IMAGE: Bonneville Cutthroat Trout or Oncorhynchus clarki utah. Photo by Peter Rissler.
by Buck Denton
The US government’s current interpretation of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) is wrong. The interpretation violates common sense and principles of ecosystem management. It is equivalent to a lawyer or judge supporting an unconstitutional ruling or action undertaken by the American government. Furthermore, it would be illogical to conclude that Congress intended a narrow interpretation of a species’ range since it is obtuse to believe that the management of a species can be successful within a portion of its range rather than its historic range. Certainly, portions of a historic range can no longer be reclaimed due to hostile development but it leaves the possibility for a species to loose further habitat forever. In addition, what if unknown populations of an endangered species exist in a historic range and are quietly paved over by development?
Fragmentation results in environmental degradation. In addition, environmentally negative anthropogenic activities upstream will influence ecosystems downstream. This includes not just streams and rivers or bodies of water but whole watersheds and aquifers. If we protect our aquifers and watersheds, we protect our drinking water supplies. Theoretically and practically, how can an endangered species be managed downstream when no protection exists upstream?
How the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service can support such a narrow interpretation of the ESA is beyond comprehension. The government’s interpretation of the ESA is oxymoronic. Undoubtedly, the Bush Administration’s is influencing the agency. An example of the Bush Administration influencing the ESA was when Julie MacDonald the deputy assistant secretary at the United States Department of the Interior resigned on May 1, 2007 because of her involvement in manipulating science, species protection plans, violating the Endangered Species Act in addition to using her governmental authority to intentionally sabotage conservation work.
The negligent and reckless interpretation is not pro fish or wildlife but pro development. Such an interpretation will be disastrous especially for species that require a lot of acreage to roam such as large predators and ungulates. The policy is equally disastrous for species living downstream that may be affected by polluters or development upstream.
More species will not be listed on the ESA because this interpretation seeks to protect fish and wildlife. More species will be listed on the ESA because human-wildlife conflicts will increase because this interpretation facilitates poor development strategies. This narrow interpretation coupled with an increasing population will continue to eat into already fragmented lands left for fish and wildlife. Regular readers of the Conservation Report know how much I advocate for the application of the first two Laws of Thermodynamics into understanding conservation and sustainability. The concept certainly applies to ecosystems and fragmented landscapes.
The ESA may be interpreted as an overreaching monster by some but if trout and other indicator species are healthy then we our healthy. I am not arguing to stop development but I am arguing that sustainable development coupled with the protections afforded under the ESA will lead to a healthier society and economy. Ironically, the ESA is not just saving endangered species but us too. From the Times-News:
The change stems from a 2007 settlement agreement with an environmental group and agency rule changes that allow the service to consider listing a species threatened in portions of its habitat, rather than over its entire range, the agency said.Fish and Wildlife officials say the rule change could result in more species being listed under the federal protection act.
But environmentalists disagree with the government’s interpretation, which stemmed from last year’s settlement. They say the new rule allows Fish and Wildlife to ignore huge geographic areas of species decline and instead address only the worst areas of degradation.
The case involves the Bonneville cutthroat trout, a little-known fish found primarily in Utah with small population segments in southeastern Idaho, Wyoming and Nevada.
In 2001, Fish and Wildlife determined the species did not warrant protection. The Center for Biological Diversity, an Arizona-based environmental group, sued, and reached a settlement agreement with the government.
Following the settlement, the agency developed the new policy, enabling Fish and Wildlife to consider listings based on whether a species may be threatened in a significant portion of its range, not the entirety of historic ranges.
The environmental group said it’s pleased with any protection but says the policy is a cop out.
“From a recovery perspective, you want to look across the whole range, not just one area,” said Noah Greenwald, a conservation biologist with the group who specializes in petitioning species for protection in the interior West. “Now, they’re only going to look at the places where species are most endangered.”
Press Release February 7, 2008 Service to Conduct Status Review of the Bonneville Cutthroat Trout
Federal Register Notice February 7, 2008 12-Month Finding on a Petition To List the Bonneville Cutthroat Trout (Oncorhynchus clarki utah) as Threatened or Endangered
