Comment on FR Doc # 2012-13421

The purpose of the refined classifications appears to be to use genetic data to further divide species into SUB-species. In the case of BIG HORN this seems to allow the desert big horn to suddenly become one and the same with the ENDANGERED (California) penninsular big horn. This is VERY interesting. Sub-species are basically the pre-cursor to a new, separate and distinct species. Sub-species are distinctly different from the main species but still capable of reproducing with their counterparts - after enough time they may become a completely separate species incapable of reproducing with their former counterparts. SO in the case of big horn they are LUMPERS. In the case of burros - they are SPLITTERS. Note especially that they seem to be trying to create a MUTT category for the wild burros - meaning regardless of what their genetic profile is they are classed together as dispensable genetically. This attempts to declare that the burros across north america are GENETICALLY NOT africanus and NOT subject to protection. From their stance they are pushing hard to protect SUB-SPECIES but unconcerned about sacrificing a globally endangered SPECIES. There is undoubtedly great reason for concern about preservation of genetic diversity, but as Marjorie has pointed out many times, they are engaged in species-ism. IF it becomes the policy of our government to allow the preservation of SUB-species we consider "native" at the EXPENSE of other SPECIES, and even worse if this policy is replicated by other nations - the global result for SPECIES will be disastrous. Think about the UN Food and Agricultural Organization's reports about global food security. They have indicated that wild herds should be preserved because of the LOSS of genetic diversity in LIVESTOCK around the globe. The provided a report documenting numerous EXTINCTIONS of livestock breeds. They do however include the typical mindset that wild herds should be preserved where they are NATIVE. This seems to be a HU