Banner
    Environmentalists Resist Plan To Delist Gray Wolf As Endangered
    By News Staff | December 30th 2013 11:32 AM | 4 comments | Print | E-mail | Track Comments

    The federal government's proposal to discontinue protection for the gray wolf across the United States could have the unintended consequence of endangering other species, insist academics who don't actually live in places where wolves are running wild, threatening animals and people.


    They instead argue that it is a slippery slope - if the government can delist an animal because a habitat is unsuitable because a threat exists on the land, then that is the exact opposite of the service's mandate to impose regulations that reduce threats against imperiled species. They argue that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) has "conflated threats with habitat suitability" by stating that U.S. land currently unoccupied by wolves – most of the country that historically served as wolf habitat – is now unsuitable because humans living in those regions are in danger.

    This is similar to the stance California environmentalists have taken about mountain lions, saying if they enter someone's home or yard, the person is not legally allowed to shoot them but must instead flee because the animals were there hundreds of years ago.

    "The Fish and Wildlife Service is supposed to detail what the threats are and if they're substantial enough, they're supposed to list a species and put in place policies to mitigate the threats," said Jeremy Bruskotter, associate professor in The Ohio State University's School of Environment and Natural Resources and lead author of the paper. "Here, they're saying that they recognize the threat of human intolerance and instead of mitigating the threat, they're just going to say the land is unsuitable."

    Were this rule to stand, he said, "Anytime the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service finds that something is in the way of a species' recovery, they can just say the habitat is unsuitable for the species and disregard the threat altogether."

    FWS proposed removing the gray wolf (Canis lupus) from the list of threatened and endangered species in June - a full decade after government biologists, along with farmers and ranchers that actually live in the affected area recognized it needed to be done. The rule covers most of the continental United States, though the biggest impact will be where the population has come roaring back after nearly being exterminated in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Public comments closed Dec. 17th, and will be analyzed and considered before the service issues a final rule.

    Congress passed the Endangered Species Act in 1973, which gave the government expanded powers over previous legislation by providing for the protection of any species in danger of or threatened with extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range. The act's language is critical to what follows: In determining whether a species has recovered, the law requires FWS to declare it is no longer endangered in all or a "significant portion of its range." The gray wolf has recovered in the northern Rockies and upper Great Lakes. 


    Now the academic environmentalists say the government does not have the authority they claimed it has in every other instance, saying that the proposed rule discounts the other 85 percent of the wolf's historic range, which stretches across northern states from the west coast through New England and as far east as mid-Texas in the southern half of the country.

    "So what the service is saying is that wolves are going to be called recovered in most of the United States despite the fact that very few wolves live outside these two recovered areas," Bruskotter said. "Wherever they are now, that's their range – which means taking the historic and geographic component out of the listing process."

    He and colleagues suggest that this practice not only disregards the law, but "specifically creates incentive to destroy habitat in advance of a listing and do things that aren't good for endangered species."


    That's slippery slope reasoning, like claims that if the minimum wage is raised, jobs will all disappear. They are saying if this wolf is delisted as endangered in places where they put lives at risk, the Obama administration will suddenly declare war on the environment and destroy the environment to make more endangered species delisted.

    The law also requires the service to consider the "best available science" in assessing whether threats have eased and a species is recovered. Instead of citing the dozens of studies that suggest human support for wolf restoration is high, the service simply ignored this research and claimed that these areas are unsuitable because of human intolerance. When federal protection is lifted, species management falls to the states.

    "That process is not the best available science," Bruskotter said.

    Bruskotter acknowledged that FWS is trying to accomodate the opposing sides of a highly contentious fight about wolves: hunters and livestock producers who live in the region on one side and wildlife advocates and their lobbyists on the other. But that pressure doesn't relieve the service of its duty to act on behalf of endangered species as the law requires, he said.

    "The law is supposed to help the protected species, not just describe the threats to that species. But to construct this delisting rule, they've had to interpret policy and science in every case in a way that either disregards threats to wolves, or treats them as insurmountable,. They're doing the opposite of what the act requires," he notes, from his office in Ohio.


    Published in Conservation Letters.

    Comments

    Seriously? The obviously anti-wolf, anti-science slant of this editorial - masquerading as a scientific 'report' - immediately establishes its clear bias in the opening sentence, with this phrase: "… insist academics who don't actually live in places where wolves are running wild, threatening animals and people." And, tumbles rapidly downhill from that point on.

    I really expected more objectivity and less editorialization from a 'scientific' blog.

    Hank
    If anything, this would seem to slant pro-science and anti-wolf rather than anti-science and anti-wolf. The science says that an endangered species is not an entrenched political constituency that must be perpetuated regardless of the data. Wolves have been a success story, they will not suddenly be wiped out if people stop having to go to federal prison defending their livestock and pets from them.

    So what is your disagreement, since you invoked science? The squishy rationalizing about 'government should not do this' invokes science but cites none. Do you have a reason why wolves should remain on the endangered list when they are clearly no longer endangered?  Most importantly, do you live where wolves are?
    Wolves only hunt for survival! They are not glutinous like man!
    They are shy, they are family oriented, they partner for life. Destroying
    Such a creature just verifies how cruel and mean man truly is ! Please
    Help this beautiful creature live in harmony with us and how nature
    Intended them to be.
    Thank you

    Hank
    That describes lots of animals, and lots of people too. It seems odd you make a blanket stereotype about all humanity - hey, just because you are a glutton does not mean we all are - and then attribute some superior ethical stance to an animal you can't possibly know.

    No one said they can't live in harmony - they are not endangered. Why should one animal be allowed to kill another but we should only legally protect the predator?