CHAPTER 1I: APPROACH AND METHODS 52
7. Identifying Threats and Conservation Actions
for Species and their Habitats
7A. IDENTIFYING THREATS
The third element required by Congress in the development of this strategy involves the description of
problems which may adversely affect SGCN or their habitats. There are several different approaches
noted in the literature, but most rely on identification of “stresses” or “threats” and/or “sources of stress”
in the environment. To develop a list of potential problems or threats to wildlife and wildlife habitats in
Mississippi, the Technical Committee adapted the Proposed Taxonomy of Direct Threats developed by
the Conservation Measures Partnership in 2004 for describing categories of threats. These threat
categories were used in the survey, Evaluation of Species of Greatest Conservation Need in Mississippi
(Appendix III), to aid in identifying major problems affecting SGCN. The results of the survey were
compiled and presented to the members of the Advisory Committee, who reviewed and revised the
threats list by habitat subtype during working group meetings in March through May 2005 and were
posted for public review and comment in June 2005. Other conservation plans such as TNC’s
Conservation Area Plans for the Pascagoula River and the Pearl River were also consulted and used to
identify threats and potential conservation strategies.
The Technical Committee also assigned a high, medium or low rank to the identified threats to aid in
determining the most critical problems for each identified habitat subtype and to facilitate identifying
priority conservation actions. The assignment of ranks to these threats, while subjective, is a first attempt
to identify the magnitude of the threat. As additional planning and analysis of priority conservation areas
is developed in the future, a more detailed threats analysis using national conventions for measuring
threats is recommended.
Mississippi’s landscape has changed dramatically since European settlement. There are almost no places
left that have not been affected by man. Urbanization, agriculture, fencing, dams and stream
channelization, commercial forestry and many other actions have modified wildlife and fisheries habitat
and many of these land use changes have come at a great cost to wildlife. It is not our intent to debate
the benefits and detriments of land use changes and historical activities on Mississippi’s landscape. We
must rather take a meaningful look at the landscapes and habitats as they exist today and to develop
plans on how best to make improvements that benefit fish and wildlife, particularly those SGCN.
MDWFP recognizes that many problems or threats defined herein are based on legal and accepted
practices. Thus, the threats identified are meant to include those practices harmful to wildlife and it
should be understood that the manner in which a human activity or practice is conducted determines if it
has a negative, neutral or positive effect on wildlife populations.