Submitted Electronically via eRulemaking Portal

I think it's splendid that the Fish and Wildlife Service is endeavoring to preserve a species of fish, the Topeka shiner, by reintroducing the fish to some of its historical range. Every animal has an important role to play in its ecosystem, and permanent loss of any of the nodes of an ecosystem is abhorrent. Such loss is irreplaceable. However, I noticed that this nonessential experimental population (NEP) of Topeka shiner is indeed just that, nonessential, since the proposed rule allows for the legal incidental taking of Topeka shiner from this NEP. Now, I can understand reintroducing a fish species if its survival as a species is threatened, and I can understand allowing the taking of a fish species that is in no danger of becoming severely reduced or extinct, but I'm having trouble wrapping my mind around reintroducing a fish species to part of its former natural range and simultaneously allowing it to be taken. If anything, it seems cost-ineffective and labor-intensive for little return on investment. Still, though, it's apparent that the Topeka shiner isn't under direct threat from human fishing, but is more threatened by introduced piscivores, such as largemouth bass and crappie. Now I wonder, are there going to be measures taken to protect this NEP of Topeka shiner from the original causes of its decline? If I read the proposal correctly, the shiner was most threatened by introduced species and habitat destruction. Or, is the intent of this population purely experimental, to determine the Topeka shiner's capability for recovery in this part of its former natural range and the largest obstructions to this? What would the conclusion be if the introduced Topeka shiner population can't recover on its own? Would new measures be taken and more resources devoted to its reintroduction? And would a failure of the introduced NEP to establish itself reflect poorly on the chances of the primary wild population to recover?