Seeds/SEARCH), another regional nonprofit

group, is concerned with conservation of agricultural crop varieties and their wild relatives

of the American Southwest, They are particularly concerned about traditional native American crops threatened with extinction and use

on-site and off-site techniques to preserve the

diversity of these crops. Specifically, their goals

are to preserve specific genetic types, conserve

lands where wild crop relatives are found, and

restore traditional agricultural systems of native Americans in the Southwestern United

States and northern Mexico.

The activities of Native Seeds/SEARCH are

many and varied. Staff members have accompanied national and international expeditions

to remote areas of the Southwest to locate and

collect seeds of wild plants which are closely

related to modern crops. Seeds of these plants

are collected, multiplied, and stored.

The group also works with the Arizona chapter of The Nature Conservancy to promote preservation of specific areas which contain important populations of wild crop relatives and they

have sought endangered species protection for

critical and rare crop relatives.

Native Seeds/SEARCH seeks out traditional

crop varieties found in native American gardens. These are provided at modest charge to

39

interested gardeners, but free to researchers,

individual native American families, and nonprofit organizations.

The organization also pays native American

farmers to replenish the seed to encourage them

to farm rather than work elsewhere for wages.

To encourage the local use of these plants, nutritional and other information is provided

through cultural education programs.

Support for the activities of Native Seeds/

SEARCH comes from membership dues and the

sale of seeds and publications. The bulk of their

operating expenses is provided by grants from

private foundations with some additional project-specific support coming from a private corporation. This foundation support is critical to

the continuation of the broad range of Native

Seeds/SEARCH activities.

Regional seed exchanges like Abundant Life

Seed Foundation and Native Seeds/SEARCH

provide very specific, local assistance to farmers

and gardeners. They commonly preserve and

distribute varieties that have been overlooked

or abandoned by large companies. Further, they

play an important role in the preservation of

little-known native crop varieties. Such exchanges also allow interested individuals to distribute a broad range of seed varieties without

the restrictions associated with operation of

small seed companies.

Living Historical Farms

Living Historical Farms are open-air museums that re-create and interpret the agricultural

activities of a particular time and place in history (84). Some 200 such museums are believed

to exist in North America, and at least 10 million people visit them each year (48).

Historically, these institutions meticulously

have re-created the architecture, hardware,

costumes, and other objects associated with

farming in the place and period they portray,

The crops and livestock displayed frequently

have been anachronisms, Many museums purchase modern varieties of vegetables to plant

in their gardens or plow using animal breeds

not appropriate for the time period (28,33,84),
40

A number of these institutions more recently

have committed themselves to researching and

displaying historical varieties of crops and

appropriate breeds of livestock. Much of the

impetus for this activity comes from the Association of American Living Historical Farms

and Agricultural Museums (ALHFAM) which

formed a Seeds and Breeds Committee in 1981.

The committee split into separate committees

specializing in seeds and animal breeds in 1984.

During workshops at the 1985 ALHFAM convention both committees reported on efforts at

some museums to incorporate historically accurate crops and breeds in their interpretive programs, The workshops became a forum encouraging better communication among member

organizations, appropriate government agencies, private companies, and other grassroots

programs (84).

The conference also outlined how living historical museums could contribute to the preservation of plant and animal genetic diversity

both by actually maintaining historical breeds

and seeds and by educating visitors about the

importance of biological diversity to agriculture.

Public education seems to have the greatest potential in part because living historical museums

can expose such a large segment of the public

to the genetic preservation issue (84). A good

example is the National Colonial Farm (NCF),

an 18th century tobacco plantation run by the

Accokeek Foundation in Accokeek, Maryland.

After 20 years of collection, preservation, and

research on old plant varieties, NCF is at the

forefront in agricultural interpretation for living historical farms. The foundation’s research

programs on agricultural history, restoration

of the American chestnut tree, heirloom plant

varieties, land preservation techniques, and native flora provide background for their interpretive programs (41). The success of the program

stems from an institutional commitment to preserving old varieties as reflected by the presence of a full-time horticulturist on the staff.

NCF intends to increase its educational activities by developing a permanent exhibit which

will explain genetic diversity. They also are

working with local schools to tailor interpretative programs which teach students, as well as

Photo credit: National Colonial Farm

Interpreter describing herb garden to visitors at the

National Colonial Farm, Accokeek, Maryland

older visitors, the importance of biological diversity to modern agriculture. The goal is to make

visitors aware that, although some older varieties look less productive or appealing, the

genetic material they contain has enabled plant

breeders to develop the more productive and

disease-resistant varieties available today (49).

The Genesee County Museum, a re-created

19th century village in Mumford, New York,

educates its visitors about the value of heirloom

vegetables, They spread the word about genetic

diversity through an annual harvest festival

which features displays of old varieties of fruits

and vegetables as well as old livestock breeds

that are rare today. Seeds from their heirloom

vegetable garden are on sale every spring. These

programs make gardeners aware that these old

varieties, like the other historical artifacts that

the museum displays, are heirlooms that should

be preserved (33).

The Oliver H. Kelley Farm in Elk River, Minnesota, is another living historical farm that actively educates visitors on the historical importance of old crop varieties. Although surveys

indicate that visitors to living historical farms

are more interested in crafts demonstrations

than crops, Tom Woods, the director at the farm,

feels that educating the public about old crops

is one of the most valuable roles a museum can
41

play. Accordingly, Wood weaves the history of eties of crops and rare breeds of livestock diffithe old varieties being grown on the farm into cult if not impossible (28), Because no tradition

the farm’s interpretative program (33,84). of plant curation and animal breeding exists,

Each of these institutions is committed to researching and maintaining historically accurate

varieties, an effort that can consume considerable staff time and funding. Tracking down or

re-creating old varieties by back-crossing can

be particularly time-consuming, Dedicated individuals in these institutions have solicited

assistance and seed stock from outside sources,

including universities, USDA Plant Introduction

Stations, private seed companies, and grassroots

directors at many institutions are not particularly interested, Even committed institutions

face problems including limited budgets, lack

of expertise, and staff shortages and turnovers,

Although these factors limit the potential of most

living historical farms for long-term germ plasm

maintenance, they have greater potential in raising public interest, understanding, and concern

about the importance of biological diversity to

agriculture.

seed exchanges. By sharing information and

seeds, these pioneer programs have made it Preservation of Agricultural Animals easier for other living history farms to begin sim- —

ilar programs, Concern for conserving domestic animal

Maintaining livestock also is an important factor in re-creating farm environments of the past

(20). Yet because they lack space, financial resources, and skilled personnel, 80 percent of

ALHFAM’s 600 members have no livestock programs of any kind (20). Old Sturbridge Village

(Massachusetts), Colonial Williamsburg (Virginia), Plimoth [sic] Plantation (Massachusetts),

and Sleep y Hollow Restoration (New York) are

among the exceptions.

Because they want breeds that look historically accurate, museums have put an emphasis

on re-creating physical appearance (phenotype)

rather than genetic accuracy (genotype) of the

original breed (28). Today, an emerging interest in rare breed conservation has sparked increased concern for preserving genotypes (28).

Avoiding detrimental inbreeding in livestock

requires populations larger than can be kept at

most living historical farms. Old Sturbridge Village has maintained Milking Devon cattle and

Tamworth pigs by cooperating with local breeders who maintain large breeding herds and who

supply animals to the museum (63). Old Sturbridge Village is also one of very few living historical farms to fund the collection and storage

of semen from bulls of rare breeds (28),

The exemplary programs highlighted in this

section are exceptions. Most living historical

germplasm stems largely from the knowledge that

production and market conditions can change.

Genotypes lost in the past may, in fact, be the

very ones most suited for future environments

or markets, The potential to transfer genes

between species using genetic engineering is

another reason for conserving rare and unusual

genomes so the y will be available for future use

(22), More esoteric rationales for conserving

threatened breeds of livestock include their intrinsic, cultural, and historic values.

While extinction of domesticated animal species is unlikely, the loss of specific genes or genotypes is occurring. This loss of biological diversity usually happens when particular breeds or

strains are dropped from the commercial mainstream or do not have obvious economic value,

The U.S. animal agricultural system concentrates on modern breeds and management techniques because its primary concern is improved

food production, Yet failure to maintain old or

unusual breeds reduces the genetic diversity of

animal germplasm (15,26),

An estimated 60 to 100 minor breeds of sheep,

cattle, pigs, horses, and goats exist in the United

States. None are indigenous to this country, but

some are now extinct in their country of origin, Others have the same name as foreign

breeds but, through years of separate selection

by humans and the environment, have develfarms find long-term preservation of old vari- “oped into quite different strains. Still others are
42

unique combinations created in and restricted

to the United States (26).

Despite a recognition that sampling, evaluating, preserving, and using exotic and endangered sources of domesticated animal germplasm would be in the national interest, no

organized program currently exists, either in

the United States or internationally (15,74).

Commercial breeding companies and, to a greater extent, artificial insemination companies do

preserve some animal germplasm, but neither

have significant programs, particularly for the

maintenance of living collections of minor

breeds of livestock.

The purpose of this section is to report on contributions of individuals, breed associations,

and network organizations in maintaining the

biological diversity of domesticated animal species in the United States, More specifically, it

examines grassroots activities which, for various reasons, maintain living collections of socalled minor breeds—agricultural animals that

are not commercial at this time.

individual Animal Breeders

Individual breeders maintain most of the minor breeds in the United States. Various circumstances and motivations have allowed them to

perpetuate these breeds despite pressures to replace or crossbreed stocks with modern, more

productive strains. Many minor breeds are

maintained by a dwindling number of old-

-fashioned farmers and breeders who never

made the capital investment to replace their

stock or who maintain a breed because its qualities are well suited to their lower inputs and

management practices, In a few cases a breeder

may find or develop a specialty market for a

product derived from a rare breed. Yet others

may maintain minor breeds as a hobby or to

show competitively. Finally, a few breeders

maintain a particular rare breed at their own

expense because they are concerned about its

long-term survival of a particular breed.

R. M. Holliday.—Although agriculture has developed rapidly in the past 40 years, many people still farm in traditional ways with breeds

of livestock they have always used. These people are, in effect, maintaining a resource, often

without realizing it and seldom with any encouragement or support, The number of old-fashioned breeders and the minority breeds they are

preserving are dwindling under commercial

pressure and USDA recommendations to replace or crossbreed these stocks with modern,

more productive strains (26),

Mulefoot hog breeders area typical case, The

mulefoot is a large (males weigh 600 lbs), normally black, hairy pig. The hog is known for its

mild temperament, superior mothering ability,

and its ability to thrive outdoors. Its unique characteristic is a single, fused toe on each foot,

rather than the normal cloven hoof. Some

breeders feel that this characteristic could solve

the problem of splayed feet typical of hogs which

are raised in enclosures with concrete floors.

In 1910, 235 breeders were registered in 22

States by two separate Mulefoot Hog Associations. Because the hogs do not thrive under intensive confinement management with high

protein diets, their numbers dwindled. The last

breed association dissolved 8 years ago and

today, the only major breeder is R.M. Holliday

of Louisiana, Missouri (28).

Holliday, whose family has maintained mulefoot hogs for over 75 years, rears at least 300

market pigs a year, He keeps his own breeding

Photo credit: American Minor Breeds Conservancy

Mule-footed hog, a minor livestock breed notable for

its single-fused toe on each foot
43

.-

records and, until recently, sold breeding stocks

to interested farmers. For various reasons, including costs associated with selling pigs in

other States (veterinary certification and other

paperwork costing on the order of $50 per pig],

Holliday has been forced to restrict his operations to the production of pigs for the local meat

market (28). The survival of this hog breed

largely depends on the determination of one

man, now in his late sixties.

I. Painter.—A small number of people in the

United States are committed to the concept of

rare breed conservation per se and are prepared

to maintain those stocks even in the face of reduced income. one example is Ingrid Painter

of Seattle, Washington, who is working to conserve the old type Navajo sheep.

Descended from the Churro sheep introduced

by the Spanish in the early 1600s, the Navajo

sheep is highly adapted to the climatic extremes

on the Navajo reservation. Its wool is used to

produce Navaho rugs, a major source of cash

income for the reservation. To improve carcass

quality and salability of wool produced on the

reservation, State and Federal extension agents

on the reservation have since 1883 encouraged

the use of short wool meat sheep to replace the

Navajo sheep. Consequently, less than 500 oldtype Navajo sheep remain, mostly in the most

remote areas of the reservation. A small conservation program for the “old-type Navajos”

is run by Utah State University, but otherwise

the survival of the breed is dependent on enthusiasts such as Ingrid Painter.

Because of her interest in American weaving,

particularly that of the Navajo Indians, Ms.

Painter purchased some old-type Navajo sheep

in 1974 and has since been collecting good examples of the breed ever since. She has published a small book on the breed; produces a

regular newsletter which circulates to over 400

interested people; and gives lectures on the

breed as well as Navajo weaving techniques.

Ms. Painter’s efforts illustrate how the motivation and expertise of an individual could be

enlisted to conserve important minor breeds of

livestock in the United States. Individual efforts,

however, often are financially unstable and

*

Photo credit: American Minor Breeds Conservancy

Four-horned ram of the old-type Navajo sheep, This

now rare breed was once used extensively by Navajo

Indians because of its adaptation to climatic

extremes on the reservation

otherwise vulnerable. To be effective, such contributions need to be identified, monitored, and

encouraged. Efforts to date have been inadequate.

Animal Breed Associations

Breed associations are unions of farmers who

maintain and produce the same pure breed.

They provide pedigree registration and certification services to their members, and they promote and market their breed commercially. Ordinarily, breed associations try to improve their

stock by encouraging selective breeding which,

by definition, removes “less desirable” genotypes from the population and gradually reduces

the genetic variation within the breed. As a re-
44

suit, breed promotion and breed improvement

can be detrimental to the maintenance of genetic

diversity. However, if every breed has an association and their standards and proposed characteristics differ, the combined efforts of breed

associations could contribute to conserving

genetic diversity (28),

Alternatively, one breed may dominate markets, forcing others out. The most notable example is in the American dairy industry. Current pricing policies for dairy products favor

low milk-solids content. Holstein cattle, having

superior whole-milk production per cow, accounted for 79 percent (in 1981) of all U.S. dairy

cattle registrations (29), despite the fact that their

high production requires high levels of concentrated feeding (15). With efficient sire selection,

artificial insemination, and embryo transfer

programs, the Holstein Association will probably continue to acquire a greater proportion

of the market at the expense of other breeds and

the national pool of genetic variation in dairy

cattle (28).

The associations of the declining breeds (e.g.,

the Jersey, Guernsey, Ayshire, and others), in

fighting for their share of the market, are working to conserve biological diversity, These associations keep breeders in touch with one

another, record pedigree information that can

prevent serious inbreeding in small populations,

and promote the breed in a number of ways (28),

Active associations are important for the survival of minor breeds, but they are dependent

on member contributions and, in the case of

small associations, are frequently member-run.

Consequently, a small group of breeders that

really needs the support of an association to promote their breed may not be able to sustain one

(16),

The tenuous dependence of a minor breed on

its breed association is illustrated by the American Cream Draft Horse Association. Developed

in Iowa in the early 1900s, the American Cream

is related to the American Belgian and is the

only draft horse breed developed in America.

It gained popularity in the Midwest during the

1930s through the 1950s, and teams were regularly shown at Midwestern fairs (27). A breed

association started in 1935 but by the 1960s

horses were no longer a primary source of power, and the larger herds disappeared along with

the farming breeders. Activity in the association nearly ceased, although the registration

service remained open if unused. The secretary

of the association convinced that the breed was

doomed to extinction, made plans in the mid1970s to give all of the association’s records to

the Iowa State University library so that at least

its history would survive (27).

A small group of breeders reestablished the

American Cream Draft Horse Association in

early 1983. Among them they maintain 28 purebred mares and 6 stallions, Of the four major

breeders, three are in their sixties and only one

still works his farm with the breed. Although

the association maintains the records necessary

to avoid the problems of inbreeding, it has little

money to advertise the breed. Even if a market

could be generated, it is unlikely that these

breeders could accommodate it. In the absence

of semen storage and distribution facilities,

mares sold to new buyers without access to

American Cream Draft stallions, in effect, are

lost to the breed (27).

The American Cream Draft Horse is typical

of numerous minor breeds that owe their existence to the officers and members of a breed

association. The case of the American Cream

Draft Horse Association demonstrates how their

activities can contribute to the preservation of

diversity, even though most breed associations

do not consider the conservation of diversity

as one of their major goals. Paradoxically, the

most threatened breeds are the least likely to

have a breed association capable of protecting

and promoting them,

American Minor Breeds Conservancy

Improved networking will be necessary to

capitalize on the scattered contributions of the

numerous grassroots individuals and associations currently maintaining U.S. living collections of minor breeds. Such activities, to date,

are few and seldom focused on maintaining biological diversity. The one exception is the American Minor Breeds Conservancy (AMBC), the
45

Photo credit: American Minor Breeds Conservancy

American Cream Draft Horse. The only breed of draft

horse developed in the United States

only network organization in North America

whose primary goal is conserving rare domestic breeds of livestock,

AMBC was established in 1977 as a small organization run by volunteers. Initially, no animal

breeders were involved, A 1981 article, published in the popular press, focused national

attention on the organization and prompted interest from breeders’ groups. Although AMBC

is still not financially secure, it recently received

modest outside funding which allowed it to hire

a full-time project director and an administrative assistant (63),

The organization launched the AMBC Rare

Breeds Rescue Project (RBRP) in the spring of

1985 to survey minor domestic and feral breeds

in the United States. The project also plans to

establish a national network system for registration and referral of stock, as well as breeding, and research activities in minor breeds (28).

Plans for the RBRP include four main elements

(62):

1. Assess the current status of rare breeds, including publication of the first “endangered

species list” of farm animal breeds, This

2.

3.

4.

information base will a

priorities for its rescue

low AMBC to set

and preservation

efforts.

Promote rare and endangered breeds by

focusing national attention on those most

severely threatened. Interested farmers and

potential breeders will be able to locate

sources of breeding stock through AMBC.

Facilitate preservation of breeds by stimulating discussion between breeders, encouraging formation of breed associations,

and providing technical help and advice

to existing breed associations.

Establish a computerized registry for all

breeds without an active registry. The

project also will help existing registries

identify and locate unrelated breeding

lines,

Although these coordinating activities could

have great value, they are unlikely to be accomplished by an organization as underfunded and

understaffed as AMBC. However, the establishment of a National Animal Genetic Resources

Board, as has already been proposed elsewhere

(15,74) could provide the national support, expertise, and direction such an organization

needs. What SSE (seep. 36) has done for vegetables, AMBC could do for livestock by becoming

an intermediary between individuals maintaining living collections of endangered livestock

and a national program conserving animal genetic resources.

Although frozen storage of gametes and embryos of agricultural livestock is preferable to

maintaining living collections for both genetic

and economic reasons (65,66), there are biological and cultural reasons for maintaining living

collections of minor breeds of livestock. For one

thing, frozen storage cannot currently be applied to all livestock (22). Since a Federal program to maintain living collections of all minor breeds in the United States is unlikely,

preserving this diversity depends on the activities of grassroots individuals, groups, and networks like AMBC.
Chapter 3
Chapter 3

Summary Findings

The level of grassroots activities has increased

in recent years, in part because of increased public interest in environmental issues in general

and because of concern over the loss of biological diversity in particular, Not only are more

individuals becoming involved and new groups

being formed, but existing institutions, such as

botanical gardens and arboreta, zoos, and living historical farms, are redefining their activities so they contribute more to national efforts

to maintain biological diversity. The activities

of grassroots groups have become increasing}

sophisticated largely because of network organ izations like those highlighted in this background

paper which coordinate member programs and

consolidate e the collective contributions of a disparate sector.

The variations in size and scope of grassroots

activities make it difficult to generalize about

how they contribute to the maintenance of biological diversity. The characteristics that fuel

one organization’s vitality or limit its effectiveness may be inconsequential in other organizations. Even within the categories defined in

the preceding chapters, analysis is complicated

by overlapping functions, varying goals, and differing motivations, Nonetheless, considered as

a whole, grassroots efforts preserve a remarkably broad range of diversity in agricultural

crops and livestock, wild species, and ecosystems, These contributions have been made at

little direct cost to government.

The following are a number of general conclusions about the characteristics, constraints,

and opportunities of grassroots groups maintaining biological diversity in t he United States.

1. Grassroots activities are a vital part of U.S.

efforts to maintain biological diversity.

They supplement those efforts by undertaking activities for which they are uniquely

suited or especially willing, but they are unable to replace government’s broader responsibilities for maintaining biological

diversity.

Grassroots individuals and organizations

make a genuine contribution to the national effort to maintain biological diversity. Frequently,

they undertake activities that Federal or State

agencies for a variety of reasons cannot or do

not address. In other cases, they complement

government activities.

The efforts of’ grassroots groups to protect the

habitats of particular species and preserve areas,

which are ecologically or historically unique,

. may expand existing government reserves or

protect sites outside those designated areas. The

local nature of grassroots groups frequently allows them to negotiate more effectively than the

government for lands to be integrated into existing National and State parks o r reserves. Some

groups also work to preserve Federal multipleuse lands by having them designated as congressionally mandated wilderness areas. Others

actually acquire and manage land, such as the

Bicentennial Prairie preserved the the Prairie

Preservation Society of Ogle County and the

wildlife sanctuaries maintained by the Florida

Audubon Society.

Some grassroots groups monitor activities on

government-owned lands and stimulate public

debate on the fate of certain areas. Their most

important contribution, perhaps, is in attracting attention to local or regional areas and issues which might otherwise be neglected by National and State agencies or large national

conservation organizations. Although their efforts may bring them into conflict with Federal

agencies and other private interests, they serve

a useful role b y raising issues and providing information to policy makers and the public. Effective grassroots groups, however, are not

found in all regions, so important issues may

be overlooked,

Some rare plants and animals become endangered when they are exploited in the wild. Although the United States has laws and statutes

that restrict their exploitation in this country,

these government efforts can be supplemented

49
50

by grassroots groups, particularly when local

populations are endangered. A more complex

situation arises when rare or endangered plants

or animals are exploited outside national boundaries and imported to collectors inside the

United States. While international agreements,

such as the Convention on International Trade

in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora

(CITES) restrict such traffic, enforcement can

be difficult. Grassroots groups cannot eliminate

these problems, but groups such as the American Federation of Aviculture have instituted

guidelines to discourage their members from

purchasing illegally imported species.

Grassroots organizations as a whole play a

major role in raising general public awareness

and concern about the loss of biological diversity. In this way, they increase the constituency

for government programs responsible for maintaining natural areas as well as those collecting

and safeguarding genetic resources for current

and future generations. Educational activities

range from general circulation of publications

on issues related to maintenance of biological

diversity, to exhibits in zoos, botanical institutions, and living historical farms. In addition,

environmental education groups such as the

Wildlife Education Program for a Living Future

have created educational packets that make it

easier for schools to integrate an ecology into

their curricula.

Grassroots groups depend on membership

support, and thus tend to devote most of their

attention to organisms or areas with high public recognition or appeal. Most endangered

organisms, however, lack the esthetic qualities

to generate this sort of attention. Accordingly,

primary responsibility for protecting the broad

array of threatened species or ecosystems, including those that are less charismatic continues

to rest with those government agencies mandated to do so.

Many grassroots groups are maintaining living collections of plants and animals not found

in the Federal programs. This is an important

function since the cost of expanding existing

programs or establishing new ones to incorporate all the material maintained by grassroots

groups would be prohibitive. Even materials

which duplicate those in national collections

provide important backup in case of catastrophic loss in national germplasm centers, In

this regard, grassroots activities are, for the most

part, a supplement of little or no cost to government programs.

2. The strength of grassroots organizations

lies in a shared commitment to preserve resources which are perceived as valuable and

threatened. The local focus and flexibility

of many grassroots groups can make them

particularly responsive to many issues. These

organizations, however, can be vulnerable

due to limited or unstable funding, and dependence on the enthusiasm of a single individual or small group.

Individuals engaged in grassroots activities

usually are motivated by a personal determination to preserve a resource they perceive as

threatened. Groups generally are united by a

shared desire to protect a local area or a particular group of plants or animals for which they

have a special interest or concern. In many

cases, they believe that the resource would be

lost without their intervention. Grassroots

groups define their own goals and methods.

They typically lack the bureaucracy y of government agencies or larger national organizations

so they can respond quickly and creatively when

the resources are threatened.

Because they are geographically close to and

intimately familiar with the places or species

they protect, grassroots groups are frequently

the first to observe trends and articulate needs

(45). As part of the local community, grassroots

groups often have extensive knowledge of local

species or areas as well as greater insights into

local interests and concerns. As a result, they

may be better able to define their activities to

reflect issues of greatest concern to local residents or, at least, are able to define how best

to approach local residents on issues they feel

need attention.

Locally based grassroots groups often possess

a keen understanding of local laws and ordinances. Members may also have close personal

contact with local officials so they are better able

to attract the attention necessary to achieve their
goals, On the other hand, when they are pitted

against larger and more powerful interests, local

groups can be constrained by their lack of political clout and legal or scientific expertise.

Some are able, however, to secure pro bono publica assistance from attorneys and scientists, In

some situations, their small size combined with

what are frequently perceived to be altruistic

motives, can work to their advantage, providing them with greater leverage than would ordinarily be predicted by their size (45).

Funding is the major constraint for nearly all

grassroots activities. Many individuals support

their efforts with personal resources, Organizations usually obtain operating funds from

membership dues, fees, sale of materials, and

donations. Because they want to involve as

many people as possible, groups frequently are

reluctant to increase their funding by raising

dues. Several groups depend heavily on grants

from charitable foundations or, occasionally,

industry. However, many grassroots groups

may lack the expertise, inclination, or time to

seek such funding. The volunteers in these groups

would generally rather devote their energies to

actually preserving or protecting agricultural

crops or livestock, wild species, or ecosystems

than preparing lengthy documents; proposal

preparation usually is restricted to those groups

with paid staff.

Many grassroots groups depend largely on

the enthusiasm and contributions of volunteer

members. Grassroots projects can be particularly vulnerable when the organization depends

on one or a few individuals. Although this constraint is, to some extent, built into the nature

of volunteer grassroots groups, some organizations have tried to overcome it. The Rhododendron Species Foundation is working to ensure

its long-term survival by developing endowments which wouId fund their daily operations.

Organizations that are sponsored by other

smaller groups, such as the Southeast Alaska

Conservation Council and the Greater Yellowstone Coalition, do not concentrate leadership responsibility y into one or a few people and

are, thus, more easily able to replace key individuals. Institutionalizing their activities would

be difficult, however, for many groups and it

might reduce the vitality of their efforts.

3.

51

Federal and State laws, policies, and actions

can have a considerable positive and negative impact on the effectiveness of grassroots groups.

Most of the activities highlighted in this background paper maintain biological diversity with

little or no direct government subsidy. These

groups frequently serve the public interest at

their own expense without expecting reimbursement, However, government laws and policies

can inadvertently constrain the efforts of individuals and groups, Conversely, greater government recognition or support could provide both

encouragement and stability, in many cases, at

minimal expense.

The individuals active in grassroots organizations are usually volunteers. The organizations depend on members and other interested

individuals to donate funds, equipment, facilities, and even land to accomplish their goals.

The tax deductible status of most grassroots

groups is an important device for attracting support. With mounting concerns over Federal

budget deficits, charitable contributions are

coming under greater scrutiny, Should charitable deductions be reduced or eliminated, donations—a major source of funding—might be seriously curtailed.

Another legal mechanism used extensively by

many land preservation groups is the conservation easement. However, tax laws on deductions for such easements are vague, and some

local Internal Revenue Service offices have

adopted policies which discourage such donations, The frequently complex issues surrounding land donation and acquisition present major obstacles to groups lacking legal expertise.

Although the Land Trust Exchange helps grassroots groups address many of the legal questions

involved in land acquisition, clarification of the

issues, particularly those surrounding conservation easements, could facilitate these efforts,

Federal policies and programs maintaining

diversity of plant and animal germplasm vary

considerably. Perhaps best defined is the National Plant Germplasm System, which is responsible for collecting, evaluating, and storing agricultural crops and their wild relatives.

A number of grassroots groups supplement the
52

Federal program by maintaining heirloom and

endangered commercial varieties of vegetables

including many which are not contained in existing national collections. To date, these grassroots activities have received little recognition,

and minimal effort has been made to incorporate their materials into the national system.

Increased cooperation between these groups

could not only strengthen these grassroots efforts but also improve the national collections

of crop germplasm. Among other things, representatives of grassroots groups could be enlisted

to participate in national plant germplasm advisory committees.

The Federal Government has no formal program to sample, evaluate, and preserve endangered sources of domesticated animal germplasm. However, several grassroots programs

maintain living collections of various rare

breeds of livestock. The value of these efforts

to maintain diversity among minor livestock

breeds would be greatly enhanced by establishing a Federal program which could provide

direction, technical expertise, and support for

these grassroots efforts.

Finally, the effectiveness of grassroots activities could be enhanced through greater assistance from State and Federal agencies in areas

that require technical expertise, such as plant

or animal breeding or germplasm storage. The

expense and expertise required by sophisticated

technology put it beyond the reach of most

groups and individuals. Although larger botanical gardens, arboreta, and zoos are technically

sophisticated, their conservation role is relatively recent and limited, so far, to a few institutions. For smaller groups, appropriate technology is essential. The Seed Savers Exchange,

for example, has sought assistance from outside

experts in developing simple seed propagation

and storage methods which could be used effectively by gardeners who want to preserve

seed,

4. Network organizations that coordinate the

activities of individuals and small grassroots groups can enhance the contributions

to the maintenance of biological diversity.

This background paper has described several

organizations that coordinate the efforts of individuals and small grassroots groups. Such network groups overcome many of the constraints

described in the previous section by pooling resources, experience, and expertise. They can

elicit broader support by defining goals that go

beyond the narrow objectives of individuals or

local groups. They also can function as intermediaries articulating the concerns of their constituencies to government agencies and decisionmakers.

Network organizations can reduce the vulnerability of rare or endangered plants and animals

being maintained by individual collectors.

Groups such as the Seed Savers Exchange, the

American Federation of Aviculture, North

American Fruit Explorers, and the American

Minor Breeds Conservancy y identify and coordinate the activities of individuals who maintain

collections of rare plants or animals. In so doing, they reduce the chances that a collection

will be lost if a member, for whatever reason,

is no longer able or willing to maintain it. They

also reduce vulnerability y by encouraging other

individuals to become involved in maintaining

collections,

Many grassroots groups confront technical

or legal problems for which they lack expertise.

By allowing them to benefit from the experiences of others with similar interests and problems, network organizations provide technical

expertise that might otherwise be unaffordable.

The Land Trust Exchange, for example, provides legal information to the land trust community at minimal cost. Networks also can address technical problems such as proper genetic

management of captive populations. The Center for Plant Conservation and the American

Association of Zoological Parks and Aquariums

both set standards and priorities to maximize

the use of limited resources.

The technical problems are particularly acute

with off-site maintenance of animal germplasm.

Most grassroots activities must maintain living

collections for a variety of reasons; for example,

they cannot use sophisticated propagation or
53

storage technologies such as cryopreservation

of semen or embryos, Grassroots efforts also are

criticized because they do not have the breeding expertise necessary to maintain genetic diversity and stability, Even large efforts, such

as Texas Game Ranching may inadvertently

breed animals so genetically adapted to their

new homes that re-introduction to native habitats is impossible. The grassroots community

has addressed such problems in part by establishing breed registries and obtaining professional advice through network organizations.

The specific goals of many grassroots groups

would receive a more attentive hearing if their

connection to larger issues were explained.

However, the local focus of many individuals

and groups makes it difficult for them to relate

their activities to larger national or regional issues. By combining their efforts, such groups

can achieve a broader perspective and consequently may accomplish far more than they

could individually. The Greater Yellowstone

Coalition, for example, unifies the efforts of

many groups in a broad region by identifying

larger goals and allowing constituent groups to

define their interests and potential contributions

with in that context. Such coordination is essential in conserving large regional sites which are

governed by many jurisdictions, The benefits

of such cooperation also are evident in the current campaign to coordinate the cleanup of the

Chesapeake Bay.

Network organizations also express their constituents’ concerns to government. Through

lack of expertise or funds, small local groups

frequently have difficulty conveying their concerns to decisionmaking officials. Groups with

broad recognition, such as the Florida Audubon

Society, perform a dual function. First, they help

local chapters define local issues; then the network can intercede for them at the State level

when necessary. Similarly, the Southeast Alaska

Conservation Council provides technical assistance to its constituent groups and gives them

a stronger voice with the Federal Government

and the U.S. Forest Service by incorporating

their concerns to its overall plans for the region.

The grassroots networks described in this

background paper demonstrate how much can

be accomplished on very limited resources. The

publications they produce are primarily intended to improve their own capabilities but are

often of great value to others including government agencies. Notable is the Garden Seed Inventory published by the Seed Savers Exchange

which identifies threatened commercial varieties of vegetables. The inventory allows seed

companies to determine when they are the sole

source for a variety, and also could be used by

the National Plant Germplasm System to identify commercial varieties to be stored by the National Seed Storage Laboratory. Recent efforts

by the American Minor Breeds Conservancy

to keep track of rare livestock breeds being maintained by individuals and breed associations

could become a similar early warning system

that would alert scientists and others to the imminent extinction of specific breeds.

The Federal Government could enhance the

effectiveness and reduce the vulnerability of

these networks through greater support, including resources, technical assistance, and in some

cases, simple encouragement and recognition.

Increased communication between grassroots

networks and Federal and State agencies also

could help identify areas where these sectors

could cooperate for mutual benefit. Some of

these grassroots networks in effect subsidize

government responsibilities; and Federal or

State governments could consider supporting

such projects accordingly.

Appendix A

Acronyms

AAZPA —American Association of Zoological Parks and Aquariums

AFA —American Federation of

Aviculture

ALHFAM —Association of Living Historical

Farms and Agricultural

Museums

AMBC —American Minor Breeds Conservancy

ANILCA —Alaska National Interests Lands

Conservation Act

BLM —Bureau of Land Management,

U.S. Department of the Interior

CAST —Council for Agricultural Science

and Technology

CITES —Convention on International

Trade in Endangered Species of

Wild Fauna and Flora

DTNA —Desert Tortoise Research Natural

Area

FAS —Florida Audubon Society

FWS —Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S.

Department of the Interior

GYC —Greater Yellowstone Coalition

IBPGR —International Board for Plant

Genetic Resources

NAFEX —North American Fruit Explorers

NAS —National Audubon Society

Native Seeds/—Native Seeds/Southwestern EnSEARCH dangered Aridland Resource

Clearing House

NCF

NFMA

NPGS

NSSI,

OES

OTA

PPOCI

RBRP

SEACC

SSE

SSP

TLMP

USDA

WEPLF

WPA/USA

—National

–National

Act

—National

System

--National

Colonial Farm

Forest Management

Plant Germplasm

Seed Storage

Laboratory

—Office of Endangered Species,

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

—Office of Technology Assessment, U.S. Congress

—Prairie Preservation Society of

Ogle County, Inc.

—Rare Breeds Rescue Project

—Southeast Alaska Conservation

Council

—Seed Savers Exchange

—Species Survival Plans of the

AAZPA

–Tongass (National Forest, AK)

Land Management Plan

—U.S. Department of Agriculture

—Wildlife Education Program for

a Living Future

—World Pheasant Association of

the United States

57
Appendix B

Glossary

Agricultural variety: Modern crop or livestock variety or a locally adapted variety produced by

breeders. These include older, heirloom varieties

now replaced in cultivation practice.

Air-layering: Process of scraping the bark or outer

surface of a stem, surrounding it with wet sphagnum moss, and wrapping the sphagnum in plastic to induce rooting.

Artificial insemination: Introduction of semen into

the uterus or oviduct of an animal by other than

natural means.

Biological diversity: The variety and variability

within and among living organisms and the ecological complexes in which they occur.

Biome: A regional ecosystem type with similar communities of organisms.

Biota: The living organisms of a region.

Breed: A group of animals or plants related by descent from common ancestors and visibly similar in most characters. Taxonomically, a species

can have numerous breeds.

Breeding line: Genetic lines of particular significance to plant or animal breeders that provide

the basis for modern varieties.

Budding: A form of grafting in which a single vegetative bud is taken from one plant and inserted into

stem tissue of another plant so that the two will

grow together.

Centers of diversity: A region especially rich in the

concentration of different plants. Generally associated with richness of species and genes.

Community: A group of ecologically related populations of various species of organisms occurring

in a particular space and time.

Cryogenic: Involving the use of very low temperatures. For germplasm, it refers to the storage of

genetic material (seeds, sperm, embryos) at or

near the temperature of liquid nitrogen(–196° C).

Cultivar: International term denoting certain cultivated plants that are clearly distinguishable from

others by one or more characteristics and that

when reproduced retain their distinguishing

characters. In the United States, “variety” is considered to be synonymous with cultivar (derived

from “cultivated variety”).

Cuttings: A plant piece (stem, leaf, or root) removed

from a parent plant which is capable of developing into a new plant.

Ecosystem: An ecological community together with

its physical environment, considered as a unit.

Espalier: A plant trained to grow against a flat support, as a wall or trellis.

Ex-situ: Pertaining to study, or maintenance of an

organism or groups of organisms away from the

place where they naturally occur. Commonly

associated with collections of plants and animals

in storage facilities, botanic gardens, or zoos.

Exotic species: An organism that exists in the free

state in an area, but which is not native to that

area. Alternately, refers to animals from outside

the country in which they are held in captive or

free-ranging populations.

Extinction: Disappearance of a taxonomic group of

organisms from existence in all regions.

Extirpation: Disappearance of a form from existence in a local or regional area.

Feral: A domesticated species that has adapted to

existence in the wild state, but that remains distinct from other wild species. Examples are the

wild horses and burros of the West, and the wild

goats and pigs of Hawaii.

Gamete: The sperm or unfertilized egg of animals

that transmit the parental genetic information to

offspring. In plants functionally equivalent structures are found in pollen and ovules,

Gene: A chemical unit of hereditary information

which can be passed from one generation to

another.

Genome: The genes which compose an organism.

More specifically this refers to those genes found

in the reproductive cells of an organism.

Genotype: The genetic constitution of an organism,

as distinguished from its physical appearance.

Genus: A category of biological classification ranking between the family and the species, comprising structurally or phylogenetically related species or an isolated species exhibiting unusual

characteristics.

Germplasm: An imprecise term generally used to

refer to the genetic information of an organism

or group of organisms.

Grafting: The technique of bringing the parts of two

plants together such that they grow together, one

deriving nutrients and growing from the other.

Grow-out: The process of growing a plant for the

purpose of producing fresh, viable seed and to

evaluate its varietal characteristics.

Habitat: The place or type of site where an organism naturally occurs.

Hardiness: Capability of survival under adverse

58
59

environmental condit

environments].

ions (e. g., cold or saline

Heirloom: Generally refers to old varieties of crops,

not found in general cultivation that have been

handed down from one generation to another.

Hybrid: An offspring of a cross between two gen

ically unlike individuals.

Inbreeding: Mating between relatives.

Indigenous: Organism produced or living natural

in a specific environment.

et-) .

l y

Landrace: Primitive or antique varieties usually

associated with traditional agriculture. Often

highly adapted to local conditions.

Minor breed: A livestock breed not generally found

in commercial production.

Native: A plant or animal indigenous to a particular locality.

Newcastle’s disease: A destructive and highly contagious virus disease of birds that affects the respiratory and nervous systems.

Off-site: Maintenance or study of organisms away

from an organism’s native environment.

Old-growth forest: A mature forest stand growing

on a site which has not been previously cut for

timber production.

On-site: Maintenance or study of organisms within

a n organism‘s native environment.

Open-pollinated: Plants which are pollinated by

physical or biological agents (e.g., wind, insects)

and without human intervention or control.

Panmictic: Relating to the random mating within

a breeding population.

Phenotype: The observable appearance of an organism, as determined by environmental and genetic

influences (in contrast to genotype).

Population: A group of organisms (of the same species) occupying a specific geographic area,

Potted culture: Growing of a plant in a container.

Predator: An animal that obtains its food primarily

by killing and consuming other animals.

Species: A taxonomic subdivision of the ranking genus and includes closely related, morphologically

similar individuals that actually or potentially interbreed.

Taxon: A taxonomic group or entity (pl, taxa).

Taxonomy: A hierarchical system of classification

of organisms which best reflects the totality of

similarities and differences.

Variety: See cultivar.

Variety testing: Grow-out of a plant cultivar for the

purpose of assessing its performance characteristics, such as production, disease resistance, and

drought stress.

Wild relative: Plant species that are taxonomically

related to crop species and serve as potential

sources for genes in breeding of new varieties of

those crops.

Wild species: An organism captive or living in the

wild that has not been subject to breeding to alter

it from its native state.

Wildlife: Living, nondomesticated animals.
Appendix C

Grassroots Workshop, Aug. 12, 1985

George Fell Hans Neuhauser Jonathan Shaw

Natural Lands Institute The Georgia Conservancy, Inc. Bok Tower Gardens

Rockford, IL Savannah, GA Lake Wales, FL

Elizabeth Henson Edward Schmitt Kent Whealy

American Minor Breeds Conservancy Brookfield Zoo Seed Savers Exchange

Hardwick, MA Brookfield, IL Decorah, IA

60
Appendix D

Commissioned Papers and Authors

Report on Grass Roots Genetic Conservation Efforts

Cary Fowler

Rural Advancement Fund

An Assessment of the Conservation of Animal Genetic Diversity at the Grassroot

Level

Elizabeth Henson

American Minor Breeds Conservancy

Role of Grassroots Activities in the Maintenance of Biological Diversity: Living Plants

Collection of North American Genetic Resources

Gary Nabhan and Kevin Dahl

Native Seeds/SEARCH

Grassroots Groups Conerned With In-Situ Preservation of Biological Diversity in the

United States

Elliott Norse

The Ecological Society of America

References

1.

2.

3,

4<

5.

6.

7.

8.

9. .

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17

18

19

AAZPA, “Species Survival Plan, ” The Americ;an

Association of Zoological Parks and Aquariums,

Wheeling, WV, undated,

Abundant Life Seed Foundation, 1985 Catalog

and Book List [Port Townsend, WA, 1985].

Adler, J., “The Edge of Extinction, ” ,\’e~t’stteek,

Jan. 30, 1984.

American 1{ ort i cultural Society, North American Horti[:ulture. A Reference Guide, 1982. In:

sha~t, 1985 (61].

Anon, “No Fear of the Big Bad Wolf, ” Tim e

1 :56, Jan. 23, 1984.

Armstrong, S., “Home on the Range—Where

the Rhino, Orjx, and Zebra Play, ” Christian

Science Nlonitor, Feb. 19, 1985.

Ajensu, E. S., and DeFilipps, R. A., Endangered

and Threatened Plan ts of the United States

[Washington, 1)(;: Smithsonian Institution Press,

1978).

Berry, K., “Tortoises for Tomorrow, ” The Nature Conser~ranc~r i’tfagazine, November/December 1979.

Berrj, K., Bureau of Land Management, personal communication, December 1985.

Camenzind, F. J., “Yellowstone Ecosystem, ”

Park Science 5(2):12-14, 1985.

Center for Plant Conservation, “Program Development Plan and Budget, ” Januarj 1985.

Cole, J., Gass, V., and Hodgson, W,, Desert Botanical Garden, response to questionnaire for

preparation of Nabhan and Dahl, 1985 (41).

Conservation Foundation, National Parks for a

Net,, Generation: Visions, Realities, Prospects,

1985, pp. 13-28.

Corrcll, P. G., Botanical Gardens and Arboreta

of ,Vorth America: An Organizational .$ur~’evv

(Los Angeles: American Association of Botanical Gardens & Arboreta, Inc., 1980).

Council for Agricultural Science and Technology’, Animal Germplasm Presert’ation and Utilization in Agriculture, report No. 101, Ames,

IA, 1984.

Crawford, R. D., “Status of Rare and Feral Domestic Animal Stocks in Canada and the United

States, ” Proceedings of the Second World Congress on Genetics Applied to Li~’estock Production 6:107-1 16, 1982. In.’ Henson, 1985 (28).

Ehrenfeld, D., The Arrogance of Humanism

[New York: Oxford University Press, 1981).

Ehrlich, P. R., and Mooney, H. A., “Extinction,

Substitution, and Ecosystem Services, ” 13ioScience 33(4):248-254, 1983.

Emory, B., Executi\e Director, Land Trust Ex20.

21.

22.

23,

24.

25.

26.

27.

28.

29.

30.

31

32,

33.

34,

35<

change, personal [;om m u nicat ion, September

1985.

Engler, W.. “Living With Li[estock: A Primer

on I,ivestock Use at I,i[~ing H istori(; al Farms, ”

Pro(;eedings of the American Li\ing Histor~

Farm and Agricultural ,!t!useum [;onf[?ren[:e.

,Madison, WI, June 1983. ln: Hen son, 1985 (26).

Erickson, R. C., “Propagation Studies of’ Endangered Wildlife at the Patuxent (;cnter, ” international Zoo Yearbook 10:40-47, 1980,

Fitzhugh, H. A., Getz, W., and Baker, F. H., “Status and Trends of Domesticated Animals, ” OTA

commissioned paper, 1985.

Foose, T. J,, “Capti\re Propagation of Sumat ran

Rhinoceros, A Proposal: AAZPA, ” 1983, III:

Lucas and Oldfield, 1985 (36).

Fouler, C., “Grassroots Genetic Conser\’ation

Efforts, ” OTA (commissioned paper, 1985.

Gilbert, B., “Reflections on Ha\\’ king,” Audubon

87:136-141, 1985.

Henson, E., “A Summar~’ of Grassroots Act i\-

ity in the Conser\’ation of B iologica] I)i\’ersitjr

in I)omestic Farm Livestock, discussion paper

prepared for the Office of Technologjr Assessment Workshop on U.S. Grassroots Activities

in Maintaining Biological D i~’ers it~r, August

1985,

Henson, E., “American Cream Draft Horse

Association, ” unpublished article, 1985.

Henson, E.].., “An Assessment of the Conser-

~Tation of Animal Geneti(; Di\~ersity at the Grassroot Le\el,” OTA commissioned paper, 1985.

Hoard’s Dair~man, “What Are We Doing About

Nature’s Most Perfect Food?” 127:148~, 1982.

Zn: CAST, 1984 (15).

Illinois Department of Conservation, Illinois

Natural Areas Inventor~, Summar~ Report

[Urbana-Champaign, IL: Department of landscape Architecture, Universit\~ of Illinois; and

Rockford, IL: Natural I.and Institute, November 1978].

International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources, JVorld Conser~’ation Strateg~’ (Gland, Switzerland: IUCN, 1980).

Jabs, C., “Seeds of the Past for the Future, ”

Orion Nature Quarterl~, \rol. 4, No. 2, spring

1985.

Jabs, C., The Heirloom Gardener (San Francisco, CA: Sierra Club Books, 1984].

Jennings, J., “What Does the New York Legislation Mean?” The A.F.A. W’atchbird 12[1):22-

23, 1985.

Koehler, B., Executive Director, Southeast

65
66

36,

37,

38.

39,

40<

41

42.

43,

44.

45.

46.

47.

48.

49,

50.

Alaska Conservation Council, Inc., personal

communication, October 1985.

Lucas, G., and Oldfield, S., “The Role of Zoos,

Botanical Gardens and Similar Institutions in

the Maintenance of Biological Diversity, ” OTA

commissioned paper, 1985.

Mattice, H. R., and Dingle, S., “The New York

Ban on the Sale of Wild Caught Birds” (editorial), The A.F.A. Watchbird 12(1), 1985.

Mott, W. P., Jr., Yel)owstone Reflections, Greater

Yellowstone Report, Greater Yellowstone Coalition, summer 1985,

Myers, N., A Wealth of Wild Species [Boulder,

CO: Westview Press, 1983),

Nabhan, G., “Native Crop Diversity in Aridoamerica: Conservation of Regional Gene Pools, ”

Economic Botany Monographs 39(4):387-399,

1985.

Nabhan, G., and Dahl, K., “Role of Grassroots

Activities in the Maintenance of Biological

Diversity: Living Collections of North American

Genetic Resources, ” OTA commissioned paper,

1985.

Namkoong, G,, “Conservation of Biological

Diversity by In-Situ and Ex-Situ Methods, ”

OTA commissioned paper, 1985.

Neuhauser, H,, “Environmental Advocacy Organizations and Natural Diversity, ” a discussion paper prepared for the Office of Technology Assessment for the OTA Workshop on U.S.

Grassroots Activities in Maintaining Biological

Diversity, August 1985.

Niethammer, C., et al. (eds.), Seed Banks Serving People: Highlights of a Workshop, October

9-10, 1981 (Santa Monica, CA: Means for Millions/Freedom from Hunger Foundation, 1982),

In: Nabhan and Dahl, 1985 (41).

Norse, E. A., “Grassroots Groups Concerned

With In-Situ Preservation of Biological Diversity in the U.S., ” OTA commissioned paper,

1985.

North American Fruit Explorers, “A Fruitful

Experience, ” privately printed, not dated.

Oldfield, M. L., The Value of Conserving Genetjc

Resources (Washington, DC: U.S. Department

of the Interior, National Park Service, 1984),

Percy, D. O,, LiI’ing Hjstorjcal Farms: The Working Museurns (Accokeek, MD: The National

Colonial Farm and Institute of Museum Services, 1981). In: Woods, 1985 (84).

Percy, D. O,, Director of the National Colonial

Farms, personal communication, Nov. 7, 1985.

Piacentini, R. V., Director of Rhododendron

Species Foundation, personal communication,

Nov. 1. 1985.

51.

52.

53.

54.

55.

56.

57.

58.

59,

60,

61.

62.

63.

64.

65.

66.

67.

Pister, E. P., “Desert Fishes and Their Habitats,”

Trans. Amer. Fish. Soc, 103:53 I-s4o, 1974.

Pister, E. P., “The Conservation of Desert Fishes, ”

Fishes in North American Deserts, R.J. Naiman

and D,S, Soltz (eds. ) (New York: John Wiley &

Sons, 1981), pp. 411-445.

Pister, E. P., “Desert Pupfishes: Reflections on

Reality, Desirability, and Conscience, ” Environ.

Biol. Fishes 12(1):3-12, 1985.

Prairie Preservation Society of Ogle County,

Inc., “By Laws” (Illinois: 1978).

Prescott-Allen, R,, and Prescott-Allen, C., What’s

Wildlife Worth? (London: International Institute

for Environment and Development, 1982).

Reid, T. R., “Yellowstone Has To Be Bigger, ”

The Washington Post, June 23, 1985.

Rolston, H., III, “Values in Nature, ” Environmental Ethics 3:1 13-128, 1981,

Schmitt, E., “Efforts To Preserve Genetic Diversity Through the Maintenance of Exotic Species, ” discussion paper prepared for the Office

of Technology Assessment Workshop on U.S.

Grassroots Activities in Maintaining Biological

Diversity, August 1985.

SEACC, “The Citizen’s Guide to the Tongass

National Forest” (Juneau, AK: Southeast Alaska

Conservation Council, Inc., 1985).

Seal, U. S., et al,, “ISIS: A Computerized Record System for the Management of Wild Animals in Captivity, ” International Zoo Yearbook

17:68-79, 1977, In: Lucas and Oldfield, 1985 (36).

Shaw, J. A., “Public Gardens and Their Role in

the Conservation of Endangered American

Plants, ” paper prepared for the Office of Technology Assessment Workshop on U.S. Grassroots Activities in Maintaining Biological Diversity, August 1985.

The Shepherd’s Friend, “AMBC Begins Rare

Breed Rescue Project, ” vol. 1, No. 1, April 1985.

Shinn, R., “The American Minor Breeds Conservancy, ” Presentation at the 1985 Annual

Meeting of the Association for Living Historical Farms and Agricultural Museums, Williamsburg, VA, June 17, 1985.

Shomer, F., “Dear Friends, ” Abundant Life

Seed Foundation Newsletter 7(2):1-4, 1983.

Smith, C., “Economic Benefits of Conserving

Animal Genetic Resources, ” Animal Genetic

Resources Information 3 (Rome: Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations,

1984) pp. 10-14. In: Fitzhugh, et al,, 1985 (22).

Smith, C., “Genetic Aspects of Conservation in

Farm Livestock, ” Livestock Production Scjence

11(1):37-48, 1984. In: Fitzhugh, et al., 1985 (22).

Smith. ,,D.. “Woman Wants Crv of Wolf. Not

d
68

69,

70.

71.

72

73,

74.

75.

. .

1 lol~l of’ Industry, ” The Llails Journal 67(253),

June 26, 1978.

Sjrngc, ii., “Status and Trends of Wild Plant

Species, ” OTA commissioned paper, 1985,

Thibodeau, F. R., Center for Plant Conservation,

persona] communication, ~To\ember 1985.

Turner, E., Fort Worth Zoo, Texas, persona]

(;ommuni(; at ion, No~cmber 1985.

LT1litec~ Nations f7c~u(;ationa], S{:ientific and (_u].

tural Organization, Final Report, International

~~~[)r~jng ,+ f[:etjng on En\’jronrnenta] Education

in the School Curriculum, Carson City, NV, Intcrnat iona] Union for conser~ation of Nature

and Natural Resour(;es, 1970. In: Ford, P. h!.,

Principles anci Practices of Out~oor/En~’jronmental E[~ucatjon (NewT York: John Wile~ &

Sons, 1981).

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Plant Germplasm: Consertatjon and Use, prepared by the

Nat ional Plant Genetic Resources Board, 1984,

U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wild1 ife Ser\ice, Twelve-Month Finding on the Desert

Tortoise, memo to Associate Director, Federal

Assistance from Chief, Office of Endangered

Species, Sept. 18, 1985.

U.S. Department of State, Proceedings of the

[], s’. ,$trategl Conference on Biological Dit’er-

~it~’, \Vashington, DC, April 1982.

\’ietmeyer, N., “Saving the Bounty of a Harsh

and Meager IJa nd, Audubon 87(1):100-107,

1985.

76.

77,

78.

79.

80.

81.

82.

83

84<

67

~~a~chbird, “The A,F. A. Watchbird, ” American

Federation of Aviculture, Redondo Beach, CA,

April/May 1985.

Wellborn, S. N., ‘*Exotic Animals Find Ne\\

Home on the Range, ” ~~.s. ~\’eIl.L~ &. ~~~orl~ R{?_

port, Apr. 29, 1985, pp. 77-80.

Westman, W. E., “Ho\v Much Are Nature’s

Services llTorth?” Science 197:960-964, 1977.

Whealy, K. (cd.), The Garden Seed ln[’entor~

(Decorah, IA: Seed Sa~er Publications, 1985).

Wheal~, K., “Role of the Seed !%~’ers Exchange

in Maintaining Genetic Di\’ersit \,’ discussion

paper prepared for the Office of Technology

Assessment Workshop on U.S. Grassroots Activities in Maintaining Biological Di\’ersity, ALIgust 1985.

Wilkes, G., “Current Status of Crop Germplasm”

CRC Critical Re~iettrs in Plant Sciences, 1983,

pp. 133-162,

Willis, J. C., A Dictionar~ of the Flo~t’ering

Plants and Ferns, 7th ed. (Cambricige: Cambridge University Press, 1966).

Winckler, S., “A Zoo Called Texas, ” Audubon

87:73-81, 1985,

Woods, T. A., “1.iving History Farms: Their

Present and Potential Contributions to Plant \’ariety Preser\~at ion, ’ paper prepared for the Office of Technology Assessment, 1985.