Switchboard, from NRDC › Sylvia Fallon's Blog

Of mice and wolves - not so equal in the equality state

2009-06-24T01:17:14Z

I've written before about the saga surrounding the Preble's meadow jumping mouse - from political interference to mixed up lab samples - this little mouse with giant feet and a long tail has had a rough ride. And the final decision, from the Bush administration, was to split the mouse's endangered species protections along an arbitrary state line allowing protections to remain in the state of Colorado while removing protections in Wyoming.

This unconventional way of dividing up a species' protections is based on a controversial memo issued by a Bush appointee that allows the Fish and Wildlife Service to protect a species within a portion of its range rather than throughout its entire range.

Interestingly, this same approach has been used with the gray wolves in the northern Rocky Mountains where endangered species protections have been removed in Idaho and Montana, but retained in Wyoming.

What is it about Wyoming that makes you either endangered or not in a manner different than your neighbor?

In the case of the Preble's mouse, Wyoming contains the mouse's most northern habitat as well as its highest elevation habitat - both of which are likely to become increasingly important to the mouse with continued global warming. If part of a species' range is important to that species' survival, it's important to protect.

So today NRDC, along with a coalition of partners, is challenging the decision to remove protections from the mouse in the state of Wyoming. This case is about restoring full protections to the Preble's meadow jumping mouse, but it's also about protecting endangered wildlife in general. If we whittle away the area that these species need to survive, we'll soon find they have nowhere to stand - or jump, as the case may be.

Raising a naturalist in your own backyard

2009-06-22T15:00:25Z

I recently read an article that gave advice to parents on keeping their kids connected to nature in a (very) urban setting. One of the recommendations was to bring "natural elements" into your living space like sticks and leaves. We actually have a strict "no sticks in the house" policy with our son, but we do have a collection of rocks and sticks that he has deposited at our door upon returning from a neighborhood walk or backyard exploration.

As a mom of a young boy growing up in a metropolitan area, I worry about establishing and maintaining my son's interest in the natural world - when nature seems more remote and more disturbed than when I was a kid. After all, we named our son in honor of Aldo Leopold, but will our 'little Leopold' ever know or appreciate the natural world anywhere remotely in the way that his namesake did? Fortunately, I'm finding out that kids' fascination with living creatures and their insatiable curiosity makes them natural, uh, naturalists - in any setting.

We live just outside the DC limits in a livable, walkable neighborhood - but to get to some pristine nature, you've got to get in your car - and go far. When you look at life through the eyes of a child, however, it's amazing what you can find right outside your door.

Looking for insects and worms in our backyard is one of my son's favorite activities. At two and a half, he can identify a mourning dove and a red bellied woodpecker by sound. He will point to a robin and tell you, "That's a robin. They eat worms...and sometimes bugs." Because he has asked me about the sounds and diets of other birds, we keep the field guide to the birds of North America on his bookshelf right next to the Adventures of Winnie the Pooh. He and I like to try to imitate the sounds that different birds make based on the written descriptions. After looking up the 'big woodpeckers,' he will ask to see the peewees. ("They eat flies.")

Don't get me wrong. I don't take credit for any of this. Although I am a biologist and have spent plenty of time in the field identifying different critters - including a stint doing bird surveys for the National Park Service - I've never had the patience, will or mental capacity to become a true birder. But my capacity to mother is another thing - and if my son wants to know the name, song and diet of every bird he sees in our backyard, I can help him find the answers.

Like most things related to parenting, I probably don't need to worry as much as I do. Somewhat appropriately, it has been our little Leopold who has reminded us that there is natural wonder to be found almost anywhere you look - which is why tonight, after his bath, we'll put on our pajamas and go chase some fireflies.

Photo by respres' shared via Flickr

The "basically impossible, theoretical, worst-case scenario" for wolves takes effect today

2009-05-04T17:33:17Z

Last month, as the Department of the Interior finalized the on-again delisting of wolves in the Northern Rocky Mountains, I was out of the office experiencing the delirium of sleep deprivation that comes with the birth of a new child. So when I returned to work last week I sifted through hundreds of half-read and unread emails that accumulated in my absence including a slew of press clips on the wolves.

The piece that struck me the most was one in which the US Fish and Wildlife Service accuses NRDC of lying about the possible consequences of delisting wolves in the region. To be fair, the Service's wolf recovery coordinator, Ed Bangs, didn't actually use the word "lying" to describe our claims - I believe his words were "flat out spinning a bunch of horse pucky," but you get the point.

You see, there are currently somewhere in the neighborhood of 1,600 wolves in the Northern Rocky Mountains. The US Fish and Wildlife Service will tell you that upon delisting the states have committed to maintaining around a thousand of those wolves (a number, by the way, that we believe is inadequate to ensure longterm survival). We, on the other hand, would tell you that rather than being protected by the state plans those same thousand wolves are actually in danger of being exterminated. Now read on.

When Louisa Willcox defended NRDC's statements to the Missoula Independent by explaining that the only legally binding number of wolves the states are committed to maintaining is a few hundred (not over one thousand), Ed didn't disagree.

"That's true, Bangs acknowledges, but only under a 'theoretical, worst-case scenario' that's 'basically impossible.'"

What is impossible about the states exercising their legal right to reduce their wolf populations to the minimum number allowable? The Service may not think they will, but let's just say for a minute that they do, what recourse would there be? That's right - none.

That is why we will be challenging the delisting that takes effect today - as we did the last one. Because until there is a legally binding agreement that would prevent the states from drastically reducing their wolf populations, there is no way to ensure they won't do just that. And that's no horse pucky - that's just the truth.

Dances with wolves: one step forward, two steps back

2009-03-06T22:09:09Z

Today the Secretary of the Interior affirmed a Bush administration push to delist wolves in the Northern Rocky Mountains. This decision is obviously a great disappointment to those of us who have worked so hard to make sure that wolves in the Rockies are truly recovered and have the state protections they need to stay that way.

We agree with Secretary Salazar that wolves are a remarkable endangered species success story. But we don't believe that the state plans will ensure their long term survival. Even with the wolves still under federal protection, Idaho has been making plans to shoot at least 100 of its wolves. And last year when protections were briefly lifted it only took a matter of months for all three states to collectively kill over 100 wolves.

Because of the original recovery goals - which were developed more than 20 years ago and were never based on any scientific calculations or theory - the states would legally be able to reduce the number of wolves in the Northern Rockies from today's count of roughly 1500 wolves down to 300-450. That's not much more than the number that Idaho wants to kill right now. It's too few and it will only require protections to be reinstated in the future.

As I commented earlier, the current delisting plan also includes a new approach for ensuring that the three subpopulations in Idaho, Montana and Wyoming are connected by genetic exchange - namely tossing wolves in the back of trucks and dumping them off in new locations - and if that doesn't work, they would also consider switching pups between packs or using artificial insemination. Do any of these options sound like part of a successfully recovered (i.e. self-sustaining) population?

The lack of genetic connectivity between the three subpopulations was a major concern last year when protections were returned to the wolves. If there's reason to be concerned about genetic exchange now, there certainly will be if wolf numbers ever dip as low as the state plans allow.

We are arguing that we can get this right the first time around. Let's not recover wolves just to endanger them again. Let's take a fresh look at wolf recovery. I'm not saying we have to start this long process all over again - in fact I think we're almost there. But let's not just get there - let's stay there.

Let the black eagle soar

2009-03-04T16:55:08Z

Yesterday I had the honor of attending the Department of Interior's 160th anniversary celebration where President Obama gave an inspiring speech about the value of our public lands and the wildlife that inhabits them. Importantly, he said that for too long there has been a false dichotomy of having to choose between exploiting our nation's natural resources or preserving them. If we choose wisely, he says, we can do both.

His remarks were part of a bigger announcement in which he committed to returning science "to the heart of the Endangered Species Act." Under the Bush administration, scientists at the Interior department - particularly those working on endangered species - were not only ignored, they were sometimes outright bullied. Obama's promise that the work of those scientists will now be respected was met with such elation that it was palpable. The Interior employees had lived to see a better day and they were breathing a huge collective sigh of relief.

Despite being upstaged by the President, the rest of the program was equally noteworthy including renditions of God Bless America and America the Beautiful performed by the Department of Interior's own 6 person chorus and a presentation of the history of the department which included some eerie parallels between our current economic situation and the great depression with mention of how a public program designed to conserve our natural resources (the Civilian Conservation Corps) helped our country out of the depression.

Finally, there was the blessing by Jerry Cordova - the Native American Coordinator for the Bureau of Land Management - whose words in both his native language and in English were beautiful and poignant while reminding us what Native American's have known for so long - that we are the stewards of our land. We have been entrusted to care for it and are expected to pass it on for the benefit of future generations. He closed by making reference to when the Crow Nation adopted Barack Obama and bestowed on him the family name of his adoptive parents: Black Eagle. Cordova's blessing - which emphasized a responsible stewardship ethic - followed by the President announcing his commitment to our public lands and wildlife suggested that Obama may have inherited much more from the Native American community than a name.

The bell curve tolls for wolves

2009-01-15T16:49:30Z

Yesterday we pointed out that NRDC provided a detailed review of scientific arguments for the need for thousands of wolves in the rocky mountain region - that the Fish and Wildlife Service ignored. What they also ignored were comments that they themselves solicited from a wide variety of wolf experts. You may be interested to learn that the Service's recovery goals for wolves are not based on science, but on methodologically flawed opinion polls that were designed to elicit the responses that the Service wanted to hear - and any opinions that didn't conform to their liking were swept under the rug.

I've read them all and I thought that some of these opinions were worth bringing to the Service's attention, again. What I found to be important, relevant arguments to a critical part of the recovery planning process, the Service is calling "selected quotes from one end of the bell curve of all the diversity of opinion that was offered." I'll let you decide. Here are some quotes from the bell curve:

"By limiting the choices to those 3 options approved by the Service, plus a category of 'other', it may unfairly bias the results"

"Aren't these numbers a bit low and the time interval too short?"

"30 breeding pairs is still well below the 1% rule which I believe is overly low itself. I think this population size is still too marginal to be considered viable. These definitions are inadequate."

"There also appears to be agreement that 'several hundreds' of breeders are needed to ensure long-term evolutionary potential. The common value in the literature is Ne = 500 and that translates into the low thousands for a population size in wolves. By this criterion, the individual wolf populations as well as their metapopulation would not be evolutionarily viable."

"a definition of viability without quantify-able [sic] data to back it up is problematic and will be difficult to defend because it is subjective...Some reasonable attempt to model the dynamics of the N. Rockies population showing that 30 (breeding pairs)/300 (wolves) has a reasonable expectation to persist, is needed."

"Survival/mortality rates, age at first breeding, fluctuations in prey numbers, among other factors, should be incorporated into the determination of whether a population is viable...in the absence of such a quantitative assessment, it is subjective and conjectural to simply interpret 30/300 as meeting...population viability."

"Despite the intense study wolves have received in this region, and the wealth of population data that must be available to the Service, the Service has presented no quantitative modeling of the dynamics of the existing populations...Such a modeling effort is essential to gauge the relative worth, from a population viability perspective, of the various definitions you have asked us to consider."

"The fact that the Fish and Wildlife Service has not had the vision to support such a (spatially explicit, individual based) modeling exercise is not sufficient reason to force me to make wild guesses about the parameters of viability."

"None of the definitions offered by the Service is calibrated from the probability, length of time, or specific conditions of survival by 30 breeding pairs of wolves. Unless we are given such information, we are being asked to choose among three 'black boxes.'"

"It may be generally inappropriate to conduct an opinion poll, even from experts, when no quantitative analyses have been conducted to assess the issues at hand."

"Viability is relative, not strictly yes or no...One must consider population growth rates, spatial distribution, and source-sink dynamics, among other factors...The recovery area and population goals need to be expanded."

Going my way? Why wolves may need to start hitch-hiking

2009-01-15T16:30:00Z

When a federal judge returned endangered species protections to wolves in the northern Rocky Mountains last year, one of the deciding issues was the fact that the wolves in the three sub-populations of Wyoming, Idaho and Montana had not achieved genetic connectivity - one of the Fish and Wildlife Service's own criteria for delisting. Rather than working to address this problem, for example, by ensuring habitat corridors for wolves to travel through, the Service is issuing a new delisting rule with the simple clarification that they never meant to suggest that genetic exchange between populations needed to be natural.

Ed Bangs, the Service's wolf recovery coordinator, has been dismissing the importance of genetic connectivity for some time. Back in February of 2008 he told Science magazine, "Connectivity can happen through a ride in the back of a truck."

Now the Service has taken this a step further by formally denying its responsibility to establish natural genetic exchange between the populations by stating that, if necessary, they can always maintain genetic connectivity through "human-assisted migration management." More specifically, their October 28, 2008 proposed rule stated:

"We have never suggested, nor does the recovery goal require, that natural migration is the only approach to address (genetic connectivity)...Future managed genetic exchange could include relocating other wolf age and sex classes, cross-fostering young pups, artificial insemination, or other means of introducing novel wolves or wolf DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid) into a recovery area if it were ever to be needed."

Essentially, the Service is claiming that they do not need to recover a natural, self-sustaining population of wolves. Their answer to a lack of genetic connectivity is to perpetually manipulate the system - perhaps even through very invasive, unnatural means.

Not to overlook the legal (and moral) implications of their proposed plans, but biologically this doesn't make much sense. Let's put aside the more intrusive means of imposing genetic exchange and talk about the pick-up truck scenario.

As most people know, wolves are highly social animals that live in packs, but only a few individuals within the pack reproduce. Typically there is a dominant male and female (often referred to as the alpha pair) though there may at times be additional breeders. Nonetheless, many pack members do not breed in any given pack. Wolves are also territorial and often hostile to unfamiliar wolves. Simply throwing a wolf in the back of a pick-up truck and moving him to a new location is no guarantee that the wolf will be able to form his own pack or be accepted into an existing pack - much less ascend to the role of breeder. Allowing wolves to negotiate these complex social interactions by providing for the natural movement of wolves across the landscape is the only true solution.

But alas, this is the plan that the Service has issued. We will certainly challenge this rule, but until then I guess the wolves better start polishing off their thumbs if they want to catch a ride on the back of the next pick-up.

What's the time, Mr. Wolf?

2009-01-14T19:32:00Z

There is a rule in the children's game that when Mr. Wolf calls out "Midnight!" all the players run back to their starting point. Only this midnight rule is no game.

With their eyes on the ticking clock, the Fish and Wildlife Service announced today another attempt to remove endangered species protections from wolves in the northern Rocky Mountains. In doing so, the Bush administration has once-again shown their trademark approach to environmental issues: a blatant disregard for science and the law. In this case, they have also disregarded all of the hard work and careful negotiations that have made gray wolf recovery a success thus far.

To review, the Service removed endangered species protections from these wolves in the spring of last year, but legal action by NRDC and a coalition of partner organizations returned protections to the wolves when a court found the Service's plan to be legally and scientifically questionable. Rather than revising their plan, the Service simply re-opened their original plan for public comment and today issued an unprecedented and nonsensical rule that removes protections from wolves in Idaho and Montana while leaving protections in place in Wyoming.

What's more, the timing of the delisting only goes to emphasize the politics that are at play. It's as if Secretary Kempthorne is making one last closed-door favor to his home state of Idaho before heading out of power. Only this 'favor' doesn't help anyone.

It's obviously bad for the wolves and for anyone who cares about wildlife protections since the wolves have not quite achieved a recovered population. But I don't think this move helps the states either - or the ranchers and hunters who are in favor of having the wolves delisted. Putting forward a flawed plan that is almost certain not to hold up in court again, only fans the flames of emotions that run high on this issue - creating greater conflict and animosity rather than consensus on the issue of wolf recovery.

Ultimately, it takes all of us further away from the goal of having a recovered population of wolves that are no longer in need of endangered species protections.

So in its waning hours, rather than building public confidence in a legally and scientifically defensible plan, this administration has chosen to turn back the clock on recovering wolves. The only good news is that their own midnight clock is set to expire.

Photo by ovizoOn via flickr http://www.flickr.com/photos/ovizo0n/2144130222/

The King is Dead

2008-12-10T19:40:59Z

Yesterday I told the story of whitebark pine as the king of its ecosystem - making reference to the enormous role it plays in its community and also to the following photograph which I described as a sylvan Shakespearean character, Oberon, King of the Fairies.

We were announcing the filing of our petition to list whitebark pine as an endangered species due to the combined effects of climate change, mountain pine beetles and an invasive disease called blister rust.

As news of our petition made the rounds, we heard back from researchers who have been studying whitebark pine for years. One wrote with the following news:

"That photo is of a tree on Crater Lake's rim drive. While I was an ecologist there from 2002-2008, I became familiar with this tree. It is now dead from both blister rust and beetles."

Let's not have this be a harbinger for the rest of the species.

The Reign of Whitebark Pine

2008-12-09T15:42:00Z

Its not just any tree - you can tell from this picture. As my colleague, Niel Lawrence, remarked, it looks like a sylvan Oberon, King of the Fairies, sneaking up on Titania. Found in harsh, high elevation locations in the western US and Canada, whitebark pine may not be well known by many, but this spritely-looking tree is indeed the king of its ecosystem. Unfortunately, it has fallen victim to a perfect storm of forces that are now putting whitebark pine's reign in question.

Many of these trees are currently infected with a fungus called blister rust that specifically targets white pines. It was accidentally introduced from Europe by foresters in the late 1800s and has plagued whitebark pine ever since - slowly establishing itself throughout the species' entire range. More recently, in response to increasing temperatures, mountain pine beetles have begun expanding their range. These beetles typically have not been able to survive the cold environment of the high-elevation alpine forests, but as winter temperatures become milder the beetles are moving higher up. This means that while mountain pine beetles are a native insect, they act as an invasive species as they exploit whitebark pine as a new host that lacks the defenses to fight off the beetle attacks. Both blister rust and the pine beetles cause red pine needles called 'flags' that ultimately indicate dead and dying trees and we are beginning to see entire forests changing hue.

Aerial survey data over the last decade has documented a tremendous increase in these red trees throughout whitebark pine's range. Below is an aerial survey of dead whitebark pine from 1999 followed by one from 2007.

On top of this, trees are relatively immobile species in the sense that they cannot move, though their seeds can. They are also slow growing and may take more than half a century to start producing large cone crops. These attributes make high-elevation species like whitebark pine especially vulnerable to accelerating climate changes that threaten to move the conditions that support these trees right off the landscape.

But why do we care about this tree that has no commercial value and occurs in areas that few humans inhabit?

Whitebark pine is hailed as both a foundation and keystone species which means that it facilitates the existence of other species, thereby boosting biodversity by regulating and stabilizing fundamental ecosystem processes. For example, as an early colonizer to harsh, alpine habitat, whitebark pine provides shelter and windbreaks making the environment more hospitable for other plant life and animals. At its high elevation, the shade of whitebark pine trees slows the melting of snow and its roots stabilize the soil thereby moderating the runoff of snowmelt to reduce spring-time flooding and provide higher stream flows during summer months at lower elevations. Whitebark pine, which produces seeds that are high in fat content, is also an important food source for all kinds of wildlife from birds and squirrels to grizzlies and black bears. The loss of this tree would have profound impacts beyond its high-elevation enclave - affecting all of the services it provides throughout its ecosystem including the other plant and animal life it supports.

The threats that whitebark pine is facing today qualify it for protection under the Endangered Species Act which is why we have filed a petition with the US Fish and Wildlife Service asking them to protect the species from extinction. It is somewhat unusual to protect such a wide ranging tree, but this case is overwhelming. Fortunately, there is some indication that restoration of this important species may be possible - but we'll have to act quickly if we are to save this dynasty from ruin.

A wolf in wolf's clothing

2008-10-24T21:22:03Z

Well, here we go again. It was just last week that a judge handed US Fish and Wildlife Service's failed delisting rule back to them and returned endangered species protections to wolves in the northern Rocky Mountains. I hoped optimistically that the Service would use the opportunity to seriously rethink their flawed approach to wolf recovery, but I was wrong. Rather than issuing any kind of revised proposal, the Service announced today that they will reopen public comment on their original failed proposal in the hopes of delisting the wolves once again before this administration leaves office.

This amounts to a basic admission that they will not fundamentally alter their delisting rule which has already been deemed to be on shaky legal ground. Obviously they have to make some changes, but they are not going to take the time or courtesy to tell us what those changes are. Instead we will only find out their new plan once it is already finalized.

The Bush administration is really chasing the clock these days to undo as many environmental safeguards as possible on their way out the door while limiting the public comment process. Unfortunately, this means pushing through ill-conceived plans while overlooking science and the law. Not only do the wolves deserve better than this, but the public does too.

A second chance for wolves…and wildlife officials

2008-10-14T21:38:56Z

Today a federal judge agreed to allow the federal government to withdraw their delisting proposal and reinstate endangered species protections to wolves in the northern Rockies. After evaluating the judge's injunction decision from July, the US Fish and Wildlife Service decided they were not likely to win their battle in court. Rather than drag out an unfruitful process, they requested a withdrawal of the delisting proposal so that they could try to re-craft it instead.

This action is a direct result of a lawsuit filed by NRDC and its partners and achieves our goal of securing protections for the wolves until they are truly restored and there are enforceable state plans in place to guarantee their long-term survival. Combined with another recent, but separate court decision that invalidated the wolf delisting in the Great Lakes region, these events highlight some flaws with the Service's attempts to recover wolves in the lower 48 states.

Perhaps the biggest flaw in this process is the fact that the Service never prepared a comprehensive recovery plan for the gray wolf as a species. Instead they focused on recovering disjointed, local populations of wolves in three areas - the Great Lakes, the northern Rocky Mountains and the Southwest - and have been trying to delist the populations while claiming recovery for the species.

That is why NRDC sent a petition to the Service asking them to officially prepare a national recovery plan for wolves in the US as required by the Endangered Species Act. Not only do we need a coordinated, national vision for wolf recovery, but the regional plans of 20-30 years ago need to be updated. These recent court decisions present a tremendous opportunity to do just that. The Service now has a chance not only to rethink wolf recovery, but to get it right.

More mouse tales

2008-09-05T14:18:02Z

I don’t know if you’ve noticed, but in its last throes, the Bush administration has been launching an all out attack on the Endangered Species Act. This is on top of its consistent chiseling over the years which has led to fewer protections for endangered wildlife. Throughout it all, one of the Administration’s favorite targets has been the Preble’s meadow jumping mouse – an unassuming little mouse with giant feet and long tail for navigating its way mid-jump.

This mouse, which makes its home along pristine streamsides in the foothills of Colorado and southern Wyoming, has been embroiled in so much controversy it could write its own screenplay. First, there was the political appointee, Julie MacDonald, who tampered with a whole slew of endangered species decisions over the years including slashing the amount of critical habitat assigned for the Preble mouse’s recovery. Then there was the genetic study touted by the state of Wyoming, which claimed the Preble's mouse wasn't really a Preble's mouse, but a common jumping mouse found across the plain states of the US. Followed by a second genetic study that concluded the opposite- that yes, the Preble's mouse is a unique subspecies. An independent scientific panel was brought in to assess the situation only to discover that the first genetic study was based on contaminated samples - sloppy science at best. Case closed. No reason to remove protections from this threatened mouse.

But wait, there’s more. Last year, another Bush appointee, the Solicitor for the Department of Interior – hailing from the state of Colorado, issued a memo that would allow piecemeal protections for endangered species. The new policy, which is not subject to public review or congressional oversight, effectively changes how 35 years worth of endangered species protections would apply. And soon after, the Fish and Wildlife Service uses this policy to lift endangered species protections for Preble’s meadow jumping mice in Wyoming, while keeping them listed in Colorado. If they couldn’t find a way to achieve their ultimate goal of removing full protections from this mouse, they settled for the next best thing in what appears to be a political favor to the state of Wyoming.

But this isn't just about the mouse. This new policy has the potential to undo protections for every species now on the endangered species list and limit protections for imperiled wildlife in the future. That is why today NRDC has joined with partner organizations to challenge the policy and its application to the Preble's meadow jumping mouse. Unless this policy is reversed, the mouse's long tale of habitat loss and diminished protections will be just the beginning of the story for the rest of our endangered wildlife.

The big bad wolf...and other fairytales

2008-07-25T15:52:32Z

Yesterday in the mail I received a letter from an 8 year old boy named Ben. He had chosen to study the gray wolf for his school’s endangered species fair only to find out that the wolves in the Rocky Mountains were being removed from the endangered species list without adequate protections to ensure their long term survival.

He wrote a letter to the Bush administration asking them to keep protecting the wolves and got almost 170 signatures from kids, teachers and parents at his school. Keenly seeing beyond the rhetoric, Ben implores in his letter, “Please don’t let the fairy tales about wolves being mean make you think they are our enemies.”

I’m preparing to send a letter back to Ben thanking him for his efforts. And I’m glad that I can tell him that for now a federal judge has reinstated protections for the Rocky Mountain wolves.

But Ben’s letter raises another sharp point. Our children these days are not afraid of wolves – they’re afraid there may not be wolves and other majestic wildlife around when they grow up. And that story is enough to scare anybody.

By the way, mice can't read maps

2008-07-10T19:10:46Z

Today the Fish and Wildlife Service formally issued one of those decisions that makes you stop and scratch your head. They have decided to remove endangered species protections from the threatened Preble’s Meadow Jumping Mouse where it occurs in Wyoming while leaving it protected throughout the rest of its range in Colorado. This mouse, whose large feet can propel it three feet into the air, is found along pristine streamsides of the Front Range. The Service is arguing that the mice in Wyoming are facing fewer threats than those in Colorado and therefore don’t need protection. There’s actually not convincing evidence that the mice in Wyoming are better off, but even if there were, the logic behind today’s decision seems to be missing.

It may be too obvious to point out that the mice don’t know which state they are in. Now they can switch from being protected to not being protected all in a day’s work just by crossing an invisible (but highly political) line. More importantly, if a species is facing endangerment or extinction in one area, but fairing ok in another area wouldn’t you want to protect both areas to ensure the continued survival of the species? The populations that are doing well may be all that’s left if the other populations go extinct. And by not protecting the ones that are doing well, you are only further endangering their survival and therefore the future of the entire species.

For example, one of the biggest threats to the Preble’s mouse is real estate development along the Front Range of the Rocky Mountains from just south of Denver north into Wyoming. With today’s decision there is nothing to stop developers from moving their plans north into Preble’s habitat in Wyoming and then there would be nothing to protect the mice in Wyoming from facing the same threats they have been facing in Colorado.

The use of state lines to delineate protection for these mice just highlights the political nature of this decision. The state of Wyoming has been angling to delist the mouse for years including supporting a genetic study that was based on contaminated samples. For now, they’ve gotten their wish. But this kind of decision-making opens the door to arbitrarily assign piecemeal protections to any endangered species according to the Service’s whims.

In fact, this decision is so flawed and illogical – as one scientist put it – it chases its own tail. Ironically, the Preble’s meadow jumping mouse is known for using its tail - much like a rudder - to change its direction in mid jump. We plan to challenge this decision in the hopes that we can steer endangered species protection for this mouse - and other endangered wildlife - back on course.