Nick Cady, Cascadia Wildlands, 314-482-3746, nick@cascwild.org
Matthew Bishop, Western Environmental Law Center, 406-422-9866, bishop@westernlaw.org 

Coalition lawsuit: Science says wolverines need protection

Today, a coalition of wildlife advocates challenged the Trump Fish and Wildlife Service’s (the Service’s) decision to deny protections to imperiled wolverines under the Endangered Species Act. This is the second time the Service has prioritized politics over science for wolverines, which number about 300 in the contiguous U.S.

The groups in today’s filing defeated the Service in court in 2016, forcing the agency back to the drawing board with a directive to apply the best science. Four years later, the Service has returned with the same decision to deny wolverine protective status, despite no new scientific support for such a determination.

“This is yet another chapter in this administration’s war on science,” said Matthew Bishop, an attorney with the Western Environmental Law Center. “Public records reveal the Service decided not to protect wolverine from day one and then worked backwards to figure out how to make the decision stick. It’s really unfortunate.”

In April 2016, a federal judge sided with conservation groups, agreeing that the Service’s August 2014 decision not to list wolverine as threatened was arbitrary and contrary to the scientific literature. The court held: “[T]he Service’s decision against listing the wolverine as threatened under the ESA is arbitrary and capricious.

“No greater level of certainty is needed to see the writing on the wall for this snow-dependent species standing squarely in the path of global climate change. It has taken us twenty years to get to this point. It is the [court’s] view that if there is one thing required of the Service under the ESA, it is to take action at the earliest possible, defensible point in time to protect against the loss of biodiversity within our reach as a nation. For the wolverine, that time is now (Opinion at page 83).”

The court also noted clear evidence of political interference in the Service’s reversal. “Why did the Service make the decision [to not list the wolverine]?…Based on the record, the Court suspects that a possible answer to this question can be found in the immense political pressure that was brought to bear on this issue, particularly by a handful of western states (Opinion at page 56).”

Before its decisions to deny wolverines endangered species protections, the Service identified climate change, in conjunction with small population size, as the primary threat to the species’ existence in the contiguous U.S.

The wolverine relies on snow year-round. With its large paws, it can travel easily over snow, and often relies on deep snow for hunting. Snow is also a “freezer” that permits the wolverine to store and scavenge food. One study found 98% of all wolverine den sites in places with persistent snowpack.

Published, peer-reviewed research, the independent Society for Conservation Biology, the majority of experts who reviewed the decision, and the Service’s own biologists all verified this finding.

The Service proposed listing the wolverine as a “threatened” species under the ESA in 2013. At the eleventh hour, however, the Service reversed course and chose not to protect wolverine, citing too many “uncertainties” in the scientific literature. This dubious about-face led the court to reverse the decision.

Today’s complaint aims to ensure the Service utilizes the best available science when making listing decisions, and provide wolverines the protective status they desperately need and deserve.

“This is something we were really hoping to avoid after the court’s 2016 decision,” said Bishop. “I was cautiously optimistic the Service would get it right this time and we’d be focusing our time and energy on developing a conservation strategy, recovery plan, critical habitat, and possibly reintroduction efforts for wolverine. Instead, we’re back in court challenging an agency that continues to put politics over science.”

The groups on today’s complaint include WildEarth Guardians, Friends Of The Bitterroot, Friends Of The Wild Swan, Swan View Coalition, Oregon Wild, Cascadia Wildlands, Alliance For The Wild Rockies, Cottonwood Environmental Law Center, George Wuerthner, Footloose Montana, Native Ecosystems Council, Wildlands Network, Helena Hunters and Anglers Association.

Background:

Wolverine number just 250-300 individuals in the contiguous U.S. and are dependent on high elevation habitat with deep winter snows. Imperiled by climate change, habitat loss, small population size and trapping, wolverine were first petitioned for Endangered Species Act protections in 2000. The Service found the petition did not contain adequate information to justify a listing. A federal court overturned that decision in 2006. The Service then issued a negative 12-month finding in 2008, which was challenged in court resulting in a settlement that led to a new finding that wolverine should be protected under the ESA, but that other priorities precluded the listing at that time. A landmark settlement, which resolved the backlog of imperiled species awaiting protections, then guaranteed a new finding for wolverine. In February 2013, the Service proposed listing the wolverine as “threatened” under the ESA. In August 2014, however, the Service reversed course and issued a decision not to list the species, contradicting its own expert scientists’ recommendations. In April, 2016 the court overturned the Service’s decision not to list, reinstating wolverine’s status as a candidate species and requiring a new final rule. Today’s decision is the result.

###

The post Lawsuit Filed to Protect Imperiled Wolverine first appeared on Cascadia Wildlands.

Contact:
Nick Cady, Cascadia Wildlands, 314-482-3746, nick@cascwild.org

Today, a coalition of conservation organizations filed a complaint in federal court challenging the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s (the Service’s) decision to forgo recovery planning for threatened Canada lynx.

Recovery plans are important tools required by the Endangered Species Act, often referred to as the “roadmap” for conservation because they spell out what the agency needs to do to recover a species and how best to do it. Recovery plans also include metrics that must be met before the Service may deem a species recovered.

In 2013, conservation organizations sued the Service for failing to prepare a recovery plan for threatened lynx, following nearly 14 years of delay. The court agreed and directed the agency to prepare a recovery plan by January 2018.

A month before the January 2018 deadline, however, the Service decided to forgo preparing a recovery plan on the theory that lynx are already “recovered” and no longer threatened in the contiguous U.S. The Service said it would therefore focus its time and energy on delisting and removing protections for the species, rather than recovery planning.

“The Trump Administration is playing political games with iconic species that are in serious risk of extinction,” said Nick Cady with Cascadia Wildlands. “The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s own scientists determined lynx were not recovered and that proactive efforts are needed to curb significant, ongoing habitat loss from climate change and related warming and longer fire seasons. The conservation of endangered species used to enjoy widespread bipartisan support, and recovery decisions were rooted in science.  It looks like nothing is sacred anymore, and lynx are one of many species paying the price.”

Background

Lynx and their habitat are threatened by climate change, wildfires, logging, development, motorized access and trapping, which disturb and fragment the landscape. Lynx rely heavily on snowshoe hare, and like their preferred prey, are specially adapted to living in mature boreal forests with dense cover and deep snowpack. Climate change may also increase hare predation from other species, resulting in increased competition and displacement of lynx.

Since designating Canada lynx as threatened under the Endangered Species Act 20 years ago in 2000, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has gone to extraordinary lengths to deny protections to the big cat. The agency had to be sued to list the species, amend the species’ listing status (to cover all of its range in the contiguous United States), prepare a recovery plan, and to designate critical habitat. WELC litigation prompted many of these actions.

###

The post Missing lynx: Advocates challenge Feds’ refusal to prepare recovery plan first appeared on Cascadia Wildlands.

Contact
Nick Cady, Cascadia Wildlands Legal Director
(314) 482-3746, nick@cascwild.org

Lawsuit Launched to Protect North Oregon Coast Red Tree Voles

Rare Forest Mammal Threatened by Logging, Historic Fires

PORTLAND, OR — Conservation groups filed a notice today of their intent to sue the Trump administration for failing to protect the imperiled North Oregon Coast population of red tree voles under the Endangered Species Act.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service denied protections to the red tree vole in December 2019, despite several previous findings that such protections were warranted. Red tree voles have been decimated throughout much of their range by habitat loss from logging and historic fires. The small remaining population on Oregon’s north coast is at immediate risk of extinction without Endangered Species Act safeguards.

“Oregon’s fragile population of red tree voles could be lost forever to unchecked logging or wiped out in a single fire event,” said Quinn Read, Oregon policy director at the Center for Biological Diversity. “The Trump administration’s about-face on protecting our voles rejects science and ignores the bleak outlook for these rare tree dwelling mammals.”

This distinct population of red tree vole is found only along Oregon’s northern coast. Red tree voles live nearly their entire lives in trees and are closely associated with old-growth forests. They have been nearly eliminated by a long history of logging and wildfires in the north coast, including the Tillamook and Clatsop state forests.

“Red tree voles are an incredible species that live off conifer needles and are uniquely adapted to the ancient forests of the Pacific Northwest,” said Nick Cady, legal director of Cascadia Wildlands. “They have inspired a substantial body of citizen science and surveys. Folks can hike through our forests, looking for evidence of needle consumption at the bases of trees hundreds of years old, and climb and document nests to contribute to the scientific community’s understanding of this rare and imperiled species. Red tree voles are iconic and so well loved, they deserve our best efforts.”

Conservation organizations filed a petition in 2007 to list the red tree vole under the Endangered Species Act. Following a legal settlement, the Fish and Wildlife Service determined in 2011 that the North Oregon Coast population of red tree voles warranted protection. But listing was precluded by higher priority actions, and the Service maintained red tree voles on the list of candidate species until it announced its new finding in December 2019 that listing was not warranted.

“The red tree vole and the diverse, older forests it inhabits are vital to the survival of northern spotted owls, wild salmon, and countless other species,” said Danielle Moser, wildlife program coordinator for Oregon Wild. “These forests and wildlife are a critical part of Oregon’s natural heritage, and they should be protected as a legacy for future generations, not destroyed for short-term profit.”

Today’s notice of intent was filed by Cascadia Wildlands, the Center for Biological Diversity, and Oregon Wild.

The post Press Release: Lawsuit Launched to Protect North Oregon Coast Red Tree Vole first appeared on Cascadia Wildlands.

Conservation Groups Oppose Effort to Remove Wolf Protections in California

Organizations Seek Intervention on Industry Challenge to Endangered Status

SAN FRANCISCO— Four conservation groups filed a motion today to intervene in a lawsuit seeking to remove California Endangered Species Act protections from wolves. The lawsuit, against the state Fish and Wildlife Commission, was brought by the Pacific Legal Foundation and wrongly alleges that wolves are ineligible for state protection.

The intervenors — Cascadia Wildlands, the Center for Biological Diversity, Environmental Protection Information Center, and Klamath-Siskiyou Wildlands Center — are represented by Earthjustice.

“Pacific Legal Foundation’s lawsuit is baseless,” said Amaroq Weiss, the Center’s West Coast wolf organizer. “Gray wolves were senselessly wiped out in California and deserve a chance to come back and survive here. We’re intervening to defend the interests of the vast majority of Californians who value wolves and want them to recover.”

Brought on behalf of the California Cattlemen’s Association and California Farm Bureau Federation, the lawsuit alleges that wolves are ineligible for state protection because wolves returning to the state are supposedly the wrong subspecies, which only occurred intermittently in California at the time of the decision and are doing fine in other states.

Each of these arguments has major flaws. UCLA biologist Bob Wayne found that all three currently recognized subspecies of wolves occurred in California. Also — importantly — there is no requirement that recovery efforts focus on the same subspecies, rather than just the species. The fact that wolves were only intermittently present actually highlights the need for their protection, and the California Endangered Species Act is rightly focused on the status of species within California, not other states.

“The gray wolf is an icon of wildness in the American West, and its return to California after almost 100 years is a success story we should celebrate,” said Earthjustice attorney Greg Loarie. “Stripping wolves of protection under the California Endangered Species Act at this early stage in their recovery risks losing them again, and we’re not going to let that happen.”

The four intervening groups petitioned for endangered species protections for wolves in February 2012. After receiving two California Department of Fish and Wildlife reports, scientific peer review assessment of those reports, thousands of written comments submitted by the public and live testimony at multiple public meetings, the California Fish and Game Commission voted to protect gray wolves in June 2014.

State protection makes it illegal to kill a wolf, including in response to livestock depredations — a major issue for the livestock industry. But despite the industry’s concerns, a growing body of scientific evidence shows nonlethal deterrence measures are more effective and less expensive than killing wolves. In addition, the Department of Fish and Wildlife has been allocated federal funding that can be used for nonlethal conflict-deterrence measures and to compensate ranchers for livestock losses to wolves, which make up a very small fraction of livestock losses.

“The cattle industry has made clear that it views wolves as pests and that they filed suit to allow killing of wolves,” said Tom Wheeler, executive director at the Environmental Protection Information Center. “Wolves are a vital part of American’s wilderness and natural heritage, helping to restore balance to our ecosystems by regulating elk and deer populations. The path to restoring wolves is through protecting fragile recovering populations.”

Wolves once ranged across most of the United States, but were trapped, shot and poisoned to near extirpation largely on behalf of the livestock industry. Before wolves began to return to California in late 2011 — when a single wolf from Oregon known as wolf OR-7 ventured south — it had been almost 90 years since a wild wolf was seen in the state. Before OR-7 the last known wild wolf in California, killed by a trapper in Lassen County, was seen in 1924.

Since 2011 California’s first wolf family in nearly a century, the seven-member Shasta pack, was confirmed in Siskiyou County in 2015, and a pair of wolves was confirmed in Lassen County in 2016. An additional radio-collared wolf from Oregon has crossed in and out of California several times since late 2015.

The post Cascadia Goes to Court to Defend Wolf Protections in California first appeared on Cascadia Wildlands.