The bear’s a necessity

The wolf and the polar bear 13

wolf and polar bearPhoto illustration by Tom Twigg / Grist

Next week brings two milestones in wildlife protection that serve as a lesson in contrasts—examples of what the environmental movement has been and what it’s becoming.

On Monday, gray wolves in Montana, Idaho, and parts of other northern states leave the endangered species list, designated as an officially “recovered” species. Once driven nearly to extinction, the wolves will fall under the watch of state management—which includes hunting—following the Obama Interior Department’s decision in March to sign off on a delisting process put in motion on George W. Bush’s watch.

Later in the week, the legal status of polar bears will become clearer when the Obama administration must decide whether to overturn a last-minute Bush move that denied the arctic mammals key protections under the Endangered Species Act. Acknowledging that the polar bear is threatened by a melting habitat, Bush officials still ruled that endangered species protections cannot apply to causes originating outside of their habitat (in other words, the greenhouse gas emissions heating up the polar regions). Obama has until May 9 to overturn the decision; otherwise, it stands.

Two different species located in very different places—what’s the connection?

The wolf story is a chapter in the environmental movement’s decades-long efforts to protect specific species and eco-systems—a campaign descended directly from “save the whales” and “stop the logging.” Protecting the polar bear, however, is all about confronting the existential threat of global warming.

Wolf, meet bear. When it comes to saving the planet, you’re just a sideshow.

A political decision?

Gray wolves are a classic “old environmentalism” problem. Humans threatened the species in a very localized way: they shot too many wolves and settled in their habitat. Local ecosystems were disrupted, and when the federal government introduced a Rocky Mountain recovery plan in 1995, it tried to balance the interests of local parties, such as cattle and sheep farmers. Environmentalists fought for stronger protections through their long-preferred method—lawsuits. This continues: a coalition led by Earthjustice will sue to overturn the wolf decision in June, once a 60-days-notice requirement has been met.

For years the Bush administration sought to remove wolves from the endangered species list, and wolf advocates twice blocked the move in court. When Interior Secretary Ken Salazar upheld the Bush policy in March (it had been put on hold by the new administration), it was like, well, upholding a Bush environmental policy—exactly the opposite of what many in the environmental community expected.

In public and private statements, Interior officials have framed wolves’ resurgence as a success story— what the Endangered Species Act intended. They cite the wolf population across the Northern Rockies—about 1,600, including about 100 breeding pairs—and evidence that wolf packs in three distinct areas (Yellowstone ecosystem, central Idaho, and northwest Montana) have enough contact to interbreed and ensure genetic diversity.

“The population has really come back from the brink,” said Seth Willey, a Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) regional recovery coordinator in Denver. “There’s been scientific consensus on this for a long time.”

The delisting hinges on management plans submitted by the states. Montana’s and Idaho’s plans were approved, though the department rejected Wyoming’s trigger-happy plan [PDF] as inadequate, so wolves will remain federally protected in that state.

Wildlife groups find the Montana and Idaho plans nearly as troubling; Idaho, in particular, would allow hunters to reduce the current population to 104 animals, down from a current count of 778. Idaho Gov. Butch Otter (R) famously said he would be first line for a wolf hunting license.

“We’ve made all this progress,” said Noah Greenwald, a conservation biologist at the Center for Biological Diversity. “Instead of continuing with that and ensuring the wolves recover to a larger area of their historic range, we’re going to shut the door and allow them, particularly Idaho, to reduce their population to the point where it’s questionable they’re going to be viable.”

Suzanne Stone, an Idaho field conservationist for Defenders of Wildlife, a leading wolf advocacy group, questioned whether the Rocky Mountain populations are sufficiently connected, as FWS claims. She said federal recovery goals are based on an outdated 1987 plan [PDF].

“Since that time, wildlife scientists have repeatedly warned that the original wolf recovery goals were set too low and in order to reach a recovered metapopulation, the northern Rockies wolf population needs to be much larger than a few hundred wolves,” she wrote in an email. “... Genetic scientists have also confirmed that when our regional wolf population reached 450 wolves region wide (the current requirement for delisting), the wolf population was still disconnected and not functioning as a metapopulation by providing genetic connectivity between all three subpopulations.”

The Interior Department maintains its plans are based on the best available science. The government’s recovery findings were detailed in the Federal Register [PDF] on April 2, written largely by wolf recovery architect Ed Bangs. Further, said spokesperson Hugh Vickery, the Endangered Species Act compels a species to be delisted when it has recovered, meaning Salazar’s decisions was less a judgment call than a requirement.

“How the decision is made is clearly spelled out in the law,” Vickery said. “If the best available science says to do it, we have to do it.”

The department’s handling of the announcement didn’t win it any friends. Wildlife groups that had worked on the issue for years resented being caught off guard by the announcement.

“It’s too soon to pass judgment on how [Salazar] will ultimately do as secretary, but certainly it was a warning flag that more needs to be done to arrive at these decisions carefully, that more communication needs to occur,” said Bob Irvin, the senior vice president for wildlife at Defenders.

Congressional supporters of continued protections also felt left in the dark on announcement. Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) wrote to Salazar asking him to delay the effective date (he did not). She also questioned whether the Endangered Species Act allows the department to single out a particular area—Wyoming—for continued protection, a point Defenders of Wildlife also raises.

A staff member for Rep. Norm Dicks (D-Wash.), another longtime wolf advocate, said simply that Dicks found the announcement unexpected, disagreed with it, and had spoken to Salazar about it.

Defenders of Wildlife filed a Freedom of Information Act request for documents showing whether Salazar looked at any new research before making the “scientifically flawed” decision. It’s awaiting a response, Irvin said.

“We’re very disappointed in the [wolf] decision, but it’s way too early to draw any lines between it and future administration actions,” said Andrew Wetzler, endangered species project director for the Natural Resources Defense Council. “This is a bad decision among a number of good decisions.”

Polar bears and the climate fight

Unlike gray wolves, the threat to polar bears’ habitat isn’t local. It won’t be fixed with a regional management plan, which can’t address greenhouse gases from tailpipe emissions in Los Angeles or coal plants in India. It won’t be fixed with a typical lawsuit—wildlife advocates can’t litigate a national (or global) climate change plan into existence.

True, polar bears are furry and loveable (from a distance!), and much like wolves inspire awe at nature’s untamed predators. Like wolves, they require protection from local habitat destruction. But polar bears have become the poster-species for the issue that defines the new environmental movement—one that concerns itself less with charismatic species than with the tremendous disruption to human life that climate change will bring.

On its surface, the wolf delisting puts President Obama in an awkward spot—upsetting a key plank in the Democratic platform—environmental voters—and complicating the clean break he’s tried to make from Bush’s environmental policies. The political sensitivity of the decision was made clear by the fact that Salazar’s announcement back in March came on a Friday afternoon, the classic time for downplaying unpopular news, and was issued with no comment from the White House.

But if the White House upholds the Bush decisions on wolves, it may show that Obama is making a political calculation. The president’s selection of Salazar, a Colorado senator with a fairly strong environmental record and deep family ties to ranching, can be seen as a signal of the president’s belief that it’s more important to mediate culturally charged western states issues like wolves and save political ammunition for the bigger challenge—enacting a comprehensive strategy for combating climate change.

“The science makes it so clear that the polar bear is threatened by greenhouse gas emissions, and it’s such a well-known species, that they should be considering rescinding [the Bush-era rule]. I think it’s still possible they will,” said Greenwald of the Center for Biological Diversity.

Overturning the Bush exception, Greenwald said, could lend additional weight to efforts to strengthen auto-efficiency standards and block offshore drilling and oil shale development.

Interior Department Press Secretary Kendra Barkoff said the department had not yet decided on the polar bear rule. A decision must come by next Saturday.

More Information and How You Can Take Action

Jonathan Hiskes is a Grist staff writer. He reports, tweets, eats, asks questions, self-promotes, looks out windows, and wonders if it could be like this.

Related Stories

Advertisement
Advertisement
  1. Kassie Siegel's avatar

    Kassie Siegel Posted 7:29 am
    02 May 2009

    You can ask Interior Secretary Salazar to rescind the damaging Bush polar bear rule by signing the online petition at http://www.savethepolarbear.org 

    Permalink

  2. TLmule Posted 12:52 pm
    03 May 2009

    I was disappointed to read yet another story that propagates false tales. Comments like: "Idaho, in particular, would allow hunters to reduce the current population to 104 animals, down from a current count of 778" - that is simply not true!Please do a bit of research on the Idaho wolf program instead of palming off misinformation from DoW. Its really easy to do, just go to the Idaho Fish and Game website. The wolf plan is here: http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/cms/wildlife/wolves/manage/PopManagePlan.pdf - which calls for managing for between 518-732 wolves.Wolves have expanded their range outside of suitable habitat and are living in and around rural communities. Take a look at this 2007 wolf pack map: http://fwp.mt.gov/content/getItem.aspx?id=32267  Since the map was made the wolf population has grown 26% per year.  Wolves will not self-regulate in an open system, they keep expanding to find new sources of food (domestic animals on private property.)We are not anti-wolf, we are for managing wolves for a healthy population in the wilderness where they belong. We are not ranchers, so our voices are seldom heard, we are the rural citizens of the Western United States paying for the lawsuits and doing our best to guard our animals from becoming the latest wolf snack. Wolves belong in the wilderness - not in our towns.

    Permalink

  3. Tyler Durden Posted 4:43 pm
    03 May 2009

    1. On the wolf issue, Obama has been every bit as bad as Bush.  This is the Ralph Nader "there's no difference" factor.  While Obama is clearly a better human being than Bush and his administration is not filled with criminals like Bush's was, Obama is not an environmentalist and we -- meaning the Earth and all life on it -- cannot count on him doing the right thing, especially where business interests conflict with environmental ones or if there's a political trade off for which he thinks it is worth sacrificing a species, like what happened with the wolf issue.2. For Salazar to say that he was merely following the law is disingenuous at best.  The fact is, these guys manipulate the law all the time when it suits them.  If he really wanted to protect wolves, he could have easily agreed with the scientists who said that says that there are still not enough of them to warrant delisting.  Remember that Salazar is a rancher, a group that is the biggest enemy of wildlife in the West.3. "[T]he new environmental movement ... concerns itself less with
    charismatic species than with the tremendous disruption to human life
    that climate change will bring."  Um, what exactly is "new" about anthropocentrism?  It may be new compared to the views of traditional indigenous people, who see other species more as relatives to be fully respected than as mere resources to be exploited, but it's not at all new to civilization.  If limiting concern to humans is the new environmental movement, I'll gladly stick with an old one.4. Ken Salazar has "a fairly strong environmental record and deep family ties to ranching."  It's an exaggeration to say that his environmental record is strong.  More like, it's good on some issues and bad on others.  Again, this guy is a rancher, which is in direct conflict with supporting the natural environment (for a whole host of reasons I won't go into here) and is very bad news for the natural environment of the western U.S.5. TLMULE: It is people who have invaded the wolves' environment, not the other way around as you put it.  But your comment raises the biggest environmental issue of all, probably the biggest issue of any kind: there are far too many people on the planet.  We need to start making a lot more room for other species, not complaining when they've been relegated to such small areas that they encroach on human developments that are responsible for that encroachment.  And the issue is not whether you like wolves living near you, though I certainly would.  The issue is whether there are enough of them and whether they can interbreed with enough mixtures to survive as a species.  Despite the fact that you are not a rancher (taking your claim as true), your point of view is identical: you think your non-native animals should be given priority over native ones, like wolves.  This is a totally anti-environmental position.

    Permalink

    1. TLmule Posted 7:17 pm
      03 May 2009

      Tyler, I take exception to the words you try and put into my mouth. You have no idea of my point of view and I resent your implications.  I will not resort to calling your honor into question (as you did mine,) nor will I label you, I should just ignore your ill informed comment.People have been living in this area at least 8,000 years (according to the archaeological dig not far from my home.)  We are not "invaders" as you put it. That is the problem with trying to educate people. Did you even look at the wolf pack map? The people here are the ones who are regulated to a small area, not the wolves. They have millions acres of wilderness to enjoy - and I am all for having the wolves - IN THE WILDERNESS.  The population is recovered and they have been traveling and interbreeding, you can find those studies on the internet easily. Please read something besides the DoW talking points.Where we live isn't even good wolf habitat - even the elk were introduced. Read about Lewis and Clark's travel into Idaho, they nearly starved.I have provided facts and links to back up those facts. I bothered to sign up for an account here to try and correct the author's mistake about the Idaho Wolf Management Plan. I wish we could offer our local pack up for adoption, they are already habituated and like the taste of domestic dogs.

      Permalink

      1. Jonathan Hiskes's avatar

        Jonathan Hiskes Posted 12:15 pm
        04 May 2009

        A clarification on Idaho's wolf numbers: the state does indeed plan
        to maintain some 500 wolves--for five years. From its official management plan:"The
        goal of the IDFG plan is to ensure that populations are maintained at
        2005-2007 population levels (518-732 wolves) during the 5-year
        post-delisting period through adaptive management under the guidelines
        of the 2002 State Plan."After that, the state legislature
        decides. "Future population goals will reflect knowledge gained each
        year," says the same plan. At that point, the only certain threshold is
        the federal limit. From the Fish and Wildlife Service:"the
        recovery goals only mandate that each state maintain a wolf population
        that never goes below 10 breeding pairs and 100 wolves per state and is
        managed for more than 15 breeding pairs and 150 wolves per state."  

        Permalink

      2. Tyler Durden Posted 2:58 pm
        05 May 2009

        First, I don't know what you take such strong exception to and I did not intend my post as a personal attack.  My comment about taking you at your word was a comment about the lack of honesty of ranchers.  If you're not one, it doesn't apply to you.However, it is clear that we are on opposite sides of the issue; saying that you support wolves so long as they stay in the minuscule amount of wilderness humans have left the planet is an attitude with which I totally disagree.  Instead, it is overpopulated humans who should retreat into small enclaves and make room for other species.I strongly disagree with your basic premises, but let's look at it this way:Humans are grossly overpopulated and wolves exist in tiny numbers compared to when white people got to the Americas.  So we still need to greatly increase wolf populations, not allow people to kill them.The only moral excuse for killing is to eat, and people don't eat wolves.  The Native Americans you referred to certainly didn't kill them, only the invaders do.  There is no excuse for killiing animals like wolves and doing so should be absolutely prohibited.
        And yes, the Europeans who came here are invaders, no two ways about it.  They murdered the natives to steal their land and destroy it for money and convenience.  Moreover, there are so many of them that there is little or no room for other species.  Your complaint about wolves is a perfect example.

        Permalink

  4. davescott Posted 11:43 am
    04 May 2009

    Good article.  Secretary Salazar has made several good decisions, but upholding the Bush position on delisting wolves was a serious blunder that could wreak havoc on Northern Rockies wolves populations.  I hope the litigation is successful and I strongly support that effort.

    Permalink

  5. 8tona Posted 12:07 pm
    04 May 2009

    The author might have it backwards -- It's true that applying the ESA to polar bears is novel in the sense that they're threatened only by global warming.  How the ESA influences GHG emissions (or not) will be interesting and precedent setting.  But if you're looking for a species that will be able to adapt to global warming, you should be focused on saving the wolf -- wolves don't depend on sea ice, which, even if we stop emissions soon, is going to continue to disappear. That said, I'm uncomfortable playing within the frame this article sets up -- saving species is saving species, and it's important work no matter where or how it's happening. 

    Permalink

  6. Teuthis Posted 4:32 pm
    04 May 2009

    The wolf saga seems to be a classic case of humans vs. nonhumans--helping one is harming the other.  Climate change is more clearly a case of human and nonhuman forces combining to create a disaster with both human and nonhuman victims.  This article portrays the differences astutely. But most environmental conflicts--old and new--are actually more like the latter case.  Recognizing this, and accounting for all of the "villains" and victims, is what environmentalism needs to do more.  With climate change, that's darn difficult but clearly necessary.  With other issues, it's less clear but just as vital and sometimes obvious. If that's anthropocentrism, so be it.  Most humans are in fact human, and don't take kindly to being shoved out of the picture.

    Permalink

  7. joeburge Posted 6:38 am
    05 May 2009

    1. Recovery? How can a non-native species be "recovering"?  The current wolf population is Canadian wolves, introduced to the states.2. Population? The quota originally cited by environmental groups for "recovery" was 300, now that populations have exceeded 1000, they still have not recovered?  The ruling was established with a quota that environmentalist groups now suddenly back-track on.  And without control or competition, wolves are fast becoming the racoon of the west, they love all that free undefended food.3. "And the issue is not whether you like wolves living near you, though I certainly would", fine, then why don't you raise some wolves in your backyard, and see what nice fuzzy friends your neighbors (and their families and pets) make?4. The non-native wolf population is not out cavorting in the wilderness, they are invading the human settlements, because of the easy food opportunities (pet and livestock).5. "there are far too many people on the planet", so why don't we establish some breeding quotas on human populations?

    Permalink

  8. contours Posted 6:10 pm
    06 May 2009

    Though I consider myself more aligned with TYLER in this debate, I am grateful for the good points that TLMULE raises. Because I live in the northeast I do not have encounters with wolves and only rely on what I read in books and articles and websites like this one. That doesn't make my opinion worth less or overly emotional, it simply qualifies my perspective, as in, you know where I'm coming from.Here's a little more perspective as I respond to JOEBURGE's response to TYLER's response to TLMULE ...Recovery? How can a non-native species be "recovering"?  The current wolf population is Canadian wolves, introduced to the states.C'mon Joe. Are you trying to tell me that wolves somehow avoided the northwest over the last 8 or 10 thousand years? They were exterminated in the last century. That doesn't make them non-native.then why don't you raise some wolves in your backyard, and see what nice fuzzy friends your neighbors (and their families and pets) make?You know what? There are some that do just that. They're called sanctuaries. They are expensive to run and I'm sure they cause plenty of friction within the surrounding population. But these people do it out of love for the species. I would do it if I had the finances and thought I could do it safely. And, yes, it's well-known that dogs and wolves have no affection for each other. Neither do dogs and bears or dogs and cats or dogs and porcupines, but we figure out how to deal with it.because of the easy food opportunities (pet and livestock).From all the literature I've seen it's clear that livestock is not the favorite prey for wolves. Not only does predation on livestock represent less than 1% of losses, but wolves don't fancy any prey that doesn't provide a good chase.Finally Joe suggests:"there are far too many people on the planet", so why don't we establish some breeding quotas on human populations?Not a bad idea. This is in fact the root of most problems. Problems ranging from the scarcity of resources to the  scarcity of jobs. The human population exceeded it's carrying capacity a long time ago. One way or another we will be brought down to a more natural level. The only question is how many species will we eliminate in the process. Thank you Mr. Hiskes for such a thought provoking article. 

    Permalink

    1. Tyler Durden Posted 8:46 pm
      06 May 2009

      Thanks Contours, I appreciate your support.  I just want to add that pets and livestock are non-native and unnatural animals bred by humans, and that it is they that are the problem, not wolves or bears.  Native wildlife should be given priority, not human concocted perversions that have no place in nature.

      Permalink

Add a Comment

You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have an account, log in. If you don't have an account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.

Hello, Visitor!    Why not register?

Viewed
More
Commented
More
Advertisement