The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) is listing the lesser prairie chicken under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). See Charles Wallace’s article in the Nov. 28 issue of WLJ. They are actually listing the southern population in eastern New Mexico and the southwest Texas Panhandle as an endangered species and the northern population in parts of Colorado, Kansas, Oklahoma and the northeast Texas Panhandle as a threatened species. Wallace’s article does a fine job describing the situation and stockmen’s critical reaction to it. I’ll explain some of the problems with the science behind this ESA listing.
You know what a species is: a cow or a deer or a dog. So, you’re probably wondering, “How are prairie chicken populations listed as an endangered species?” As described in my book, “Wildlife, War, and God,” the ESA defines “species” as species, subspecies and distinct population segments. That’s clearly inappropriate and misleading to the people of our country. Subspecies and distinct population segments are populations that differ from other populations by their location and other characteristics. But the criteria for designating distinct population segments and subspecies are not scientifically definite. And they are designated by USFWS.
USFWS has designated subspecies and distinct population segments for many ESA listings. Some examples include the northern spotted owl, California gnatcatcher, wood bison and Mexican wolf subspecies and the grizzly bear, wolf, lynx and, now, lesser prairie chicken distinct population segments. The scientific literature makes abundant reference to the indefinite nature of subspecies and populations, but because these categories were inserted in the ESA’s definition of “species” (apparently without rigorous supervision by Congress), USFWS must decide on the legitimacy of subspecies and distinct population segments. Scientists differ in their opinions about subspecies and distinct population segments, and there is no definite answer on whether populations warrant designation. Your registered cattle breeds with closed breeding systems are definite populations, but wildlife populations mix over time and geography, and they are not definite. Subspecies and distinct population segment designations for the ESA are often justified with quite complex and contorted explanations of why populations warrant subspecies or distinct population segment status, such as in the case of the Mexican wolf (see the references found at wlj.net).
Another science issue is designating a population as “at risk of extinction” and thus deeming it worthy of ESA protection. USFWS decided that the lesser prairie chicken’s southern distinct population segment is at risk of extinction (endangered), and the northern distinct population segment is at risk of becoming at risk of extinction (threatened). Sorry, the ESA terms and lingo drive me crazy too.
The estimation of risk of extinction is not definite, primarily because it’s a prediction about the future. While USFWS thinks the two lesser prairie chicken distinct population segments are at risk of extinction, the cattle and oil industry representatives’ comments in Wallace’s WLJ article provide positive information indicating that the risk of extinction assessment is not definite.
An example of the long-term duration of ESA listings is the polar bear. In 2008, the polar bear was listed as threatened, being at risk of extinction in 45 years (by 2053). However, a recent paper predicted polar bears in the Beaufort and Chukchi seas would be using more land habitat and less sea ice habitat by 2040 and stated, “There are already some indications that bears that summer onshore could have a nutritional advantage. Bears that summer onshore appear to have access to sea ice over the more productive continental shelf sooner than bears that summer on the pack ice.” The cause of the predicted risk of extinction of polar bears in 2008 was loss of sea ice, but this study indicates it might not be as catastrophic as predicted. Yet the polar bear remains on the ESA list. The point is that predictions of the risk of extinction are indefinite and need regular reassessment, and some animals will need delisting from the ESA when warranted.
The USFWS decides if a population is a distinct population segment and if it’s at threat of extinction. That might be OK if it is done by the states who have jurisdiction over wildlife and if it did not allow government regulation of private property. But the ESA gives the federal government the power to list populations as endangered species and regulate private property. Accommodations can be made with the ESA 4(d) rule or with habitat conservation plans, but the federal government has ultimate control.
I think most Americans would agree (except environmental groups and some bureaucrats) that we should keep it simple. Forget the ESA and its indefinite science and confusing terms; let the states manage wildlife populations by geographic area as they do with game management units. Don’t let the government regulate private property. Provide landowners with voluntary incentives to help rare species, and the federal government can help with funds to states and to landowners as they do with the Conservation Reserve Program. — Dr. Matthew Cronin
(Matthew A. Cronin is a scientist with Northwest Biology Company LLC in Bozeman, MT. He can be contacted at croninm@aol.com. A full list of references may be found online at wlj.net.)
References
Cronin, M.A., A. Cбnovas, A. Islas-Trejo, D.L. Bannasch, A.M. Oberbauer, and J.F. Medrano. 2015. Wolf Subspecies: Reply to Weckworth et al. and Fredrickson et al. The Journal of Heredity. 106:417-419. esv029.pdf (silverchair.com)
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Evaluating the Taxonomic Status of the Mexican Gray Wolf and the Red Wolf. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.Front Matter | Evaluating the Taxonomic Status of the Mexican Gray Wolf and the Red Wolf |The National Academies Press
Fredrickson R., P. Hedrick, R. Wayne, B. vonHoldt, and M. Phillips. 2015. Mexican wolves are a valid subspecies and an appropriate conservation target. Journal of Heredity 106:4.
Weckworth B., N. Dawson, S. Talbot, and J. Cook. 2015. Genetic distinctiveness of Alexander Archipelago wolves (Canis lupus ligoni): reply to Cronin et al. (2015). Journal of Heredity 106:4.
Rode, K.D, D.C. Douglas, T.C. Atwood, G.M. Durner, R. Wilson, and A.M. Pagano. 2022. Observed and forecasted changes in land use by polar bears in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas, 1985–2040. Global Ecology and Conservation,Volume 40, December 2022, e02319. Rode et al 2022 p bear use of land habitat ObsrvForcast.pdf
U.S. Constitution Bill of Rights vs the Endangered Species Act (ESA)
5th Amendment: Amendment V: No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
ESA: Regulate private property without compensation regardless of effect on landowners’ ability to make a living.
References
Cronin, M.A., A. Cбnovas, A. Islas-Trejo, D.L. Bannasch, A.M. Oberbauer, and J.F. Medrano. 2015. Wolf Subspecies: Reply to Weckworth et al. and Fredrickson et al. The Journal of Heredity. 106:417-419. esv029.pdf (silverchair.com)
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Evaluating the Taxonomic Status of the Mexican Gray Wolf and the Red Wolf. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. Front Matter | Evaluating the Taxonomic Status of the Mexican Gray Wolf and the Red Wolf |The National Academies Press
Fredrickson R., P. Hedrick, R. Wayne, B. vonHoldt, and M. Phillips. 2015. Mexican wolves are a valid subspecies and an appropriate conservation target. Journal of Heredity 106:4.
Weckworth B., N. Dawson, S. Talbot, and J. Cook. 2015. Genetic distinctiveness of Alexander Archipelago wolves (Canis lupus ligoni): reply to Cronin et al. (2015). Journal of Heredity 106:4.
Rode, K.D, D.C. Douglas, T.C. Atwood, G.M. Durner, R. Wilson, and A.M. Pagano. 2022. Observed and forecasted changes in land use by polar bears in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas, 1985–2040. Global Ecology and Conservation, Volume 40, December 2022, e02319. Rode et al 2022 p bear use of land habitat ObsrvForcast.pdf
U.S. Constitution Bill of Rights vs the Endangered Species Act (ESA)
5th Amendment: Amendment V: No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
ESA: Regulate private property without compensation regardless of effect on landowners’ ability to make a living.
10th Amendment: Amendment X: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
ESA: The federal government seizes jurisdiction over fish, wildlife, and plants from the states and their habitats (land) from citizens when the federal government decides a species is endangered.
Court cases have ruled the ESA is constitutional. I disagree.
Court cases have ruled the ESA is constitutional. I disagree.
