For Immediate Release
April 20, 2004

Contact Information

The Bush Administration announced today that the highly imperiled Colorado River cutthroat trout will not be listed as a threatened or endangered species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The decision was issued in response to a December, 1999 petition filed by the Center for Biological Diversity, Biodiversity Conservation Alliance and four other groups, and was over four years past deadlines established in the ESA.

“The Bush Administration has to date only listed 31 species compared to 394 listed under the Clinton Administration’s first term,” states Noah Greenwald, conservation biologist with the Center for Biological Diversity and primary author of the petition. “The decision to not list the Colorado River cutthroat trout after delaying for over four years is typical of an Administration and an Agency bent on using the courts to avoid controversial listings of species.”

The finding admits that the species is threatened by habitat destruction to livestock grazing, water diversion, mining, logging and other factors, that non-native trout have displaced the native from most of its habitat, that whirling disease has infected populations and that “the range of the CRCT [Colorado River cutthroat trout] has been greatly reduced from historic levels,” yet somehow still concludes that it doesn’t warrant further protection.

“This decision flies in the face of science,” states Jeff Kessler, conservation director of the Biodiversity Conservation Alliance. “The only reason a species as imperiled as the Colorado River cutthroat trout is not being protected is to appease the livestock, mining, and timber industries and the states, who are more concerned about turf than conservation and continue to stock millions of non-native trout into the historic range of the native.”

In response, the Center for Biological Diversity and Biodiversity Conservation Alliance today filed a formal 60-day notice of intent to sue to overturn the decision. The ESA requires such notice before a suit can be filed. The groups expressed particular frustration that the agency elected not to conduct a full status review of the species and instead rejected the petition at the “90-day” stage. Under the ESA, the agency first determines whether a petition present “sufficient information to warrant further consideration” in a finding that is supposed to be completed within 90 days of receiving the petition. If this finding is positive, the agency then conducts a full status review. “The standard for 90-day findings is very low and thus the finding will almost certainly be overturned in court,” states Greenwald. “This is a clear example of the agency using the courts to further delay needed protection for an important part of our Nation’s natural heritage.”