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
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.