Endangered Species: Bison Bears and Wolves-the Science

and the Policy

Matthew A. Cronin, Ph.D.

University of Alaska Fairbanks

School of Natural Resources and Agricultural Sciences

11February 2013

ESA impacts on resource useTimber, mining, oil, fishing,

farming, livestock Northern Spotted Owl-Timber

Polar Bear-OilSteller Sea Lion-Fishing

Klamath salmon-FarmingCoastal California gnatcatcher-Building

Grizzly bear-LivestockWolf-Livestock Hunting

Sage Grouse-Oil, Livestock

Sullivan vs Haskett

• D. Sullivan Alaska Attorney General: “…in the coming months as environmental groups attempt to list more species under the ESA and shut down resource development in the OCS and Tongass National Forest…” ADN 12/13/09

Sullivan vs Haskett

• G. Haskett U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Alaska Director:

• “Many people fear that ESA listings will curtail development in Alaska, but there is no evidence that this ever has been or will be the case”

• ADN 12/26/09

Amazing

• No evidence ESA might affect resource development?

• Sullivan’s point was also made by anyone ever dealing with the ESA

Caribou on the North Slope

• Not ESA, but similar use of selective science to stop resource development

• National Research Council report 2003 concluded decline between 1992 and 1995 was due to oil field impacts

• Didn’t note the large increases in the herd in other periods

Caribou 6000 to 67000 during North Slope oilfield operations

Central Arctic Herd Caribou numbers 1975-2008

020000400006000080000

1960 1980 2000 2020

Year

Num

ber

cari

bou 5000

Predicted 5000

Wildlife in the Tongass National Forest

• No ESA listings but threat of listing goshawk and wolf subspecies influence TLM Plan

• Creation of OGR and move to exclusive second growth harvest

• Identification of nebulous “Endemics”

ESA in Alaska

Polar bears GoshawkBeluga whales WolfOther Whales MurreletSteller sea lions LoonsSea otters SealsWalrus

Are Polar Bears Threatened with Extinction?

No: Polar bears are not currently threatened and has healthy populations

Alaska Grizzly Bear

Montana Grizzly Bear

Using Models of global warming and SUMMER sea ice disappearance led to models that polar bears will decline across their entire range to the point of near extinction

FWS concludes they are threatened with extinction

Polar bears are threatened by arctic sea ice loss, which is attributed to climate change, which is attributed to human greenhouse gas emissions, so greenhouse gas emissions are to be regulated.

This will affect many parts of the American and Alaskan economies

The impact

Number populations declining = 5Number populations stable = 5

Number populations increasing = 2Number population unknown = 7

Total number of worldwide populations =19.

Best Available Science:Data Quality

20,000-25,000 in 2006,21,500-25,000 in 2002,21,000-28,000 in 1995,25,000 in 1984-1989,

8,000-10,000 in 1965-1970

Worldwide population number has increased 2-3X in last 40

years

Population predictions with Models

Decline in the size of the total population of more than 30% within the next 35 to 50 years.

30% decline is not a threat of extinction

Polar bears have survived several previous warming

periods with no summer Arctic Sea Ice

State of Alaska

• Lawsuit to challenge the Polar Bear ESA Listing

• Reviewing Recent Critical Habitat Designation

• Attempting to Work Cooperatively on the Relevant Science

Alaska Wood Bison

Plains Bison

Simmental

Tarantaise

Saler

Limousin

Charolais

Shorthorn

Red Angus

Angus

Chirikof Is. AK

Scotch Highland

Florida Cracker

Hereford

Pineywoods

TX Longhorn

Criollo

Taurine cattle

Nellore

GyrIndicine cattle

Chitna R. AK

Nat. Bison Range

FarewellAK

Delta AK

Copper R. AK

Plains bison

Plains bison Henry Mts. UT

Plains bison Yellowstone NP

Plains bison Nielson Canada

Wood bison AK Wood bison

Wood bison Wood Buffalo NP

Plains bison Miner Inst.

Wood bison MaKenzie BS

0.1

Does it matter?

Plains bison survive in Alaska and plains X wood bison herd survives in

Canada

Wood bison subspecies on the ESA list is preventing (re) introduction of wood

bison to interior Alaska

Plains bison are petitioned for ESA listing in lower 48 States

Wolf

• Wolf DPS on ESA list in northern Rocky Mt States until recently

• Wolf DPS in Great Lakes States on ESA list until recently

• Mexican wolves subspecies on ESA list

• Wolf subspecies in southeast Alaska petitioned for ESA listing

• “Eastern Wolf” proposed by FWS as a SPECIES

ESA Problems• The review system of ESA documents

within the federal agencies is closed

• Government agencies frequently use science selectively for the ESA, but Recent examples of Balanced Science from Gov’t

• The ESA has been dramatically expanded because it includes subjective subspecies and populations

• ESA now allows predicting with models future “Endangerment”

The Wildlife SocietyADVOCACY

STATE AND FEDERAL WILDLIFE AGENCIES

Partner with Environmental groupsCBD

The entire system of review of science in the ESA process is closed. FWS or National Marine Fisheries Service-NMFS creates a petition or receives a petition from environmental groups to consider a species for ESA listing.

FWS reviews the petition, decides if it’s warranted, prepares a Status Review and a Proposed Rule and selects peer reviewers of them. FWS then reviews the peer reviews and produces a final Status Assessment and Proposed Rule.

FWS then selects peer reviewers of Proposed Rule and solicits public comment. FWS then reviews the peer reviews and public comments and produces a final rule. FWS can dismiss or ignore public comments and peer review comments without accountability.

FWS or NMFS has the role of author, editor, and reviewer for their own documents.

The potential for litigation challenges to FWS decisions in this process is slanted because courts give deference to agencies in assessing science and management information.

Federal Deference “Although plaintiffs have proposed many alternative conclusions that the agency could have drawn with respect to the status of the polar bear, the Court cannot substitute either the plaintiffs’ or its own judgment for that of the agency. Instead, this Court is bound to uphold the agency’s determination that the polar bear is a threatened species as long as it is reasonable, regardless of whether there may be other reasonable, or even more reasonable, views. : “Although plaintiffs have proposed many alternative conclusions that the agency could have drawn with respect to the status of the polar bear, the Court cannot substitute either the plaintiffs’ or its own judgment for that of the agency. Instead, this Court is bound to uphold the agency’s determination that the polar bear is a threatened species as long as it is reasonable, regardless of whether there may be other reasonable, or even more reasonable, views.

Subspecies and Populations are not well-defined and

Designations for ESA Listings are often Arbitrary

Current ESA Defines “Species” as a Species, Subspecies, or Distinct Population Segment

Agencies also invented the TermEvolutionarily Significant Unit

(ESU)

Examples

Subspecies

Northern Spotted OwlWolf in Southeast Alaska

Mexican WolfGoshawk in Southeast Alaska

Wood bison

Examples

Populations

Salmon Stocks in Washington, Oregon, California (e.g. Klamath)

Grizzly and Wolf in Lower 48 StatesSouthwestern Alaska Stock Sea Otter

Western Alaska Stock Steller Sea LionBeluga Whales in Cook Inlet

Conclusions

• The Current ESA is Deceptive Because it Includes Undefined Subspecies and Populations and now Allows Predictions

• Pro-ESA listing bias in the government agencies is a serious problem

• Use of Models to predict Endangered Species is becoming common and not good science

Different Industries, agriculture and citizens need to work together to

make ESA consistent with American principles

“We must indeed all hang together, or, most assuredly, we shall all hang separately.”

Benjamin Franklinremark to John Hancock at the signing of the Declaration of Independence 4 July 1776

“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.” (10th

Amendment to the U.S. Constitution)

State or Federal Authority?

5th Amendment to the U. S. Constitution

“…nor shall private property be taken for public use without just

compensation.”

Anticipating ESA?

• “I know of no method to secure the repeal of bad or obnoxious laws so effective as their stringent execution.”

• Ulysses S. Grant, Inaugural Address, 4 March 1869

Proposed Action• Multi-state University-Agency-Industry

project to address science issues for the ESA

• Land Grant University Agriculture Departments can help with science and management

• Include non-wildlife scientists, foresters, range managers, engineers in private and public sectors

• Insist on return to Multiple-use management

Change ESA

• 1. Federal Endangered Species Act only applies to entire species. Subspecies and populations are managed by States

• 2. The Federal Endangered Species Act does not apply on Private or State Land

• 3. States have the authority to list and delist Endangered Species.

Sage Grouse

• Currently designated “Warranted but precluded” by higher priorities as an endangered species