Resource Science: Changing the Endangered Species Act

The new presidential administration and Congress make it a good time to consider changing the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The ESA impacts the ranching, farming, mining, oil and gas, and timber industries with heavy regulations and control of activity on private property (see the references).

The federal government decides what science is used in ESA decisions. In my experience, legitimate science that is not in agreement with the federal government bureaucracy is dismissed or ignored in ESA decisions. Prioritizing the ESA over multiple-use, and the selective use of science, has resulted in a bias against natural resources and agriculture in the government agencies and its associates in universities and environmental groups. ESA decisions can be challenged in court, but this is usually ineffective because the government agencies apparently have unlimited funds for legal challenges and are often favored in court. This results in what I believe is a government monopoly of the science used with the ESA.

What is an endangered species? You know what a species is; elk, moose, mule deer, cougars, wolves, grizzly bears, cattle, horses, sheep, cats and dogs are species. Scientifically, species are generally recognized as interbreeding groups that cannot successfully interbreed with other species.

But the ESA definition of species includes species, subspecies and distinct population segments (DPS). Subspecies and DPS are populations within a species, not the entire species. This greatly expands the scope of the ESA to populations in specific geographic areas. I don’t think this was the intent of Congress when making the ESA a law.

Subspecies are populations in a geographic area that differ from other populations in traits such as size, color and genetics. Subspecies determinations for the ESA are made by government agencies. For example, the government designated the Mexican wolf as a subspecies different from other wolves, and the northern spotted owl as a subspecies different from other spotted owls. However, the scientific literature shows that subspecies are not scientifically definite, and subspecies designations are often subjective.

A DPS is a wildlife population designated considering its discreteness and significance from other populations. Discreteness refers to populations that are separated from others and is similar to the criteria for subspecies. DPS can also be separated by international borders. Significance refers to the importance of a DPS to the entire species and if a DPS is unique in some way. As with subspecies, DPS discreteness and significance are not scientifically definite and are determined by government agencies. DPS for Pacific salmon have been named evolutionarily significant units (ESU) which further complicates the species definition in the ESA.

What does endangered mean? Species may be listed under the ESA as either endangered or threatened. An endangered species is a species which is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range. A threatened species is a species which is likely to become an endangered species (likely to become endangered with extinction) within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range. Government agencies decide if a species is at risk of extinction and what is a significant portion of a range and the foreseeable future.

The ESA is supposed to apply to species that are at risk of extinction. Extinction means there are none (zero) remaining. Whether a species is at risk of extinction is usually not scientifically definite. In some cases, like the California condor, there are only a few remaining and they really are endangered with extinction. In many cases, like gray wolves, there are thousands of animals and they are not really endangered with extinction. Wolf range might be greatly reduced from its original range, but that’s not the same as the species being at risk of extinction.

I suggest changes to ESA science and policy. The ESA species definition includes subspecies, DPS and ESU, which are not scientifically definite categories. The ESA species definition can be changed to be only full species. For example, all wolves, all spotted owls, all grizzly bears. Subspecies and populations in specific geographic areas (DPSes) can be managed by the states.

The risk of extinction, significant portion of a species range and foreseeable future are not scientifically definite and a consensus on these is unlikely. Perhaps joint federal and state agreement is a good way to make these designations. The ESA can be changed so the states and federal government have equal co-authority on ESA decisions.

A major policy problem with the ESA is that it applies on private property. I suggest the ESA be changed so it does not apply on private property. Voluntary incentives for landowners can be made to protect and enhance habitat for wildlife.

Another problem with the ESA is the Equal Access to Justice Act by which the government pays environmental groups’ legal costs in lawsuits on ESA issues. This act could be repealed or changed so taxpayers are not funding environmental groups.

Maybe the new federal administration can make changes, as I described, to relieve agriculture and the resource industries from unfair ESA regulation while managing wildlife to the satisfaction of all Americans. — Dr. Matt Cronin

(Matthew Cronin is a scientist at Northwest Biology & Forestry Co. and a teaching professor at Montana State University, Bozeman. He was a research professor at the University of Alaska.)