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.'
Comments
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.
I don't have a good answer to that, but I suspect some of it is based on money/grants, job security and/or simply wanting to believe and/or some kind of political agenda. I don't know.
I feel bad for these scientists and biologists, because their hard work is being dismissed and discredited by their unknowingly use of the manipulated data. I am sure they trusted these sources and didn't question thier validity. Most of these studies were done before the discovery of the manipulated data.
EC, I don't disagree with you, but the back and forth ad nauseum can best be handled offline between the warring parties. I could go back a couple years and pull the same weary debates, almost verbatim, and repost here and nothing would have substantively changed.
I wouldn't say it's an "uncomfortable topic," but I would say the two sides in this fight are not going to persuade the other to change their view.
Perhaps if this kind of diatribe continues we institute a three-comment rule for individuals. After your third comment on the topic, you're done.
Kurt - I know I won't change the minds of those so adamantly on the otherside. It's not for their benefit that I post. There are many who have not yet made a conclusion on this (and many other) issue(s). They need to hear all the evidence so they can have all the information upon which to base an opinion.
I'm all for the 3 comment rule. Please implement it! Like I said, there are those of us that work in the field, and then there are merchants, and realtors that aren't in the fields pretending they know more than everyone else that studies this stuff and has boots on the ground experience. The threads get hijacked beyond belief. It gets old VERY Fast. My vote is to implement the rule!!! CNN recently pulled their comment sections because of the trolling. Popular science did it too, because too many trolls hijacked and controlled the threads, outshouting scientists and people that had a clue.
Well, Gary, some could say that both you and the merchants have a vested interest in your own angles. Hard to argue against a paycheck. Sorry for being so cynical. There are examples.