A lawsuit has been filed over the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's decision not to provide wolverines with Endangered Species Act protection/USFWS
Whether climate change is adversely impacting wolverines, something the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service believes is uncertain, is being challenged by a coalition of conservation groups that is suing the agency to provide Endangered Species Act protection to the small carnivores.
Earlier this year Noreen Walsh, director of the agency's Mountain-Prairie Region, which includes Wyoming and Montana, decided there wasn't enough evidence to demonstrate climate change was adversely affecting the species, according to a story in the Los Angeles Times. That development led other biologists outside Fish and Wildlife to speculate that politics, not science, had forced that decision.
On Monday eight conservation groups announced they would challenge that decision in court.
Back in February 2013 the Fish and Wildlife Service proposed to list the wolverine as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act after the agency's biologists concluded global warming was reducing the deep spring snowpack pregnant females require for denning.
But, according to the conservation groups, "after state wildlife managers in Montana, Idaho and Wyoming objected, arguing that computer models about climate change impact are too uncertain to justify the proposed listing," Ms. Walsh ordered her agency to withdraw the listing. The reversal came despite confirmation by a panel of outside experts that deep snow is crucial to the ability of wolverines to reproduce successfully, the groups said.
'The wolverine is a famously tough creature that doesn't back down from anything, but even the wolverine can't overcome a changing climate by itself,' said Earthjustice attorney Adrienne Maxwell in a release. 'To survive, the wolverine needs the protections that only the Endangered Species Act can provide.'
The groups behind the lawsuit are the Center for Biological Diversity, Conservation Northwest, Friends of the Clearwater, Greater Yellowstone Coalition, Idaho Conservation League, Jackson Hole Conservation Alliance, Klamath-Siskiyou Wildlands Center, and Rocky Mountain Wild.
Wolverines have been spotted in Denali National Park, Yosemite National Park, Yellowstone National Park, Grand Teton National Park, Glacier National Park, and North Cascades National Park, among others. It's difficult to say just how many wolverines are wandering around the parks. Their extensive travels, sneaky scavenger-like maneuvering, and solo dwelling make it difficult for researchers to closely monitor their patterns.
In their lawsuit (attached), the groups maintain that "the best available scientific information" predicts that snowfields that wolverines rely upon will shrink by nearly a third by 2045 due to climate warming, and by more than 60 percent by 2085.
"This threat of habitat loss associated with climate change is compounded by other threats facing the wolverine population in the lower-48 states, including highly isolated and fragmented habitat, extremely low population numbers, recreational wolverine trapping in Montana and incidental trapping elsewhere, and disturbance from winter recreation activities that has been demonstrated to disrupt wolverine reproductive denning," the lawsuit states.
Against this data, the lawsuit added, "FWS did not identify any new scientific information that cast doubt on the previous conclusions of the agency's own expert biologists. Nor did FWS identify any existing scientific information that the agency's biologists had overlooked. Instead, FWS attempted to apply a new interpretation of the existing scientific record in an effort to justify a refusal to afford the wolverine any protections under the ESA. In so doing, FWS disregarded the best available scientific information and the recommendations of its own scientists, made numerous analytical errors, and ultimately violated the ESA."
At the Center for Biological Diversity, endangered species director Noah Greenwald said Ms. Walsh's decision is "yet another unfortunate example of politics entering into what should be a purely scientific decision. All of the science and the agency's own scientists say the wolverine is severely endangered by loss of spring snowpack caused by climate change, yet the agency denied protection anyway.'
"The best available science shows climate change will significantly reduce available wolverine habitat over the next century, and imperil the species,' said Jackson Hole Conservation Alliance's Siva Sundaresan. 'As an agency responsible for protecting our wildlife, FWS should not ignore science and should make their decisions based on facts and data.'
"One of the most important things that we can do to get wolverines on the road to recovery in the face of a warming climate is to get them back on the ground in mountain ranges where they once lived,' said Megan Mueller, senior conservation biologist with Rocky Mountain Wild. 'We are disappointed by the Service's decision not to list wolverines under the Endangered Species Act as protections would have helped to facilitate such efforts in Colorado and beyond.'
'The remote, rugged, and snowy North Cascades are ideal wolverine habitat,' said Dave Werntz, Science and Conservation Director with Conservation Northwest. 'Protection under the Endangered Species Act will help wolverine survive a warming climate, shrinking snowpack, and increasingly fragmented habitat.'
Story Categories:
A copy of National Parks Traveler's financial statements may be obtained by sending a stamped, self-addressed envelope to: National Parks Traveler, P.O. Box 980452, Park City, Utah 84098. National Parks Traveler was formed in the state of Utah for the purpose of informing and educating about national parks and protected areas.
Residents of the following states may obtain a copy of our financial and additional information as stated below:
- Florida: A COPY OF THE OFFICIAL REGISTRATION AND FINANCIAL INFORMATION FOR NATIONAL PARKS TRAVELER, (REGISTRATION NO. CH 51659), MAY BE OBTAINED FROM THE DIVISION OF CONSUMER SERVICES BY CALLING 800-435-7352 OR VISITING THEIR WEBSITE. REGISTRATION DOES NOT IMPLY ENDORSEMENT, APPROVAL, OR RECOMMENDATION BY THE STATE.
- Georgia: A full and fair description of the programs and financial statement summary of National Parks Traveler is available upon request at the office and phone number indicated above.
- Maryland: Documents and information submitted under the Maryland Solicitations Act are also available, for the cost of postage and copies, from the Secretary of State, State House, Annapolis, MD 21401 (410-974-5534).
- North Carolina: Financial information about this organization and a copy of its license are available from the State Solicitation Licensing Branch at 888-830-4989 or 919-807-2214. The license is not an endorsement by the State.
- Pennsylvania: The official registration and financial information of National Parks Traveler may be obtained from the Pennsylvania Department of State by calling 800-732-0999. Registration does not imply endorsement.
- Virginia: Financial statements are available from the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, 102 Governor Street, Richmond, Virginia 23219.
- Washington: National Parks Traveler is registered with Washington State’s Charities Program as required by law and additional information is available by calling 800-332-4483 or visiting www.sos.wa.gov/charities, or on file at Charities Division, Office of the Secretary of State, State of Washington, Olympia, WA 98504.
INN Member
The easiest way to explore RV-friendly National Park campgrounds.
Here’s the definitive guide to National Park System campgrounds where RVers can park their rigs.
Our app is packed with RVing- specific details on more than 250 campgrounds in more than 70 national parks.
You’ll also find stories about RVing in the parks, tips helpful if you’ve just recently become an RVer, and useful planning suggestions.
Comments
"Best available science" has become a joke. Climate Change alarmists are losing ground and that is a good thing. Ms Walsh deserves an award for not falling to faux Climate Change agenda. We need more agency people willing to stand up against this politically fabricated hoax.
beachdumb,
The lawsuit cites McKelvey et al. (2011); Aubrey et al. (2009), (2007); Copeland et al. (2010); and Inman et al. (2013). In your review of the literature, which articles dispute this research?
Justin...
You can't argue with the intentional ignorance of the climate change deniers.
These guys based thier research on flawed and manipulated climate data. The malfeasance of NCAR, NASA and IPCC is staggering.
You have to be intentionally ignorant to not question why the alarmist predictions are all based on manipulated data. But I guess many are just naive and gulliable.
http://www.principia-scientific.org/breaking-new-climate-data-rigging-sc...
All of those studies are now flawed, prediction models are wrong and not based on real climate data. It's a huge blow to the scientific community, they are losing credibility. Walsh is probably smart enough to realize this and not willing to go along with the cherade.
Direct from the black helicopters, no doubt, here are the credentials of your link:
http://www.aaskolnick.com/global_deniers/website.htm
Now, back to wolverines?
I'm sure beachdumbs experience in the Northern Rockies is vast. So he's seen the evidence that glaciers are expanding in the region, and that areas that used to be "permanent snow fields" are becoming more permanent from year to year, instead of dissappearing. Yeah right. So, let's spend an entire 20 hours debating some southeastern tea partier about the rights of wolverines to exist in the northern rockies by protecting their most critical habitat.
beachdumb,
Which aspects of those particular studies are flawed? Is it their methodology? Their analyses of the data? Their conclusions?
They used the manipulated temperature data and climate prediction models based on that data. That data was provided by and manipulated by NASA and NOAA. You are aware the temperature data being manipulated, arent you? Its the reason more and more people realizing the climate change agenda is a farce.
http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-London/2014/06/23/Global-warming-Fabr...
There was 5 inches of rain that fell in the Smokies yesterday. Tornadoes touched down in other parts of the southeast....AND THIS IS OCTOBER! Anyway, some choose to bury their head in the sand, like Beachdumb. Others are very much aware just by noticing the REALITY around them.. I notice from living in this area, that you can have a tornado rip apart a tea partiers shack in the middle of fall, and they'll still cling to their BELIEFS by saying, "nope that wasn't due to global warming". SOS, different day.
Breitbart's article was based on Goddard's article. Goddard's claims were rated "Pants in Fire" by Politifact: http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2014/jun/25/steve-doocy/... . In general, his claims have been debunked.
You mean like no temperature increases in nearly two decades despite massive increases in CO2.
http://online.wsj.com/articles/matt-ridley-whatever-happened-to-global-w...
You mean nearly 10 years without a major hurricane (Cat3) despite predictions of major increases.
http://www.newsnet5.com/weather/weather-news/us-hurricane-drought-still-...
You mean record low tornado activity despite prediction of massive increases?
http://www.climatedepot.com/2014/04/21/unprecedented-low-tornado-activit...
You mean the lack of polar ice melts predicted?
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
The fact is the AGW crowd has been making all sorts of precitions (just like the predictions cited in the above article) and the REALITY is they have all been wrong. To base current policy on prediction of climate 30-50 years from now when the predictions of the last 10 years have been so wrong would be more than foolish.
beachdumb,
Which of those articles "used the manipulated temperature data and climate prediction models based on that data"? And where in those articles?
Nonsense. Creating an excuse why the data was fabricated (they changed the way temperatures were measured) does not change the fact the measurements were fabricated. The data used were not actual temperature measurements.
Justin, I don't know that they used the IPPC data - though IPCC modeling is referenced in their papers.
Further McKelvey relies on Salthe for his climate assumptions. Salthe's conclusions are based on " a combination of global climate simulations" (manufactured data) and " using assumptions about how temperature and precipitation vary over complex terrain in order to interpolate the sparse station network" (more manufactured data).
Simulations, assumptions, interpolations - i.e. manufactured data. The fact is, anyone can create a model to predict anything they would like. The other fact is that the AGW models have been horrendously wrong.
If you could show that here, that would advance the conversation.
I would disagree with all of that--especially the naive characterization of how models are constructed and function in science. And I would point you to virtually every national and professional organization in science that would as well. If there are national and professional organizations of science that agree with you, and have issued position statements against anthropogenic warming, I'm sure you're welcome to present them here. In any case, if you want to argue against anthropogeinc warming, instead of presenting any published science that disputes the wolverine papers, be my guest.
One thing i'm learning from these forums is it's pointless to debate a realtor, and a merchant on global warming. NEITHER are in the field, and neither are documenting the changes. And seriously, EC. One year of a lull, doesn't make an entire trend set over decades, even centuries.. Any statistician could tell you that.
Don't doubt at all that the Wolverine's endangered or at least threatened. A threat that I've been told by some on the inside, inconvenient as it might seem, is that the biggest threat to the Wolverine at least in the Sierras is the sheer volume of backpackers invading the very shy and reclusive critter's home turf. Ya, just go with Global Warming, let the Wolverine go extinct in the Sierras and blame Global Warming, perfect.
With all due respect, Trailadvocate, I'd like to see something more substantive than anecdotal tales to support that contention. Backpackers and wolverines don't typically share the same territory. Wolverines in the Lower 48 most often are found above treeline in some of the very highest, craggiest, steepest parts of the landscape where there are no trails.
Beyond that, there are no established, breeding populations in the Sierra, so no real wolverines around for backpackers to run off...
Trapping is a huge part of the problem too. They have low breeding rates, and some of the mentality in the northern rockies is still stuck in the hudson bay era. Incidental trapping has taken its toll. While they can roam large distances, their food sources like bighorns and mountain goats have cratered in some areas. Central Idaho, and Western Montana is some of the last remaining habitat for them, and every year there are a few killed in traps set out for other animals. There's been a few incidents just last year of lynx and wolverines being caught in traps. Both are threatened in the areas, and more than likely both won't survive long term without changes in policy.
I am puzzled as to why climate change was interjected into this? Aren't they either endangered or not regardless as to the reason?
Computer modeling or simulation is used to predict likely outcomes and is not an exact science by any means. It should not be taken as gospel any more than it should be dismissed because it is not perfect. Like most things it will get better with time. Unfortunately politics and money have made good science harder and harder to do.
Climate change or global warming aside, I subscribe to the philosophy that minimizing one’s personal impact on the environment is just a good way to live your life. Sort of the leave no trace ethos even when not in the wild.
Well, I will dig the info up "if available" but in the meantime consider that there were breeding pairs of Wolverines in the Sierras historically. What's been the most dramatic change there? Certainly not trapping.
Since lobbying by all sorts of special interest groups is a popular and profitable pastime in Washington, how about sending a few wolverines to lobby for their habitat and survival?
Can't you imagine a wolverine or two attending a Congressional hearing or visiting the head dog of Fish and Wildlife?
Geez, maybe a few wolverines could even wake up Congress.
(But, come to think of it, that might not be a very good idea. They do enough damage when they are comatose. How much harm would they do if they were actually awake?)
Hey, everybody -- take a break from this fruitless circular discussion and spend a few minutes looking at the terrific video from Yosemite about flutterbys and milkweed. If that doesn't get your mind back on track, you're hopeless.
Happy to oblige:
Cut and paste doesn't work from the source but check out the first paragraph under "Regional Snow Modeling" it points to the dependency on Salathe
http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/pubs_other/rmrs_2011_mckelvey_k001.pdf
Here is Salathe and his assumptions, interpolations and simulations.
http://cses.washington.edu/db/pdf/wacciach2rcm643.pdf
I don't need scientific papers to dispute AGW theory, though I am sure they exist. The evidence is in the fact that the predictions haven't come true.
And I'll let that stand as the last word.
Of course you will. It is a favorite trick of those for whom the facts have turned hostile to select words out of context and completely change their meaning.
Perhaps you should check the work of these folks:
Scientists arguing that the cause of global warming is unknown
Scientists in this section have made comments that no principal cause can be ascribed to the observed rising temperatures, whether man-made or natural. Their views on climate change are usually described in more detail in their biographical articles.
Scientists arguing that global warming will have few negative consequences
Scientists in this section have made comments that projected rising temperatures will be of little impact or a net positive for human society and/or the Earth's environment. Their views on climate change are usually described in more detail in their biographical articles.
" It is a favorite trick of those for whom the facts have turned hostile to select words out of context and completely change their meaning."
Yeah, we've noticed. Where did you learn to do it so well?
For what it's worth....
http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2014/10/13/nasa_earth_just_exper...
Tell that to the people in Siberia:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-10-14/new-york-gets-frigid-winter-war...
Oh and of course it is the validity of the NASA data that has been called into question by the manipulation scandel.
1. Send the snow to the Rockies. The wolverines would like that.
2. NASA's data from this past weekend has been called into question??
3. The "manipulation scandal" appears to have been discredited, as dahkota pointed out hours ago.
And there have been 6 category 4 storms in the Pacific this year, and it looks like Gonzolo just got upgraded to Category 4 in the Atlantic just as I post this. And it sure was nice watching 6.7 inches of rain fall on the Smokies yesterday. That's equivalent to a 67 inch snowstorm falling in the rockies as a blizzard in an 8 hour span. October is usually a dry month, and these storms of 5 inches or greater are happening with increasing frequency. Warmer air holds more moisture, and that is simple science. These events are increasing, and it's because of a warming climate.
Also, let's refuse to even mention the lack of sea ice up in the arctic this year, and how Alaska has suffered from a heavy warming period.
I refuse to listen to tea partiers anymore when it comes to any discussion about scientific topics. Most of them do not work with scientists or are scientists themselves, and just becaue they scream the loudest on the internet doesn't mean their words carry more weight and intellectual might. Far from the case.
Sorry - doubled
All for it. But then we had near record snow last year. Nearly a foot of snow already this year and the skiing opens next week. Let the wolverines have it.
No the data it is being compared to - i.e. "dating back to 1880" has been questioned.
And as I pointed out hours ago, coming up with an excuse to manipulate the data doesn't validate the data.
I think ec is disagreeing and arguing with himself. Talk about circular arguments . . . . .
And you are critical of me for using 1 year - which I never did. You get a rainy day in the Smokies and its proof of global warming?
Heck, even you said trends have been going on for centuries, which would put it well before humans had any meaningful carbon footprint.
The planet never had 8 billion primates digging up stored carbon and burning it and placing it into the atmosphere. That's an entirely new phenonmenon to the planet. But hey, I look beyond just the few years i've been on this rock and am able to see that. Maybe, i'm just more self-aware?
And once again, I showed you a graphic that shows that these heavy rain events are occurring at a more frequent rate. But reading comprehension is not your strong suit, obviously.
Carry on though. I'm done with you. I've been done with you for a long time. You're officially on ignore.
But you said the trends have been going on for centuries.
I'm kind of glad that even though a vocal minority of denialists waste their time clogging up online comment sections, there are reasonable people in the world who look at the tens of thousands of peer-reviewed research papers documenting evidence for climate change and act accordingly. I'm confident the wolverine will be given endangered species protection.
So tell me muddy, which of those "tens of thousands" (LOL) predicted no warming over the last 17 years?
The whole of the world has accepted the validity of the science and moved to act accordingly. A handful of idealogues terrified of the political repurcussions don't make facts cease to exist. I'm not wasting my time beating a dead horse. You can continue your crusade to argue that 1+1=3, but it means literally nothing to the world. You may as well be chasing chemtrails with vinegar-soaked rags to save humanity from the mind-altering chemicals that are part of a government plot to subjugate the public. To the overwhelming majority of humanity, you're a fruitcake.
I know that 97% of climate scientists agree that man has helped create the global climate changes.
I know that in the hundred or so years of using internal combustion engines that the use of fossil fuel, the population, and the growth of polluting industries have all grown exponentially, and the resulting cumulative effect on the environment is self-evident. I know that I live in Alaska and see the changes all around me. I know second and third generation subsistence hunters and fishermen who have described dramatic changes of foliage, weather, and animals within their lifetimes; changes dramatically out of scale for their previously normal ebb and flow of life. I've seen trees and telephone poles leaning sideways because the permafrost under them has been melting. When your life is a continual amassing of anecdotal evidence, I know that it doesn't add up to much in a jab versus jab debate online, but then I also know that that jab versus jab has diddly-squat to do with the real world.
At this point I simply have to believe that climate change deniers are either willfully complicit, or simply ignorant and easily led. Which are which is also fairly easily self-evident.
The 97% of climate scientists agree on AGW has been debunked. Another NASA fib. You have to wonder why some people are so gullible and intulectually dishonest. Your being lied to, shown the evidence of the lies, and yet you still "believe". No wonder this country is in such a mess.
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB1000142405270230348030457957846281...
Who, pray tell, is behind this horrible conspiracy?
Unfortunately, these fruitloops hijack these threads and never allow intelligent thought to be discussed. It always devolves into a beachdump. I guarantee Beachdump has never even seen a wolverines habitat, so he knows little about wolverines or their habitat or what is going on with it. It's pathetic how threads get out of whack by these people. It's already evident that the wolverines habitat is being altered and diminished, so they are going to have to adapt quite a bit to survive. I lived next to the Sawtooth National recreational area, one of the wolverines remaining habitats, and while there seems to be a stable population of them in that place, most of their habitat is being altered by an accelerating and warming climate. What used to be permanent snowfields in high elevation alpine meadows and crags, rarely contain snow throughout the season anymore. While there were a few years where snow hung on well into July those are now the exception to the rule, and no longer the norm.
Muddy, I'll take your response as "none". None of those 10s of thousands (LOL again) of peer reveiwed studies predicted the current 17 year lull in warming. Why do you continue to swallow hook line and sinker these "studies" that have proven to be so wrong?
And for those that think this thread has been hijacked, it is only because you don't want to face the reality. The essense of the article is whether there is evidence that global warming is threatening the habitat. Discussing the myth is hardly off topic.
Exactly.
ec said, " It is a favorite trick of those for whom the facts have turned hostile to select words out of context and completely change their meaning."
I say, "Yeah, so why do you keep doing it?"
Let's stick to the topic at hand, folks. And the warring over climate change, what's behind it, whether it's occurring, who believes it, who doesn't, has been overdone. Let's try to stick to wolverines, their need for snowfields, and whether they're in danger of blinking out. Otherwise, please move on.
Kurt - it is difficult to discuss the issue of whether climate change is hurting the species, the basis of the suit, without discussing the issue of climate change. No one argues that wolverinces don't need snowfields. The question is how valid are projections 30-50 years out. I know it may be an uncomfortable topic for some but the validity of global warming is the essense of the dispute highlighted in the article.
Pages