In a proposed change of policy Thursday the US Fish and Wildlife service announced it's intentions to change the Bush era policy governing when to consider a species for listing as threatened or endangered.
US Fish and Wildlife Policy FAQ
US Fish and Wildlife News Release
Specifically the changes involve the words "significant portion of it's range" a term that was never defined.
During the Bush years sometimes divisions were made on a state by state basis. This is understandable as the states are the ultimate management entity for all species before listing and after delisting. Most famously this idea was struck down, and that ruling was upheld on appeal, regarding the different management goals for the gray wolf in Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming.
In that case the judge ruled that until Wyoming had a plan that would show likely hood of the gray wolf surviving throughout the state the species couldn't be delisted in Idaho or Montana. The idea being that species know no geographical boundaries.
Boreal Toadlet from Colorado Division of Wildlife
"Signifigant portion of it's range" now means ,
a portion of the range of a species as “significant” if its contribution to the viability of the species is so important that without that portion, the species would be in danger of extinction.
It used to drive me nuts that a species that is extremely robust, with a huge population, covering great portions of the earth is listed as endangered.
They further specify that historic range doesn't matter. Bison used to range out east into Ohio, cougars to Massachusetts, elk to Georgia. The idea of grizzly in Los Angelas just isn't realistic.
The range of a species is considered to be the general geographical area within which that species can be found at the time the FWS and NOAA make a status determination. This range includes those areas used throughout all or part of the species’ life cycle. Lost historical range would not constitute a significant portion of a species’ range (in other words, a species cannot be listed solely on the basis of loss of historical range), but the causes and consequences of loss of historical range on the current and future viability of the species must be considered and are an important component of determining whether a species is currently threatened or endangered.
Black Footed Ferrets prior to release Photo Colorado Division of Wildlife
Probably the part I like best about this new policy is it puts scientists back in the drivers seat and removes some of the lawyering. Judges and lawyers with no scientific background shouldn't be making important decisions about where to spend the dwindling resources for the increasing numbers of species in danger of extinction. Lawyers like to win arguments, they measure success by wether they won or lost, not by how many species were saved or lost. Ultimately if we spend millions litigating an animal it dooms other animals to extinction by robbing resources for their study and protection. I understand and accept that many species will soon die out due to global warming and habitat destruction, what I wish is for the decisions on which species to spend our very finite resources saving to be made by scientists.
Arkansas Darter
F+W Policy FAQ
F+W News Release