My understanding is that pocket gophers are a bit like island
populations. They are highly localized with limited genetic contact over
even short distances. Thus significant evolutionary units are quite
vulnerable.

Gene Hunn.

On Wed, 8 Nov 1995, Scott Richardson wrote:

> Jim Rosso wrote:
> We don't need to have people build tunnels for pocket
> gophers. Or did I miss something?
>
> My guess is you missed something.
> I believe the following subspecies of _Thomomys_ are candidates for state
> listing. Two of them were candidates for federal listing before the USFWS
> dumped the "candidate" terminology for Category 2 species.
> Brush Prairie Pocket Gopher _T. talpoides douglasi_
> Shelton Pocket Gopher _T. mazama couchi_
> *Roy Prairie Pocket Gopher _T. mazama glacialis_
> *Cathlamet Pocket Gopher _T. mazama louiei_
> Tenino Pocket Gopher _T. mazama tumuli_
> I'm not able to provide population data for these subspecies, but they are
> in trouble (and in one case, probably already gone gone gone). Pocket
> gophers have (or had) their place in the Puget Sound lowlands for a long
> while and deserve to be protected. Too bad the tunnels constructed on one
> piece of property didn't work, but I believe it was worth the try.
> Consider the case of a certain Threatened owl, one that probably played
> a pivotal role in the necessity of Referendum 48. Should a landowner
> maintain habitat for this subspecies, if it lives on his or her property?
> ------------------------
> Scott Richardson
> NE Seattle
> salix at isomedia.com
>
>