Endangered Species Act: Only Obstacle to Annihilation of Wolves: Idaho shows what will happen if Endangered Species Act is altered and give states control. An article by Andrea Santarsiere in the Idaho Statesman is revealing about how states unconstrained by a robust Federal Endangered Species Act would do if the law is “defanged” as appears likely. She reports that Idaho is considering allowing “baiting” so that more wolves can be killed. The “problem” that this change is to address concerns the fact that the number of wolves killed by hunters was down to 256 in both 2014 and 2015 compared with 356 killed in 2013. She notes that the logical conclusion about the decrease is that the wolf population has declined in a major way. She also reports that State wildlife officials will cease “monitoring wolf populations”—they don’t want to provide evidence of the decline of wolves in the state. Although surveys even in conservative Western states like Idaho show strong overall support for predators like wolves and grizzlies, the truth is that wildlife (these states only care about “game”) “management” (i.e., killing) is dominated by a coalition of ranchers, hunters, and extractive industries)—they control the State “game departments” and wildlife “advisory” committees—this coalition “calls the shots.” It is only the Federal Endangered Species Act that stands between them and the annihilation of wolves. Check out the article at: http://www.idahostatesman.com/opinion/readers-opinion/article167907557.html
Ryan Zinke’s Worst Interior Secretary Ever: now heads “Department of Coal, Oil, and Welfare Cattle Grazing.”
Ryan Zinke’s Worst Interior Secretary Ever: now heads “Department of Coal, Oil, and Welfare Cattle Grazing.” When Ryan Zinke was first nominated as Secretary of Interior, I like many others interested in wildlife conservation, thought that he was the “least bad” nominee that could be hoped for by a president like Trump. During his stint as Republican congressional representative, he had at least voice opposition to the takeover of Federal public lands by states and private entities while most of his fellow Western representatives demanded such transfers. However, his actions since he has taken over Interior totally reverse my assessment of him. He is the biggest Trumpian enthusiast by far in the Cabinet. He has rejected the Sage Grouse compromise that took years of negotiation between states and the Federal government because it hinders extractive industries. He claimed to be a Teddy Roosevelt Republicans but he is seriously considering cutting back national monuments—these monuments are the device Teddy R. used to achieve monumental conservation achievements. He just opened the Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge to “emergency grazing” to accommodate ranchers whose herds suffered from a wildlife. Anyone who has followed public ranching in the West know that not only are these ranches an example of government welfare for a small number of unproductive ranchers but they are actively harmful to wildlife. Finally, he has just supported Trump’s position on confederate statutes. I am not aware of any other cabinet official who has shown such enthusiasm for Trump’s harmful policies. He is the worst--he even makes James Watts appear "less bad!" .
Multiple Causation of Deaths of Mule Deer—Look to causes other than Wolves! Blame for drop in game populations is generally focused on predators such as wolves and grizzlies but the situation is much more complex. This point has been proven time and again as I discuss in Chapter 2 and elsewhere in my Wildlife Politics book. There are many causes of mule deer death in Wyoming with weather-influenced starvation in winters being a major factor. Researchers in Wyoming have been studying mule deer fawn survival in Wyoming because “Fawn survival has been declining since the mid-1980s and no one knows why.” Wildlife managers have long focused on wolves as major causes of decline but there are multiple causes such as “climate change, habitat loss, and disease.” Indeed, one of the lead researchers, Kevin Montieth of the University of Wyoming, admitted that he “was surprised when the first year of the study revealed adenovirus had the greatest impact on fawn populations, not predators.” Feeding of deer can lead to adovirus which has led to a change in policy. Of course, unlike humans, if the prey of wolves declines, there are automatic correcting factors as their numbers are likely to decline too. Climate change can make for extreme conditions on weather which has much bigger impact on game than predators but is not a factor that politicians or “game departments” pay attention to. Check out the Wyofile article on Fawn survival & its multiple causes at: http://www.wyofile.com/column/devastated-deer-herd-offers-rare-research-opportunity/
ORVs and wildlife in National Wildlife Refuges: The disappearance of remoteness and ability to hide from humans
ORVs and wildlife in National Wildlife Refuges: The disappearance of remoteness and ability to hide from humans. I just read an article by Robert L. Fischman et al. in the June 2017 issue of the Journal of Fish and Wildlife Management titled “An Evaluation of U.S. National Wildlife Refuge Planning for Off-Road Vehicle Use.” It demonstrates how technology (in this case in the form of Off Road Vehicles) has erased the ability of wildlife to seek refuge and remoteness from humans and how the future of “wilderness and wildlife” is gloomy. The article cites evidence that “off-road vehicle use is one of the fastest-growing forms of public land recreation in the United States” and makes an argument for managing this fast-growing threat to wildlife. The article notes that ORV use is especially prevalent in lands run by the Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management but this article focuses on ORV use in national wildlife refuges that, though they do support multiple uses related to “wildlife-dependent recreation” including viewing and hunting of wildlife, are supposed to prioritize protection of wildlife. I was aware before this article that hunting was allowed in national wildlife refuges but I was not aware that hunters could use off-road vehicles to make their task easy—not my idea of sportsman hunting—not in the mode of Teddy Roosevelt hunting! Even when ORVs are used to just view wildlife and improve access such as to handicapped humans, they have many harmful effects on wildlife and their habitat such as: (1) “Recreational ORV activity can kill wildlife directly through collision but may also disturb animals by increasing stress and decreasing reproduction”(2) “ORVs increase access for illegal hunting” (3) “Soils are vulnerable to compaction and erosion from ORV use…mud holes and gullies causes sediment to be discharged to streams, decreasing water quality, destroying in-stream habitat, and harming aquatic organisms” (4) “Offtrail ORV use may destroy vegetation and impair wildlife habitats…plants are often weakened and become more susceptible to diseases and insects” (5) “Recreational use of ORVs also contributes to the spread of invasive species by transporting seeds and plant materials” (6) “Snowmobiles may destroy the habitat of the mammals living under the snow, and engine noise stresses larger mammals” (6) “Wheeled ORVs on beaches have been shown to adversely impact birds and crustaceans.” This article is not written by authors who are determined opponents of ORVs in wildlife refuges (though this is my position!) For example, they cite positively the provision of “ORV-aided hunting ATV shuttle system” in the Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge as a good practice to allow hunters to extract wildlife from “remote areas of the Refuge.”! Thus this article is not written by anti-hunters or anti-ORVers.
They are trying to suggest “best management practices” to minimize the harmful impacts of ORVs on wildlife! However, because this article is written by dispassionate observers, it is all the more alarming to me. They cite data that 20% of the U.S. population (over 16 years of age) uses ORVs and this rapidly growing population of ORV users have completely outstripped the ability of the USFWS, Forest Service, or BLM to prevent harmful uses. Indeed, the budgets and personnel of these agencies will decrease greatly under the Trump Administration & their enforcement ability will be much weaker. The one effective mechanism to preventing harmful use concerns the use of “barriers, such as barricades and fencing, though potentially costly, are especially important where fines for violators of ORV rules may not provide sufficient deterrence.” But, the trend is towards MORE ACCESS due to pressures from the powerful ORV lobby which fights such restrictions. I feel confident that if a survey were done of the general U.S. public about the use of ORVs in national wildlife refuges that they would strongly oppose the practices described above but, as with most wildlife issues, the smaller group actively involved in these harmful practices cares very much about their rights and their intensity far outweighs that of the general American public. This is one more example of how the nature of U.S. politics means that wildlife conservation will lose until the group that cares intensely about wildlife preservation grows in numbers and takes political action. The full article is available at: http://www.ulib.niu.edu:4911/doi/pdf/10.3996/052016-JFWM-040
Public Lands Ranching: Supporting Welfare Ranchers over Wildlife. I have just recently read Lynn Jacobs classic 1981 book, Waste of the West that provides nearly 500 pages of detailed and convincing critique of public lands ranching in the West. The book documents how public lands ranchers have destroyed the quality of Western public lands with the herds of cattle that deprive the lands of biodiversity. He cites data to show that the U.S. public subsidizes these ranchers who get support from the government for “developing” their leased lands. He cites statistics how these public ranch operations consume a huge quantity of water. Most striking, he shows how unproductive these ranches are for cattle-raising—it takes hundreds of acres of these Western public lands to support one cattle while cattle in Midwest and eastern states are far more productive. Thus the beef raised by the western public lands ranchers is a very small percentage of the overall U.S. beef supply. Moreover, the numbers of public lands ranchers are very small and consistently becoming a smaller and smaller portion of their states populations. Despite this fact, somehow these public lands ranchers have been able to continue to get the Federal government and its agencies (primarily the Bureau of Land Management and Forest Service) to subsidize their non-economic operations such as by having ridiculously low fees—it is totally irrational policy from every one’s point of view (except the ranchers’). It is no wonder that any challenge to public ranching brings threats from the ranchers to anyone who dares to challenge them. They know they are on weak ground. When I finished Jacobs’ book, I checked to see if there had been any major developments since then but it appears that the situation is status quo. One would hope that the Trump Administration in its desire to cutback domestic spending would at least do some good here by cutting support for public lands ranching. But the Department of Interior’s Ryan Zinke has proven to belong to the cult of the “cowboy”—Jacobs points out that somehow many people including Easterners buy into the myth of the cowboy despite the fact it has no basis in reality—they write trucks and ATVs to their “public ranches.” Zinke made a big point of riding a horse to his office—and he has shown that he cares nothing at all for wildlife diversity as a priority—he is no Teddy Roosevelt Republican despite his pretense. The wastefulness and threat to wildlife continues to this day a recent article proves. It discusses how the State of Washington is going to kill wolves in order to protect public lands ranches. The article points out that these ranchers (as Jacobs has proven) “operate on slim financial margins, and have had to make unwelcome adjustments in their practices to continue ranching in what has once again become wolf country.” The point is that public lands are not fit for ranching and yet state and Federal government continue to toady to this small group of entitled welfare ranchers. Why? When, if ever, will rationality prevail and the public stop supporting this this small, unproductive group of ranchers? Check out the article by Linda V. Mapes at Washington state to kill more wolves to protect livestock http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/environment/washington-state-to-kill-more-wolves-to-protect-livestock/
Another Anthropogenic threat to species: Pet Trade leads to pathogen threat to salamanders. Science magazine published an article (July 21, 2017) concerning a pathogen that is threatening European salamander species that is caused by pets being traded into Europe from Asia. The article has excellent photos of the species. The researchers who identified the problem say the solution is to prevent future introductions of the pathogen especially to North America where the world’s largest population of salamanders exists. Tbey don’t support a total ban on trade in the species but instead would allow trade in captive-raised salamanders that have been tested because, they argue, a complete ban would push the trade underground with no controls. Read the article: Saving Europe’s Salamanders: Belgian couple discovered a lethal new threat to amphibians. Now, they wonder: Can it be stopped? By Erik Stokstad, Science, July 21, 2017 v357, #6348 242-245
Example of Why the State Role under the Endangered Species Act should not be changed: The state role in preserving wildlife diversity especially for predators such as the Mexican wolf is crucial. As has been documented in the agonizingly slow Mexican Wolf recovery effort, lack of state cooperation can derail plans of the USFWS even when that organization is run by administrations such as Clinton and Obama that theoretically support the recovery of wolves. The Mexicanwolves.org NGO has released an eye-opening report on the role of states in the recovery of Mexican wolves---its review covers Arizona, New Mexico, Utah, and Colorado. It details how each of these states has acted to oppose and/or undermine wolf recovery despite the fact that a large minority of their populations support wolf recovery—even in areas where the wolves would reside. It shows how the revised plan for Mexican wolf recovery of the USFWS has been affected by states—the USFWS plan diverges from the “best available science” and instead sides with the states on the following crucial issues:
Comparison of “Best Available Science” versus State position versus USFWS draft plan:
This document and discussion is especially important as the Republican-dominated Congress is pushing to “update” (i.e., weaken) the Endangered Species Act and all of the Republican proposals give priority to states in making decisions about endangered species and listing (and delisting) especially of controversial species like wolves. If these “updates” to ESA pass, science will been undermine and the threats to species such as Mexican wolves will doom the recovery effort. Check out the report:
Four States’ Efforts to Derail Wolf Recovery: Whose side are they on? Four States’ Efforts to Derail Wolf Recovery Mexican Wolves are in real trouble. http://mexicanwolves.org/uploads/Four_States_Derail_Wolf_Recovery.pdf
Grazing and Wildlife Diversity: U.S. and India: How similar are the issues! I have been reading Lynn Jacobs “Waste of the West” which provides a very detailed and convincing critique of ranching in the U.S. West. Then I read an article by Abhishek Ghoshal concerning the Snow Leopard: Ecology and Conservation Issues in India and I was struck by the many similarities in the ecological issues in these two very different countries. Jacobs, as I have discussed in a previous post below, shows how wasteful ranching is in the U.S. West with its arid climate and how ranching consumes great resources in terms of water and forage that otherwise would support a diverse and rich habitat that used to support rich biodiversity. Ghoshal shows on snow leopards are being threatened despite the fact that they live in remote areas of the Indian Himalayas. Areas that used to be good habitat for the leopards are now being affected by “agro-pastoralism,” “market-driven agriculture,” human population growth, and “excessive livestock grazing.” Development with road construction is opening up formerly “remote…undisturbed areas” and the consequence is the new inhabitants do not have a “traditional tolerance” for the snow leopard. A side effect of the development is more garbage which has support the rise of a large feral dog population which also is depriving the leopard of its traditional prey. As in the U.S. West, the growing livestock grazing is having harmful effects—it to is characterized by “low productivity” and has resulted in deteriorated pasture quality “through lowered…biomass and plant cover” that have resulted in the “displacement of wild prey….” There has been a rise in tourism related to viewing of the snow leopard but the author says that the impact of roads and other infrastructure “improvements” are reducing and fragmenting habitat outweighing any positive effects. Check out the article at: http://www.ias.ac.in/article/fulltext/reso/022/07/0677-0690
Population Extinctions versus Species Extinctions & the Time Factor of Determining the Seriousness of the Current Threats to Species
Population Extinctions versus Species Extinctions & the Time Factor of Determining the Seriousness of the Current Threats to Species. An article just published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences presents what they refer to as the “Sixth Mass Extinction” currently going on. The article is titled “Biological annihilation via the ongoing sixth mass extinction signaled by vertebrate population losses and declines” and the authors are Gerardo Ceballos, Paul R. Ehrlich, and Rodolfo Dirzo. The article makes a point that the number of species extinction in the past century may not seem large (estimated to be about 200 in the past century) but local populations of a large percentage of species have become extinct—the species exist in other locations but in these locations their numbers are also declining. Moreover, past major extinctions have taken millions of years so the 200 lost is actually very significant—given the rate of previous extinctions—the authors say that it should have taken about 10,000 years to lose that many species to extinction. The article is available online at: http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2017/07/05/1704949114.full.pdf
From Vermin to Protected Species: The Social Construction of Wildlife in England.
One of the points that becomes clear in studying the Politics of Wildlife is that human attitudes towards wildlife change radically through time. This point is reinforced by Roger Lovegrove and his book (Oxford University Press, 2007) titled “Silent Fields: The Long Decline of a Nation’s Wildlife.” He summarizes the changes in attitudes towards wildlife as going through 4 phases with the first 2 phases lasting up to World War II involving “vermin control” and “an indiscriminate war of attrition against predatory species.” As I show concerning the U.S. in my Wildlife Politics book, the last 70 years has engendered a complete reversal in general perceptions of many wildlife species. Loveridge states that “The 19th and early 20th century acceptance of UNRESTRICTED vermin killing has essentially been REVERSED to a new climate in which the predominating ethic is the recovery and return of lost or diminishing species” (p. 292). Of course, this change in attitude did not occur until many species were entirely eliminated (e.g., bears, wolves) and others were near extinction in England (e.g., otters). The turnaround was due in large part to the formation of interest groups that acted on behalf of wildlife—especially birds—Loveridge notes that The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds has more than 1 million members. Books, Videos and Media also have a big impact on changing attitudes—especially in the case of mammals like otters---he notes that books about Tarka the Otter and Ring of Bright Water, together with their film adaptations” had a big impact. I note in my book that similar impacts in Canada occurred due to books and films about wolves. His account of the control of “vermin” defined as “any animal of noxious or objectionable kind’ shows that two major human factors affected perceptions: (1) Loss of economic benefits such as agriculture to species (e.g., moles); (2) Interference with sports game-hunting such as fox hunts and shooting of pheasants. However, Loveridge begins the book by noting that the chief causes of decline lie in agriculture (cutting of forests, draining wetlands, introduction of livestock, cultivation of crops” and later after the Industrial Revolution with consequent pollution, population growth and urbanization of the country. The importance attached to sports and game-hunting is attested by the occupation of gameskeeper which dates back hundreds of years in England. He points out that some species such as fox engender a “schizophrenic attitude”—the fox was viewed as vermin and its population greatly declined so much so that rural countries in need of foxes for gaming purposes contributed to money to support their population. He notes that many species (e.g., moles) have positive as well as negative impacts on the environment but their positive effects are often ignored and thus they are viewed as vermin. He cites the role of religion that views humanity as to “have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the fowls of the air and over every living thing.” He thus notes how the 21 century attitude represents a big change in humanity’s values, with a “new climate in which the predominating ethic is the recovery and return of lost or diminishing species.” He provides some interesting examples of recent politics of wildlife concerning the sports of pigeon racers. Scottish groups representing the group have sought to be able to take sparrowhawks and peregrines that prey on pigeons but have so far failed—Loveridge notes that such groups has succeeded in passing such laws in Denmark. Likewise, Loveridge cites the many economic benefits to small rural communities obtained from the sport of fox hunting lost due to its banning. Loveridge argues that there is no urban-rural divide on the issue—that both pro and con (as to fox hunting) sides are fairly represented in both urban and rural areas. Based on my analysis of the U.S. wildlife history, I am sure that he is correct that overall attitudes may not differ so strongly. However, in the U.S., the big difference is that influential forces (ranchers and hunters” have dominated politically in western states and the wildlife policy differences between these and urban-dominated states is stark.
I have just completed a book titled "Wildlife Politics" that is scheduled to be published by Cambridge University Press on March 30, 2017. The book covers broadly all major aspects of wildlife conservation policy worldwide. During my research for the book, I noticed that there was no blog available for sharing informaton on wildlife conservation and thus I set up this blog to accomplish this purpose. Please share any informaticoncerning issues related to wildife policy and politics. I welcome feedback from users concerning this blog and website.