NEWS RELEASE

For Immediate Release
November 30, 2007

Fish and Wildlife Service Reverses 7 Bad Endangered Species Decisions.

Contact Information

On November 27th Biodiversity Conservation Alliance, Center for Native Ecosystems, and Forest Guardians formally asked the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to overturn a politically motivated decision denying the white-tailed prairie dog protection as an endangered species. This legal action came on the same day that the House Natural Resources Committee released a letter from the Fish and Wildlife Service acknowledging that the denial of protection to the white-tailed prairie dog, Preble’s meadow jumping mouse, and several other species was the result of political interference. Of pressing concern in our region is whether the white-tailed prairie dog will be listed as an endangered species and whether Preble’s meadow jumping mouse will become the nation’s first “split-decision” endangered species. A new so-called, interpretation, by the Department of Interior’s Solicitor could award the jumping mouse protection in Colorado while leaving it to fend for itself in Wyoming.

The white-tailed prairie dog is an indicator of healthy wildlife populations in the sagebrush sea of the west and is a keystone species in that several other species depend on the prairie dog for their survival. These include endangered black-footed ferrets, burrowing owls, mountain plovers, and ferruginous hawks. Once ranging throughout western Colorado, eastern Utah, Wyoming, and south-central Montana, the prairie dog has declined by over 92% throughout its range. Oil and gas development, shooting, poisoning, disease, and unsavory political inferences to protection efforts have taken their toll.

“The decline of the white-tailed prairie dog is a sad indication that wildlife across the West is in trouble,” said Erin Robertson, Senior Staff Biologist with Center for Native Ecosystems. “Thriving wildlife populations are essential to the West; we cannot afford to let the white-tailed prairie dog slide closer to the brink.”
"Science overwhelmingly demonstrates that the white-tailed prairie dog deserves Endangered Species listing," stated Lauren McCain, Deserts and Grasslands Program Director of Forest Guardians. "The Fish and Wildlife Service must move beyond the Julie MacDonald era and once again make listing decisions based on sound science, not politics."

Second perhaps only to plague the next greatest threat the white-tailed prairie dog has faced is the political manipulation of science by current administration appointees. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service recently admitted that Julie MacDonald, a former Interior Department appointee, overruled biologists to deny protecting the white-tailed prairie dog under the Endangered Species Act.

In a June 21, 2007 memo, the Service stated that biologists initially found the petition to protect the white-tailed prairie dog under the Endangered Species Act presented “substantial” information indicating protection was needed. However, the Service stated that Julie MacDonald later directed biologists to change the finding to “not substantial.”

In a November 23 letter to house Natural Resources Committee chairman Nick Rahall (D-WV), the Fish and Wildlife Service reiterated that the denial of protections “should be reconsidered” and indicated a full status review is necessary. The Service made clear that the review would happen but only when funding becomes available, and the Service has a large backlog of unfunded actions to take first. Last Friday’s Fish and Wildlife Service letter gave no date by which the status review for the white-tailed prairie dog would be completed. Instead, it stated that the agency would work on the review “in fiscal year 2009, if funding is available.”

“The white-tailed prairie dog can’t survive on the Service’s empty promises, it needs protection,” said Josh Pollock, Conservation Director with Center for Native Ecosystems. “The white-tailed prairie dog and our western wildlife need to be treated fairly.”

In the meantime, the white-tailed prairie dog faces growing threats from oil and gas drilling. Recent reports indicate that in the next 15-20 years, over 126,000 new oil and gas wells will be drilled in the Rocky Mountains, much of them in the range of the white-tailed prairie dog.

Pollock, explained, “Today’s lawsuit seeks to ensure the white-tailed prairie dog is safeguarded under the Endangered Species Act, a safety net for wildlife on the brink. The groups seek a formal commitment to which the Service can be held legally accountable to complete the status review by a certain date.”
Fish and Wildlife’s November 27th promise to allow scientific facts to guide its decisions should positively impact the fate of the white-tailed prairie dog and Preble’s meadow jumping mouse. Preble’s present dilemma is that Fish & Wildlife, based on one political appointee’s interpretation of the technical term “significant portion of range,” is considering the kangaroo-like mouse endangered in Colorado but not in Wyoming.

In cases where an animal’s continued existence is in question, even the Editorial Board of the Denver Post fully recognizes the folly of treating state borders as if they are anything but imaginary lines on political maps. On November 2nd their editorial lead with, “Someone needs to explain to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service that the 41st parallel of latitude, Colorado's northern border, is just an imaginary line on a map — not a Great Wall of Wyoming that would stop a humble mouse from jumping to the Cowboy State from its Centennial neighbor to the south. The editorial also observed, “Only such a towering geographical misconception can explain the bizarre proposal by the federal agency that would leave Colorado's Preble's meadow jumping mice under the protection of the federal Endangered Species Act while delisting their northern cousins.” While this particular editorial board may or may not favor listing the mouse in both states, their rationale has merit.

If best available science concludes that a species is endangered in a significant portion of its range, the Endangered Species Act mandates protection for species, period. Not until one administration appointee asserted his own interpretation of the meaning of “significant portion of range” would political borders suddenly impact the fate of any given species.

Preble’s meadow jumping mouse is, potentially, the first species in the nation to fall victim the Solicitor’s “interpretation.” The solicitor’s politically motivated interpretation alters, without explanation, the fundamental definition of an “endangered species.” Protections available to imperiled wildlife under his interpretation of Endangered Species Act are being subjected to opinion as well.

The Endangered Species Act defines an endangered species as one that is “in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range.” The phrase “significant portion of its range,” is not defined and historically has been left to the Department of the Interior and the courts to interpret, based on best available science. Department of Interior Solicitor, David Longly Bernhardt, assigned his interpretation consulting only in-house department officials. Bernhardt discloses this fact in a March 16,2007 Memorandum to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Director titled, The Meaning of "In Danger of Extinction Throughout All or a Significant Portion of its Range."

The memorandum prescribes how this Administration will decide whether to list species as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act. His opinion casts aside three decades of precedent on how to interpret the phrase “in danger of extinction throughout all or significant portion of [a species’] range.”
Had this Solicitor’s interpretation been in effect in the 1970s many of the Endangered Species Act’s greatest recovery stories, including the incredible American bald eagle story, would have never been told.

Duane Short, Biodiversity Conservation Alliance Wild Species Program Director, recalled, “Congressional Acts such as the Endangered Species Act and National Environmental Policy Act were legislated into being precisely because first scientists, then the public, and eventually congress realized that matters involving the protection of endangered species and the environment are essentially scientific, not political, matters.”
Today’s opponents to listing the mouse are claiming great economic hardships as their primary concern, but because the species’ critical habitat is essentially limited to narrow zones along streams (riparian areas), protecting Preble’s meadow jumping mouse bears only minimal, if any, implications to development, ranching, and water rights concerns. Riparian areas are inherently considered sensitive to development, overgrazing, and excessive water extraction activities so protecting Preble’s in these critical areas has little or no significant additional impact on economic interests.

U.S. Fish & Wildlife is hosting two open houses to solicit public input concerning the future of Preble’s meadow jumping mouse. Oral and written comments will be accepted at the following scheduled public hearings. The public hearings will be held from 6:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. preceded by an informational open house from 4:00 pm to 5:00 p.m.

December 10, 2007: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Regional Office
134 Union Boulevard
Lakewood, Colorado

December 12, 2007: First State Bank Conference Center
1405 16th Street
Wheatland, Wyoming

Biodiversity Conservation Alliance encourages public attendance at these Open Houses to support protection for the imperiled Preble’s meadow jumping mouse in Wyoming and Colorado.