COLUMBUS, Ohio – The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is
excluding significant research findings about human threats to
protected species, researchers argue, even when the law governing
the agency's actions requires the use of all relevant data in
determining whether species need protection from extinction.
A group of scientists, led by Jeremy Bruskotter of Ohio State
University, argue in the December issue of the journal
BioScience that research about societal values should be
considered along with biological and ecological data in listing
decisions.
The Endangered Species Act requires the secretary of the
interior to make decisions about listing species "solely on the
basis of the best scientific and commercial data available."
The researchers use the Fish and Wildlife Service's 2009
decision to remove gray wolves from endangered species protections
to demonstrate how social science data can be used to inform
species listing decisions.
In the case of the gray wolf in the northern Rocky Mountains,
public opinion about wolves varies considerably among livestock
owners, hunters and wildlife conservationists. But social science
research about those opinions was essentially disregarded when the
Fish and Wildlife Service removed wolves in the northern Rockies
from Endangered Species Act protections in 2009, the scientists
assert.
"The Fish and Wildlife Service didn't use the data as required
by law and they need to start doing this, especially when a species
is so clearly subject to human-caused threats," said Bruskotter, an
assistant professor in Ohio State's School of Environment and
Natural Resources. "There is a lot of theory and data in the social
science literature that could assist the Fish and Wildlife Service
in evaluating human threats. What is holding them back is the
agency's myopic focus on biological data."
That delisting decision was recently reversed by a federal court
for reasons unrelated to the data used in the agency's ruling.
Under the Endangered Species Act, federal officials must decide
whether a species is threatened with or in danger of extinction as
a result of any of five "listing factors" that relate to changes to
the habitat, disease and predation, or overuse of the species for
commercial, recreation, scientific or educational purposes. Those
include "other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued
existence."
When the northern Rocky Mountain gray wolf population was
delisted in April 2009, the Fish and Wildlife Service acknowledged
in its ruling that "human-caused mortality" nearly destroyed the
species in the 1930s. However, the agency argued that "attitudes
toward wolves have improved greatly over the past 30 years."
In an extensive review of the research associated with the gray
wolf delisting, which contained more than 200 citations, the Fish
and Wildlife Service included a single 2002 study that examined
public attitudes toward wolves.
"This is not for a lack of literature on the topic," Bruskotter
said, noting that studies on attitudes about wolves date as far
back as the 1970s.
Bruskotter and colleagues summarized four key arguments made by
the Fish and Wildlife Service in its decision that the northern
Rocky Mountain gray wolf is no longer threatened or endangered as
follows:
- Human attitudes are a potential threat to wolves because humans
killing wolves initially decimated the species;
- The threat posed by humans has lessened substantially because
public attitudes have improved in recent decades;
- State management of wolves will foster local support of wolves
and wolf recovery; and
- Existing state regulatory mechanisms will "balance negative
attitudes" and ensure recovery.
He and colleagues then analyzed social science research related
to each of the agency's arguments to determine whether the Fish and
Wildlife Service gave adequate consideration to available social
science data in its assessment.
In the few studies that have evaluated attitudes about wolves
over time, Bruskotter and colleagues noted that findings are mixed
on the subject. And the only study cited by the Fish and Wildlife
Service in its ruling concluded that attitudes about wolves had
been "stable over the last 30 years," which contradicts the
agency's own contention that attitudes had improved over this time
period.
A news media content analysis that Bruskotter co-authored,
published in September, suggests that public discourse about wolves
in the United States and Canada became increasingly negative from
1999 to 2008, and, according to Bruskotter, subsequent analyses
suggested coverage in the northern Rockies was more negative than
in any other region.
Under the Endangered Species Act, federal agencies monitor
species for at least five years after they are delisted, but state
wildlife agencies take over management. While the Fish and Wildlife
Service suggested that returning wolves to state management would
foster support for the wolves, an Idaho survey cited by Bruskotter
suggests powerful stakeholders in the state -- big game hunters and
livestock producers -- "are motivated to kill as many wolves as
possible without returning wolves to federal protections,"
according to the researchers.
Finally, the researchers question state managers' ability to
"balance negative attitudes" about wolves when state legislatures
that exert authority over wildlife management have "evidenced clear
hostility toward wolves," Bruskotter said. They cited several
recent legislative actions by states in the northern Rockies that
call for the removal of wolves.
The researchers conclude that the Fish and Wildlife Service's
analysis about threats to wolves was guided by three faulty
assumptions: that attitudes toward wolves are improving; that
management of wolves by state agencies will foster support for
wolves; and that the existing state regulations used as
justification for withdrawing federal protection will persist under
mounting pressure from powerful interest groups to reduce wolf
populations.
Beyond wolves, however, there are other human factors at
play.
"Risks that relate to humans range from direct killing of
animals to a municipality encouraging development in areas where
species are sensitive," Bruskotter said. "The Fish and Wildlife
Service will look at direct impacts, or the proximate cause of
species decline. They don't often step back and consider what lies
behind those causes. And that's one of the things we're saying they
need to do."
The researchers noted that they are not suggesting that the Fish
and Wildlife Service should cede control of decisions to "public
whims," but instead say they advocate for the use of information
about values and attitudes of affected human populations to inform
policy decisions.
That said, however, they assert that human attitudes may be as
critical to some species' sustained recovery as biological factors
such as species population size, birth rates and reproductive
success.
Bruskotter also noted that he sympathizes with the Fish and
Wildlife Service because it is "hammered from every angle. This is
not a condemnation of their action. It's meant to be forward
thinking -- to provide a roadmap for how to incorporate social
science information into future endangered species decisions."
The researchers conclude, "It is time for the Fish and Wildlife
Service to expand its view of what constitutes 'science' and fully
incorporate the social sciences into listing decisions."
SOURCE