Need for Information and Planning

Although not direct threats, gaps in information and lack of appropriate conservation planning are considered issues that call for important actions to address conservation of SGCN and key habitats. Lack of information on the distribution, status, and ecology of SGCN and key habitats is considered critical because of the importance of having accurate information to respond appropriately and meaningfully to impending threats. 

It is important to point out that the original DEWAP first identified these as important needs over a decade ago. However, primarily due to budgetary and staffing constraints, large gaps in data exist and not all of these actions have been accomplished in regard to the collection and management of data. The same is true with the need for outreach and education and the need for dissemination of these data to targeted audiences and the public who can help reverse these impacts on wildlife.  

One of the greatest threats to SGCN in Delaware is lack of detailed knowledge of species distribution, biology, and ecological interactions. This is especially true of invertebrates, which present a number of special challenges. The vast number of species and taxonomic complexity of invertebrates renders their identification difficult and often requires the attention of a specialist. In addition, the large number of taxa and exceptionally small number of specialists translates into great difficulty in obtaining authoritative identifications. Finally, a few groups are understood well enough systematically to make it possible to identify them without retention of voucher specimens. The number of experienced systematists is declining as the number of students training for careers in systematics decreases, and the availability of systematic expertise will remain one of the more limiting factors for invertebrate study in the foreseeable future.  

Details of habitat and microhabitat needs and associations as well as interspecies interactions are lacking for many SGCN across taxonomic groups. 

Need for Education and Outreach 

The growing indifference of the public toward fish and wildlife conservation (Mccallum and Bury 2013) can pose an obstacle to implementing conservation. To further complicate this issue, public perceptions, concerns, and attitudes about species are not equal across taxa, with public awareness of invertebrates in particular often lacking. In general, this lack of knowledge results in the public not recognizing or valuing many ecologically and economically significant taxa.  

Need for Funding 

The lack of stable funding for wildlife and habitat conservation, education, and research at both state and federal levels creates challenges or obstacles that can be interpreted as a threat to implementing conservation. These underlying fiscal challenges interfere with the capacity of DFW and its conservation partners to fully implement the DEWAP. In 1842, a U.S. Supreme Court ruling resulted in the Public Trust Doctrine that said that wildlife resources are owned by no individual but instead are held in trust by government for the benefit of present and future generations. In short, most of the authority for managing wildlife rests with the states and the public bears responsibility for providing funding (AFWA 2011). The lack of appropriate dedicated funding, especially for wildlife diversity, severely constrains the ability of state fish and wildlife agencies to plan, build capacity, conduct long-term monitoring, and manage at landscape scales, all necessary in order to ensure success (AFWA 2011). 

Many SGCN are protected largely or in some cases exclusively by Delaware’s State Park system, especially Atlantic coast beach and dune species that occur in Cape Henlopen and Delaware Seashore State Parks. However, management budgets for Delaware’s State Park system and WAs are stretched very thin. 

Funding for protection of lands containing important habitats and SGCN occurrences is a major limitation for wildlife conservation in Delaware and is true for both public and private lands. Since its inception in 1991, Delaware’s Open Space program has protected over 63,000 acres, including much SGCN habitat, at a total cost of $287 million of state funds, which has been joined by over $103 million in partner funds. By law the Open Space Program is to receive $9 million per year from Realty Transfer Taxes, although the program only received about half that between 2016 and 2020 (DNREC 2020).  

Delaware also initiated a Forestland Preservation Program (FPP) in 2006 to purchase conservation easements on working forestlands, modeled after the very successful Agricultural Lands Preservation Program. The DFS, working with TNC and other partners, continues to seek additional funding for the FPP, which does not have a dedicated funding source. 

Research and monitoring funding is also limited, and the funds available to study and conserve biodiversity are often not distributed equally among taxa, with invertebrates in particular receiving a disproportionately small allocation for research and management. Populations of many SGCN, including state endangered species, are not monitored on a frequent or regular basis due to lack of resources.  

These funding issues must be corrected if Delaware is to continue to enjoy the diversity of wildlife and habitats it currently supports. 

Related Topics:  draft