The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) is proposing to list the lesser prairie-chicken (Latin name Tympanuchus pallidicinctus) under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). As Charles Wallace describes in his excellent article (WLJ June 7), USFWS is actually proposing to list two different populations (known as distinct population segments [DPS] in ESA jargon).
The northern DPS (southeast Colorado, western Kansas and Oklahoma, and the northeast Texas Panhandle) is proposed to be listed as threatened—likely to become endangered with extinction in the foreseeable future. The southern DPS (eastern New Mexico and the southern Texas Panhandle) is proposed to be listed as endangered—likely to become extinct in the foreseeable future).
According to the USFWS proposed rule and status assessment, a five-year average (from 2015-2020) shows there are about 27,000 birds in the two DPS in parts of five states (Texas, New Mexico, Kansas, Colorado, and Oklahoma). Statistically, the actual number of birds could range from 16,000 to 60,000. The latest estimate in 2020 was about 35,000 birds.
USFWS estimates that there were originally hundreds of thousands or millions of lesser prairie-chickens. The original range of the lesser prairie-chicken was a large area in these five states, and lesser prairie-chicken grassland habitatbeen reduced by about80-90 percent due to energy development (oil and wind), conversion of grasslands to cropland, and woody vegetation encroachment into grasslands.
Importantly, FWS acknowledges that livestock grazing is good for prairie-chicken habitat—if it’s not overgrazed. Predation by raptors, ravens, snakes, foxes, raccoons, and skunks can also impact lesser prairie-chickens. FWS predicts that restoration efforts without an ESA listing will not compensate for future impacts.
As I discussed previously in WLJ (compiled in a book, Wildlife, Endangered Species, and Science; Liberty Hill Publishing) a problem is that the designation of DPS is a judgement call and depends on your interpretation of the discreteness and significance of the population. FWS makes this judgement. Including DPS in the ESA is also of questionable legality. After all, it is the ESA, but USFWS frequently lists populations (DPS) as if they were species.
This is permitted because the ESA definition of species includes DPS, but it is questionable if this was Congress’ intent when passing the ESA. A related problem is that USFWS makes all of the decisions about DPS and threatened and endangered statuses, and gets deference in court when challenged. This makes contesting an ESA listing very difficult and expensive. Regardless, the practical point is the lesser prairie-chicken has been reduced in numbers and range and the proposed ESA listing must be dealt with.
The situation with the lesser prairie-chicken is similar in many ways to that of the greater sage-grouse. For example, both species breed in areas called leks, and share potential impacts (oil production, predation, etc.). The impact of predators and use of predator control is also potentially important for both species, although this is not emphasized in the FWS proposed rule and status assessment for lesser prairie-chickens.
In addition, both species are closely related to other species. The lesser prairie-chicken is closely related to the greater prairie-chicken, Attwater’s prairie-chicken, and sharp-tailed grouse; and the greater sage-grouse is closely related to Gunnison’s sage-grouse. There are also conservation efforts for sage grouse and prairie chickens that have not been adequately considered by USFWS (see Wallace’s WLJ article).
Because the majority of lesser prairie-chicken habitat is on private land, it seems to me that incentives for landowners are the proper and honorable way for the federal government to prioritize restoration efforts. Incentives will work better than regulations and penalties, and much has been written on the effectiveness of incentives. Biologists, lawyers, and environmental groups all make a good living studying and litigating ESA species.
Because landowners supply the basis of species survival—habitat—I think they should get paid for doing so. At a minimum this should include the cost of restoration efforts and lost production (for example, loss of oil, crops, and livestock). To actually be fair, this could be increased to include per-acre or per-section payments for providing habitat for a species of great concern to the government.
Perhaps the cost to the government (including staff costs, government payments to environmental groups, and legal costs) could be calculated and equal amounts could go to the landowners who actually support the species on the ground. Maybe it’s time for the government to compensate those who actually sustain endangered species.
What can you do? Comment on the proposed rule by Aug. 2 at Regulations.gov by searching for docket number FWS-R2-ES-2021-0015-0001; or by U.S. mail to: Public Comments Processing, Attn: FWS–R2–ES–2021–0015-0001, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, MS: PRB/3W, 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041–3803.
Also, tell your elected officials (county, state, and federal) and agency personnel (USDA, Interior Department, state Fish and Game Departments) that:
• Listing populations (DPS) as endangered species exceeds the intent of the ESA and the 10th Amendment to the Constitution, and states should manage wildlife populations;
• Landowners should be paid for providing habitat for ESA species, which is more important to conservation than paying lawyers and environmental groups. Incentives will work better than regulations and penalties for conserving lesser prairie-chickens and other species; and
• Provide elected officials and government agents your on-the-ground expertise about lesser prairie-chickens and your ideas on what needs to be done (for example, predator control) to conserve and increase their populations. — Dr. Matthew Cronin
(Matthew Cronin was a research professor at the University of Alaska, a U.S. Coast Guard officer, and is now at Northwest Biology Company LLC [www.northwestbiology.com] in Bozeman, MT. He can be reached atcroninm@aol.com.)
Reference:
(Wildlife Trade and Incentives for Conservation (perc.org), Incentives and Conservation, D. Benjamin, editor, PERC, Bozeman, MT).
