Switchboard, from NRDC › Sylvia Fallon's Blog

Could wolves help songbirds weather climate change?

2012-01-27T20:52:28Z

Sylvia Fallon, Senior Scientist, Washington, DC

A new study has documented a decline in songbird populations in Arizona as a result of climate change. What gets less attention in this story is that this decline is caused by elk over-browsing the plants that provide cover and nesting sites for the birds. With warming temperatures leading to decreased snow pack over the last 22 years, elk have been staying at higher elevations for longer periods of time, leading to the intensive browsing and resulting reduction in songbirds.

We know that songbirds also declined in the Yellowstone area due to over-browsing of streamside habitat by elk. However, the reintroduction of wolves 15 years ago has facilitated the return of both the habitat and the songbirds, as well as a host of other species such as beavers and frogs.

Given the role that wolves played in restoring the ecosystem in and around Yellowstone, one can’t help but wonder whether the beleaguered Mexican wolf population might be able to help mitigate the Arizona songbirds’ decline if only they were able to recover across the Southwestern landscape. By keeping elk on the move, wolves would likely reduce the potential for over-browsing in any particular area. This is supported by the researchers’ finding that in areas where elk were experimentally excluded and vegetation was allowed to recover, there were three times the numbers of songbirds than in areas that were browsed by elk.

If Mexican wolves were able to reduce the browsing pressure in Arizona and enable the return of some of these songbirds, it wouldn’t be the first example of wolves helping to lessen the impact of climate change for other species. Back in Yellowstone, researchers have found that wolves also provide a year-round supply of food for scavengers of all kinds, including ravens, eagles, coyotes, and bears. In the absence of wolves, winter elk deaths were largely dependent on snow depth, and in years with less snow few elk would die—leading to a food shortage for many of the park’s animals. With the reintroduction of wolves, however, there is now a steady supply of food throughout the winter – regardless of whether the season is mild or severe.

The authors of that study credit the wolf – and predators in general – for buffering the ecosystem from climate change, stating: "We're finding that ecosystems that have lost a keystone predator may exhibit less resilience to the impact of climate change.”

The lessons we have learned from the return of wolves to Yellowstone show us what we are missing in the areas where top predators have been intensively removed. Each new study adds to the already overwhelming amount of evidence that predators are a key part of our ecosystems and their presence is essential to maximizing adaptability to changing environmental conditions for all species.

The Mexican wolf population has been struggling to recover in the wild after facing decades of political resistance, but a new recovery plan is currently in the works. And the evidence suggests that if the wolves are allowed to succeed, we’ll ultimately be recovering much more than just the wolf.

Photo credit: USFWS Mexican wolf

Millions of bats have died due to whitenose syndrome

2012-01-18T20:53:38Z

Sylvia Fallon, Senior Scientist, Washington, DC

Yesterday the US Fish and Wildlife Service announced a new estimate of the number of bats that have died due to whitenose syndrome – the mysterious fungal disease that is devastating bats in the Eastern US and Canada. Working with a group of biologists they determined that the figure is somewhere within the range of 5.5-6.7 million bats. This new number is the first significant estimation of the loss of bats since 2008 when scientists estimated around 1 million bats had likely died.

Since then, anyone reporting on whitenose syndrome has used the figure “more than a million bats” when trying to convey the magnitude of the problem, but over time – without updated information – that number was beginning to lose meaning. When you are trying to convince members of congress, for example, to prioritize and fund research for this devastating disease, being able to demonstrate that the problem of several years ago still exists is important – which is why we have been putting pressure on the Service to work with its state partners to collect this important information.

So while yesterday’s news reflects the sobering reality that whitenose syndrome is continuing to wreak havoc on our bat populations – which is likely to have consequences for the agricultural and forest pests upon which bats prey – it is also a reflection of the responsiveness of the Service to this wildlife crisis. The Service has shown great leadership on this issue and given Congress’ recent direction for the agency to commit $4 million dollars to whitenose syndrome research and management, we expect more progress in the coming year.

This is not to say that the problem of whitenose syndrome is under control. In fact, scientists have estimated that basic research needs number around $50 million, so the $4 million will only be able to accomplish so much. Plus, there is still no known treatment for protecting bats from whitenose syndrome which makes management options limited. Recently, scientists reported finding what they think might be survivors in caves in Vermont. And while this finding provides hope that some bats may be able to withstand the deadly fungus, the scale of the loss that has occurred already along with bats’ slow reproductive rate means that we won’t see a return of these bats to their historic levels within our lifetimes. Anything we can do to prevent the loss of additional bats in the future is time and money well spent.

In other words, significant progress is being made as a result of great work and collaboration between federal and state agencies, scientists, and the environmental and caving communities – aided, in part, by Congress. But, there’s still much more work to be done.

Turning our national parks into zoos - are wildlife management policies failing to truly recover endangered species?

2012-01-08T03:33:28Z

Sylvia Fallon, Senior Scientist, Washington, DC

Earlier this week Yellowstone National Park released its ‘State of Conservation’ report in which it outlines its financial needs for improving or maintaining the park’s values as a World Heritage Site. Among its top priorities, the Park identifies the need to translocate grizzly bears into the park to maintain the population’s genetic diversity.

Given that grizzlies in Yellowstone are so few and so isolated that they would require the addition of translocated bears, it is confusing that the Fish and Wildlife Service believes the Yellowstone population of grizzlies is recovered and should be removed from the endangered species list. I mean, if a population is recovered, shouldn’t it be able to sustain itself into the future without indefinite human intervention to keep it going?

But in fact, the translocation of bears is part of Fish and Wildlife Service’s delisting plan for the grizzly. That is, the Service has specifically acknowledged that the Yellowstone population is genetically isolated from other grizzly populations and has been for about 100 years. Their answer to this is to translocate bears on a regular basis starting in 2020. While there are some efforts to attempt to connect the Yellowstone population with other grizzlies through landscape protection to facilitate connectivity, the recovery of grizzly bears in Yellowstone National Park, by design, calls for indefinite artificial supplementation of the population to maintain its viability in the long term.

The Fish and Wildlife Service has come up with a similar plan for wolves in Yellowstone. The Service again has acknowledged that wolves in the Yellowstone area are the most isolated subpopulation in the Northern Rocky Mountains. However, rather than requiring the surrounding states to maintain a sufficient number of wolves to ensure a genetically robust, connected population of wolves, they instead plan to rely on the translocation of wolves to mediate any genetic loss due to the potential isolation of the Yellowstone population following state management.

If we are going to allow for the isolation of our National Parks and then need to constantly supplement the wildlife populations, how does that make them much different than a zoo? Is this how we want to manage our parks and the recovery of these endangered populations of America’s most iconic wildlife?

Bats get a gift of hope this holiday season

2011-12-20T15:56:44Z

Sylvia Fallon, Senior Scientist, Washington, DC

In some good news out of Washington (for a change), the recent appropriations bill that was passed last week contains $4 million in funding for addressing white-nose syndrome – the deadly fungal disease that has been devastating bats in the eastern half of the country. Because so little is yet understood about white-nose syndrome, management options to control the spread of this disease are limited. The best chance we have at stopping the precipitous decline of our bat populations is to commit resources to researching the disease in the hopes that we can develop strategies for treatment or prevention to slow or stop the spread of white-nose syndrome.

With all of the political wrangling over finances these days, requesting funds to research a disease affecting bats often seems like a lost cause. But given the important ecological role that bats play in regulating all kinds of insects including crop and forest pests, it has been estimated that the loss of bats due to white-nose syndrome could translate into agricultural losses between $3.7-53 billion dollars a year. In other words, investing some money now to try to address this disease could mean saving money in the long run.

With that in mind, we were thrilled to learn that Congress – at the urging of bat advocate Senator Leahy (D-VT) – saw to it that the new funding bill would dedicate $4 million towards white-nose syndrome. NRDC, along with our colleagues, has worked for several years to secure as much funding as possible to address this disease. $4 million falls short of the $50 million that scientists estimate they’d need to address the most basic questions related to white-nose syndrome and the resulting bat die off, but it’s more than the $1.8 million that Congress initially allocated to white-nose in 2009, with which the US Fish and Wildlife Service and the academic community were able to accomplish a lot. This additional funding will allow the hard work that has gone into dealing with this wildlife emergency to continue and increase the chances of finding a solution.

Because the overall budget for the US Fish and Wildlife Service did not increase much, however, the $4 million dedicated to white-nose syndrome is not new funding, but redirected funding – meaning that it comes from elsewhere within the agency’s budget. But it translates into a mandated allocation of resources to priority issues. White-nose syndrome is a priority that Secretary Salazar committed to – and we have held the administration accountable.

Since the emergence of white-nose syndrome, winter has typically been a terrible time of year for bats. When bats hibernate the cold-loving fungus that causes white-nose syndrome takes advantage of the bats’ shutdown immune system and lowered body temperatures to do its damage. But this winter there is new hope that this additional funding will lead to effective strategies for slowing the spread of this deadly disease and safeguarding our bat populations in the future. Happy Holidays!

Photo credit: toosuto via Flick'r

Science prevails in court: the loss of whitebark pine threatens Yellowstone's grizzlies

2011-11-23T16:11:28Z

Sylvia Fallon, Senior Scientist, Washington, DC

Yesterday an appeals court ruled that the US Fish and Wildlife Service had failed to adequately consider the threat posed to Yellowstone grizzly bears by the loss of whitebark pine – a high elevation tree that provides a key food source for the bears. This is an issue that NRDC has been working on for years as a climate driven mountain pine beetle attack has devastated whitebark pine not only in the greater Yellowstone region, but throughout much of its range. Over the past decade the beetle infestation, which previously was more limited to lower elevations by cold temperatures, has exploded – easily making its way through the defenseless whitebark pine forests. In the most extensive aerial survey of whitebark pine conducted at a regional scale, NRDC and the US Forest Service documented the death of about 50% of whitebark pine in the Yellowstone area with another 45% in early stages of dying. Only 5% of the trees were yet untouched. And earlier this year, in response to a petition filed by NRDC, the US Fish and Wildlife Service determined that whitebark pine itself qualified as an endangered species.

Whitebark pine provides a key food source for grizzly bears in the greater Yellowstone region. Their fatty seeds provide needed calories to the bears as they prepare for hibernation and soon after they emerge. In addition, because the trees are located at high elevations, they draw the bears up and out of harm’s way. Research has shown that because of these qualities, grizzly bears in the Yellowstone area have higher reproductive rates in years of good whitebark pine crops. In years when the whitebark pine seeds are less available, bears have higher mortality rates. In search of other food sources, they move to lower elevations where they are more likely to run into conflicts with humans.

Bears have survived throughout time with natural variation in whitebark pine seed availability, but with the massive decline of whitebark pine every year is now a bad year for whitebark. And indeed we have started to see increased conflicts and a slowing of the bear’s population growth in the past years. All of these factors were recognized by the Service when they proposed delisting the bears in 2007 and yet they proceeded to remove protections without a plan in place to account for the severe changes in the landscape and the effect that would have on the bear population. The Service has argued that the bears are omnivores and that the loss of whitebark pine would not affect them because they would readily find new food sources. But the link between whitebark pine and the health of the grizzly population is so strong that two courts have now found the Service’s justification to be “lacking” and their conclusion to be “irrational.”

Yesterday’s court decision made clear that the Service cannot declare the grizzly population recovered in the face of this new and clear threat. In the words of the judges, “(N)ow that this threat has emerged, the Service cannot take a full-speed ahead, damn-the-torpedoes approach to delisting.” We couldn’t agree more. Now is the time to rethink the strategies for addressing how bears will be using this newly transformed landscape to ensure that the recovery of the grizzly bear – one of America’s most iconic animals – continues on its successful path.

Photo credit: USFWS

How is a grizzly bear like a whitebark pine? They're both endangered

2011-11-09T14:44:14Z

Sylvia Fallon, Senior Scientist, Washington, DC

In a New York Times' blog yesterday, Leslie Kaufman asks the question, ‘How is a Grizzly bear like a wolf?,’ as she compares the fight over delisting the grizzly bear to the battle over the wolf. The Fish and Wildlife Service’s grizzly bear coordinator, who is quoted in the piece, characterizes the similarity as a political disaster caused by the environmental community for opposing the removal of protections from what the Service considers to be a recovered population. Missing from the piece is any real discussion of the threats facing Yellowstone grizzlies and one of their major food sources, the whitebark pine.

The Service first proposed delisting grizzly bears in the greater Yellowstone area in 2007 when whitebark pine was just beginning to decline from climate-driven beetle attacks. The environmental community, including NRDC, filed a lawsuit challenging the delisting based on the argument that the unanticipated decline of whitebark pine and the inadequacy of state regulatory mechanisms continued to threaten the bears. In 2009, a federal district judge agreed. However, rather than addressing these inadequacies in its delisting plan, the Service appealed the ruling. A decision on that appeal is currently pending.

In the meantime, whitebark pine has continued its precipitous dive. In 2010, NRDC and the US Forest Service published a report of the first ever extensive aerial survey, which documented that over 50% of the whitebark pine forest in the greater Yellowstone area had died and another 45% was in earlier stages of dying. Only 5% of the forest was untouched by the climate-driven death. This year, in response to a petition filed by NRDC, the Service concluded that whitebark pine itself is an endangered species.

Whitebark pine is more than just a major food source for grizzly bears. Because of the high fat content of the whitebark pine seeds, grizzly bear consumption of whitebark pine is tied directly to their reproductive success, with bears experiencing higher birth rates in years of large whitebark pine crops and lower rates when whitebark pine is unavailable. Additionally, because whitebark pine is found at high elevations, it drives bears up and away from human induced conflicts. As whitebark pine has crashed, bears have not only been forced to find nutritionally comparative food sources, but they have also been driven to lower elevations where they are more likely to encounter people. In fact, the last two years have seen record numbers of grizzly conflicts in the area and this year the Service recorded a dip in grizzly population numbers.

Simply put, the conditions that existed for grizzlies in 2007 when the Service proposed to delist them are no longer a reality. Even the Service has acknowledged that whitebark pine, which is tied directly to Yellowstone grizzlies’ survival rates, is already functionally gone from the ecosystem. However, the Service refuses to acknowledge the threat that the loss of whitebark pine poses to the grizzly, arguing that the bears will adapt to new food sources. Bears certainly will find new foods to eat, but in doing so they will use the landscape in new ways that are not accounted for in the current management plans. The changed circumstances call for a changed approach that ensures that grizzlies will continue to thrive under these new conditions.

The Endangered Species Act has been incredibly successful at protecting the grizzly bear – one of America’s most iconic species – and allowing it to recover. To risk all of that progress by failing to address the clear and emerging threat posed by the loss of whitebark pine would be the true disaster in this fight over the bear.

Photo credit: USFWS

The curious case of the coastal California gnatcatcher

2011-11-03T17:36:18Z

Sylvia Fallon, Senior Scientist, Washington, DC

Last week, the US Fish and Wildlife Service formally decided to retain endangered species protections for the coastal California gnatcatcher, a tiny gray songbird considered by many to be the “canary in the coal mine” for the coastal sage scrub ecosystem of southern California. Predictably, the Pacific Legal Foundation, who submitted the petition asking the Service to remove the bird from the endangered species list, has now questioned the Service’s conclusion, calling it “curious” for its failure to accept PLF’s view of the science. Specifically, PLF claims that the subspecies designation for the coastal California gnatcatcher is based on a 1991 study by Dr. Jonathan Atwood that they argue was subsequently invalidated by a genetics study in 2000 and furthermore that Atwood himself no longer supports the subspecies designation.

First of all, as I have previously written, the Atwood study was actually a reconfirmation of earlier studies -- and there have been subsequent ones -- that all support the coastal California gnatcatcher as a distinct subspecies. Second, the genetic study conducted in 2000 and cited most heavily by PLF relies on a certain type of data that is insufficient to detect differences below the species level. Indeed, the very consultant that PLF hired to support its petition has published papers cautioning against using this type of data (mitochondrial DNA) for making subspecific designations – precisely the kind of use advocated by PLF in this instance.

Finally, Dr. Atwood never ‘repudiated’ his support for recognizing and protecting the coastal California gnatcatcher. In comments he submitted in 2003 when the Service was considering whether the gnatcatcher should be listed as a subspecies or a ‘distinct population segment,’ Dr. Atwood commented that “[w]hether these birds are referred to as a distinct subspecies, or as a two distinct population segments, the overwhelming arguments in favor of granting them legal protection remain unchanged.” Contrary to PLF’s claims, Dr. Atwood has unequivocally endorsed the very protection that PLF, through its petition to the Service, has sought to undo.

Perhaps the fact that PLF continues to advocate against federal protection for the coastal California gnatcatcher is no surprise given the organization’s relentless crusade for decades to that end. But its continued reliance on distorted, tired and baseless claims certainly is “curious”.

The coastal California gnatcatcher wins the latest round in its fight to retain endangered species protections

2011-10-26T16:18:02Z

Sylvia Fallon, Senior Scientist, Washington, DC

In the decades-long battle to protect the coastal California gnatcatcher, some good news. I recently wrote about the Pacific Legal Foundation’s attempt to remove the coastal California gnatcatcher from the list of endangered species on the premise that it did not constitute a valid subspecies. Yesterday, the US Fish and Wildlife Service confirmed once again that the gnatcatcher is indeed a valid subspecies and continues to require the protections of the Endangered Species Act.

This is an issue that the Service has been dealing with since NRDC first petitioned to have the gnatcatcher added to the list 20 years ago. At the time, Dr. Jonathan Atwood, a leading researcher on gnatcatchers, had just published a study reconfirming the gnatcatcher’s subspecies status that was originally described in 1926. Despite the fact that his study was merely a confirmation of previous findings, both he and his research came under intense scrutiny in the early 1990’s as the Service moved, against intense developer opposition, to protect the tiny songbird. It was formally listed as a threatened species in 1993.

The listing of the coastal California gnatcatcher has been challenged repeatedly by development interests over the years, and NRDC has fought hard at every turn to defend the bird’s protections. The most recent challenge by PLF once again raised issues with the now 20 year old research of Atwood as well as a 10 year old genetic study that contains insufficient information to address the gnatcatcher’s subspecific status.

I’ve done extensive research on how the Service uses genetic data to make decisions on protecting endangered species, and I’d be the first to tell you that they don’t always get it right. But in this case the Service has done a tremendous job, relying on the best available science – both genetic and morphological – to once again confirm the taxonomic status of the gnatcatcher. Their decision, which carefully evaluated scientific evidence on this topic that has accumulated over the past century, also relied on peer review, independent statistical analysis of data and a scientific panel of experts to reach the correct conclusion that the coastal California gnatcatcher is a valid subspecies.

Development interests have relentlessly sought to undo protections for the gnatcatcher since its initial listing, but thanks to the work of the Fish and Wildlife Service, supported by NRDC, Dr. Atwood, and others, the gnatcatcher continues to persist in the remaining coastal sage scrub habitat of southern California and has recently even begun to reappear in areas once abandoned. Yesterday's decision means that these little songbirds can continue their comeback.

I’ll sing to that.

Give a little love to the lizards

2011-10-25T18:05:22Z

Sylvia Fallon, Senior Scientist, Washington, DC

I’ve said it before – I love lizards. Earlier in my career, I spent lots of time in the Southwest catching lizards for research. Now I do it just for fun because, without my even having to explain why, my son understands that seeing a lizard up close, checking out its sideways glance, and comparing its prickly back to its smooth, colorful belly is one of the coolest things on Earth.

But not everyone shares my love for lizards. The oil and gas industry in particular has it in for the Dunes Sagebrush lizard—a highly imperiled lizard species—out of fear that protecting it will impair their ability to drill for oil in the Permian basin area of west Texas and southeastern New Mexico. The lizard is actually found in less than 1% of the Permian basin oil patch, meaning that protecting it under the Endangered Species Act, as the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has proposed to do, would have little if any effect on oil and gas leasing in the area. Nonetheless, the industry and some representatives in Congress have pushed to block protections for the lizard by submitting petitions and introducing legislation that would prevent Fish and Wildlife from finalizing their decision to list the lizard as an endangered species.

This is part of a dangerous trend in Congress right now – a kind of Reverse Ark – trying to block or remove Endangered Species Act protections for certain species. Some species are easier to vilify than others and – don’t ask me why – but lizards seem to fit that bill.

I know they aren’t as cute and fuzzy as some other species, but even if you aren’t a lizard-lover like me, do we really want to have deserts without lizards? Or, if politicians and the oil and gas industry are allowed to block even more species from receiving protections, do we want a world without wildlife?

You can take action by telling the Administration that you support protections for the Dunes Sagebrush lizard by signing a petition on the White House's website. (Click here.)

A note on the photos: The lizards in the photos above were caught using a standard field technique involving a string tied to the end of a stick that in no way harms the lizards.

Deadly salmon virus - one more reason to protect Bristol Bay's wild salmon fishery

2011-10-21T19:37:22Z

Sylvia Fallon, Senior Scientist, Washington, DC

You may have heard that the voters of Bristol Bay Alaska approved an initiative earlier this week to protect the Alaska wild salmon fishery from the massive Pebble Mine and other large-scale extraction that would damage salmon habitat. You may not have heard that, on the same day, scientists announced the discovery of the presence of a deadly salmon virus in British Columbia that could threaten the entire Pacific Northwest fisheries.

The infectious salmon anemia virus (ISV) was first found in Norway in 1984 and quickly spread throughout Europe. It largely only affects Atlantic salmon, but has been accidentally introduced via fish farming to areas such as Chile where the virus devastated the industry – causing millions of salmon deaths, driving the global price of salmon up and laying off more than a thousand Chilean workers.

What is most troubling about this week’s discovery is that the virus was detected in wild salmon from the Pacific rather than farmed Atlantic salmon. Scientists are working to confirm the results and expand sampling to determine the source of the infection and the extent to which it may have already spread. But if wild Pacific salmon are indeed susceptible to this disease then the entire Pacific Northwest salmon industry – from Oregon and Washington all the way up to Alaska – is at risk.

Viruses are persistent and highly adaptable and no country that has ever detected this particular salmon virus has been able to eliminate it. Farmed fish are particularly susceptible to disease because they are confined to pens and limited in genetic diversity. This gives wild salmon an advantage against the disease. In fact, the best defense against a virus like this is robust populations of genetically diverse salmon in which inherent variability is more likely to demonstrate some natural resistance.

Fortunately for the Pacific Northwest, Bristol Bay is home to the largest and most diverse wild salmon fishery in the world. If this virus begins to wreak havoc on wild populations in British Columbia and surrounding areas, Bristol Bay salmon may be the salmon fishing industry’s best hope of surviving a major collapse. That is, if Bristol Bay salmon are allowed to remain the tremendous resource they currently are.

The proposed construction of Pebble mine, a massive copper and gold mine, at the headwaters of Bristol Bay threatens to compromise the entire area’s salmon fishery. Due to the sulfides in the ore, Pebble’s deposits are at high risk for acid rock drainage and metal leaching. This pollution would likely be lethal to Bristol Bay’s famed salmon runs. For example, research shows that even small amounts of copper (an increase of as little as two parts per billion over background levels) can be toxic enough to impair olfaction, which is critical to salmon migration, spawning and survival. In a promising move, however, residents there passed an initiative earlier this week that would prevent large-scale mining that would destroy or degrade salmon habitat.

But the salmon are not safe yet. The Pebble Partnership is challenging the initiative in court and is determined to move forward with their project despite strong community opposition and the many inevitable disastrous environmental effects. The residents know that the value of the renewable resource of salmon that they and their ancestors have relied on for centuries far outweighs the fleeting pursuit of limited minerals. Given the news of the virus, their vote turned out to be a prescient move.

Bristol Bay’s wild salmon fishery is too important to put at risk. It’s time to say No to Pebble.

Image: Bristol Bay Sockeye Salmon shared by toddraden via Flickr.

On a wing and a prayer - property rights group wants gnatcatcher to disappear

2011-09-23T15:53:27Z

Sylvia Fallon, Senior Scientist, Washington, DC

The Pacific Legal Foundation would like to see the coastal California gnatcatcher removed from the endangered species list. They filed a petition with the US Fish and Wildlife Service last year and recently filed a lawsuit against the Service for missing their deadline to respond to the petition. That’s certainly within their rights, but what I take issue with is the fact that their petition doesn’t have a leg – er, wing? – to stand on.

The coastal California gnatcatcher – a beautiful, if tiny, songbird that mews like a kitten – makes its home in the dwindling coastal sage scrub habitat of southern California. The bird has been recognized as a distinct subspecies for nearly a century. First described in 1926 by Grinnell, several subsequent evaluations since that time have all confirmed that gnatcatchers occurring above 30 degrees North latitude contain a set of characteristics that differentiate them from gnatcatchers occurring farther south. Despite this, the PLF is arguing that the coastal California gnatcatcher is not a valid subspecies and therefore should not be protected under the Endangered Species Act.

One of their arguments is based on a critique of the methodology of a 1991 study that reconfirmed the subspecies status of the gnatcatcher. The critique fails to discredit the 1991 study on a number of levels, but even if it had, there is no mention of the numerous other studies and descriptions that have validated the subspecies’ existence. Their second line of evidence is a genetic study conducted in 2000 that showed little variation within the broader species distribution. This study relied on a single genetic ‘marker’ that is known not to be sensitive to variation below the species level. In fact, the author of the critique himself has published articles cautioning against using this genetic marker alone for making subspecies designations – a warning that has been echoed by other researchers over the years and is now widely accepted.

What is most egregious about PLF’s petition is that the Service has already evaluated and answered this question over the years and the petition does not present any new information or analysis that the Service has not already considered. In fact, six months after PLF filed their petition last year the Service issued a 5 year review of the coastal California gnatcatcher’s status in which they discuss a previous proposal to change the subspecies status to one of a Distinct Population Segment, but after further evaluation of the data and consultation with a panel of scientists they concluded that subspecies status is in fact the correct taxonomic unit for the bird. The Service has essentially already issued their response to the petition.

The 5 year review concluded that the gnatcatcher remains threatened and continues to need protection under the Endangered Species Act. In some good news, however, just last year, a pair of coastal California gnatcatchers was officially documented in the Ballona wetlands ecological reserve – an area that has not been occupied by gnatcatchers since 1888.

This may not be good news for PLF, but for those of us who value wildlife and the beauty of southern California’s sage scrub, I’m happy to report that it looks like the gnatcatcher is here to stay.

Polar bears don't drown when there's ice all over the place

2011-07-29T17:38:11Z

Sylvia Fallon, Senior Scientist, Washington, DC

When I was working at a research station years ago there were mammalogists at the station who were doing some ‘collecting’ for museum specimens. They mostly tried to take advantage of any usable roadkill, but on occasion they killed some animals by drowning them – a practice that is considered to be relatively quick for small mammals. Although everyone at the station was a biologist, not everyone agreed with this practice and, to protest, one of the researchers wrote a song called, “Ring tailed cats can’t swim in a cage at the bottom of the river.” Sounds like a mouth-full, but when put to music, it worked.

I was reminded of this yesterday as I was reading over the transcript of the Interior Department’s Inspector General interrogating arctic scientist, Dr. Charles Monnett, over allegations of ‘scientific misconduct.’ The Inspector General has not said who filed the allegations or even what the allegations are, but Dr. Monnett and his colleague are the ones that first published a report of sighting four drowned polar bears in 2004 – a report that was referenced by Al Gore in An Inconvenient Truth and which helped establish the polar bear as an icon of climate change.

Part of the interrogation focused on how Dr. Monnett could have known that no polar bears had been seen dead during the systematic surveys that had been conducted from 1987-2003 prior to his published observation in 2004 when he reported seeing 4 dead polar bears floating in the ocean. First of all, the survey observers recorded sightings of any marine mammals seen and the lead project manager for that time period informed Dr. Monnett that no one had ever recorded a dead polar bear. Additionally, Dr. Monnett had another line of evidence to support the likelihood that no polar bears had been observed dead in that area – at least in the early years. Ice. “There was a lot of ice out there.” He says, “You know, bears don’t drown when there’s ice all over the place.” I can already hear the makings of another song.

Much of the rest of the interrogation centered around whether Dr. Monnett and his colleagues had observed 3 or 4 dead bears. Seriously. This took about an entire hour of a two hour interrogation. Dr. Monnett explained in every way he could possibly think of to the Inspector General that they had observed 4 dead bears, but that only 3 of those bears were in their study area. That’s why there is mention of 4 bears, but when he does the calculations in the paper he uses the number 3. Did you get that? Me too. But it took the IG and his assistant an entire hour to comprehend that information.

After almost two hours of this type of questioning including a part where Dr. Monnett literally has to give the IG a lesson on fifth grade math (anyone remember cross multiplication?), Dr. Monnett’s council interrupts to ask, “Are we going to get to the allegations of scientific misconduct? Or, uh, have – is that what we’ve been doing?” Indeed, the IG’s line of questioning was the basis for the investigation to which Dr. Monnett responds, “(S)cientific misconduct, uh, suggests that we did something deliberately to deceive or to, to change (the information). Um, I sure don’t see any indication of that in what you’re asking me about.” To which the IG says, “No, no, no further comment on my part….Like I said, we receive allegations, we investigate.”

Oh, great. Well, that explains why Dr. Monnett has been placed on leave and had all of his computers and notebooks confiscated. By the way, there is a new study out that confirms the findings that polar bears are swimming longer distances and surviving less due to the loss of sea ice from different federal scientists in another agency. I presume the IG will be on his way over to investigate them too.

In fact, I’m starting to hear the makings of a new song, “Scientists can’t work when you take away their jobs, their computers and their credibility.” What a convenient truth.

Photo credit: USGS/Stephen Armstrup

Why we need fangs and claws: New Study Reveals the Importance of Apex Predators

2011-07-22T16:12:44Z

Sylvia Fallon, Senior Scientist, Washington, DC

If someone asked you what humankind’s most pervasive influence on nature was, what would you say? Agriculture? Deforestation? Pollution? Here’s what I bet you might not say: The loss of large predators and other ‘apex consumers’ such as lions, wolves and sharks. But this is the new finding of a study in Science that demonstrates how the loss of top predators has altered ecosystems in profound ways including changing the dynamics of wildfire, disease, carbon sequestration and other biogeochemical cycles. This study comes as debate intensifies over federal government programs that eliminate these same predators.

Around the world, many predators have declined due to habitat loss that accompanies human population growth. Large animals require large spaces. Others have been removed for our own consumption (such as in overfishing) or because the predators are considered competitors for game animals such as fish and elk, or viewed as threats to livestock and agriculture. It is under this last premise that the US government implements large scale predator removal every year through Wildlife Services – an agency within the Department of Agriculture.

NRDC has pointed to the ecological benefits that come with predators - including the remarkable transformation of the Yellowstone ecosystem following the reintroduction of wolves. We have also highlighted how these effects extend to other predators that Wildlife Service’s kills including coyotes, badgers and even river otters. Despite these arguments, however, Wildlife Services continues to kill over a hundred thousand carnivores a year claiming that the removal of these predators is not likely to have a broader impact on the ecosystem. But as James Estes, the primary author of the new report, points out, “There’s been a tendency to see (these ecological relationships) as idiosyncractic and specific to particular species and ecosystems.” It has only been within the last 10 years or so that scientists have accumulated sufficient information to document the prevasiveness of this phenomenon at a broad scale and develop a better measure of the extent to which top predators shape their ecosystems – and what happens when we lose them.

The new study includes 24 scientists from 6 different countries and documents the “top down” effects of predators around the world including large coral reef fish, killer whales, arctic foxes and sea birds. Other examples highlighted in the paper are:

The reduction of lions and leopards in part of Africa has led to population increases of olive baboons leading to increased contact with people and higher rates of intestinal parasites in both people and baboons;

The loss of sharks has led to an increase in cow-nosed rays and a corresponding collapse of mussels and other shellfish populations;

The crash of whale populations has made many ocean areas unable to support plankton and other aquatic life due to a lack of nutrients that are cycled from the ocean bottom to the surface by whales;

This study solidifies the arguments about the importance of top predators to ecosystems and the ecological complexities involved in altering these relationships. The cumulative loss of top consumers around the world, the authors point out, has lead to an overall “downgrading” of our ecosystems. "To the extent that conservation aims toward restoring functional ecosystems, the reestablishment of large animals and their ecological effects is fundamental," Estes says.

Ending the unnecessary removal of over a hundred thousand predators from our landscape each year would be a good place to start.

Check out our page on reforming Wildlife Services for more on this topic.

Scroll over images for photo credit.

Join me and our wildlife and wilderness online activists at www.Facebook.com/BioGemsDefenders

Add it to the (wait) list: Whitebark pine is endangered by climate change

2011-07-18T19:08:39Z

Sylvia Fallon, Senior Scientist, Washington, DC

In response to a petition that we filed in 2008, the Fish and Wildlife Service is announcing that whitebark pine – a widespread, high-elevation tree species – warrants protection under the Endangered Species Act. This finding is significant as it is the first time that a wide ranging tree species has been found to be ‘imminently’ in danger of extinction throughout its entire range due to climate change. The tree will not yet receive the full protections of the Act because the Service states that they are precluded from protecting it due to other priorities and a lack of funding. However, since whitebark pine is found almost entirely on federal lands, today's decision will still bring some protections through the Bureau of Land Management and the US Forest Service who will now take measures to conserve and restore the species.

As we have highlighted here before, whitebark pine is a foundation species in the western US that plays important ecological roles including creating the conditions that allow other plant species to exist in harsh high-elevation habitat. Whitebark pine also stabilizes soil and shades snow pack thus mediating hydrological processes like regulating water run-off, reducing erosion and preventing flooding. These trees also provide food and habitat for a suite of animal species such as the red squirrel, Clark’s nutcracker and Grizzly bears.

Photo credit: Josh Mogerman

Unfortunately a combination of factors including an introduced fungus, the white pine blister rust and fire suppression practices have contributed to the species’ decline over the last century. Within the last 10 years, however, the real threat to whitebark pine has been climate and the mountain pine beetle. Warmer winters have allowed the mountain pine beetles to survive and move into higher elevations than they typically inhabit. Whitebark pine has little to no defenses against the beetle which has swiftly moved across entire landscapes leaving a sea of dead trees in its wake.

Photo courtesy of Jane Partiger of Ecoflight

In the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem a recent study documented over 80% of whitebark pines as experiencing moderate to high mortality with another 15% in earlier stages of beetle infestation. Regionally, whitebark pine is predicted to be functionally extinct in and around Yellowstone within the next 10 years. Even considering the rest of its range, the threats to whitebark pine are so significant that the Service has assigned the tree its highest priority ranking as a ‘candidate species’ waiting to receive protections on the Endangered Species Act.

But the fact that the Fish and Wildlife Service doesn’t have the resources to protect this species or hundreds of other species – combined with the fact that the only true solution for whitebark pine is to address climate change – means that today’s decision of ‘warranted but precluded’ is a sign of a much bigger problem. We are able to document the numerous species that are declining due to climate change. We even know what we need to do to fix it. Yet we are unable or unwilling to do anything about it. In fact, rather than give Fish and Wildlife Service the funding that they need to implement the Endangered Species Act, the House of Representatives is currently proposing to defund endangered species protections completely.

Whitebark pine is one of many species warning us of the consequences of our inaction. It’s up to us to do something about it.

For more about NRDC's work on whitebark pine, watch this short video:

Join me and our wildlife and wilderness online activists at www.Facebook.com/BioGemsDefenders

Jumping for Joy (finally) for the Preble's meadow jumping mouse

2011-07-08T21:29:08Z

Sylvia Fallon, Senior Scientist, Washington, DC

It’s been a long, strange trip for the Preble’s meadow jumping mouse who first jumped into fame in 2005 as the US Fish and Widlife Service proposed removing it from the Endangered Species list based on a faulty genetics study. That was also the year that I happened to come on board at NRDC as a Conservation Genetics Fellow looking at the use of genetics in endangered species decisions and I jumped right in to help the mouse out.

When the genetics study failed to allow the Service to ‘delist’ the mouse, which is found along the Rocky Mountain’s Front Range, the Service relied on a Bush-Era solicitor’s memo to remove protections from the mouse in Wyoming while leaving protections in place in Colorado – an idea that has never made sense any way you look at it. Once again, NRDC and our partners jumped in to help the mouse out.

Photo credit: Anne Ruggles

Yesterday a judge issued a ruling in the case that will restore protections to the mouse throughout its entire range beginning August 6th. This is certainly good news for the mouse. But for anyone who doesn’t see the value in protecting a mouse, yesterday’s decision is also good news for those who value clean water and beautiful landscapes. You see the Preble’s meadow jumping mouse makes its home along pristine streamside habitat which means by protecting the mouse, we protect the riparian habitat that residents in Colorado and Wyoming depend on for clean water and healthy open space areas.

As is human nature, there may be future attempts to undermine protections for this mouse and other species that keep our ecosystems functioning despite our shortsighted attempts to manage our wildlife and wildlands for our own immediate interests – afterall , the mouse has some of the best real estate in the west! I, for one, however, am grateful for the pristine streamside habitat and the clean water and beautiful landscapes which it provides. I enjoyed these areas as a child growing up at the foot of the Rocky Mountains and my fondness for them is what has, in part, endeared me so much to the plight of the Preble’s mouse. Knowing that these mice and other people’s kids will be able to continue to enjoy these areas too makes my heart jump with joy.

Photo credit: ebatty shared via Flickr