Researchers point finger at politics for thwarting endangered species protections process
Political battles and partisan ideologies are threatening the survival of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and the animals that it is supposed to serve, researchers are warning. Wildlife management under the ESA has changed dramatically since its bipartisan and unanimous passage 50 years ago, during the Nixon administration, according to a new case study, published on Tuesday in Frontiers in Conservation Science. Best available science has given way to bureaucratic delays, power struggles and competing political interests, argued lead author Kelly Dunning, who heads the University of Wyoming’s Wildlife & Wilderness Recreation Lab. “The survival of the ESA, a wildlife policy mimicked all over the world, may depend on our ability to navigate these waters,” she said in a statement. Dunning’s case study, which focuses on the fate of the grizzly bear in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem, was published just before the Trump administration proposed a rollback in federal protections for endangered species. The proposal would involve repealing the current definition of “harm” that is forbidden under the ESA, according to a draft rule issued by the Fish and Wildlife Service and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. The proposal specifically targets the inclusion of “habitat modification” in that definition — meaning that looser terms could enable industrial activities that might damage an endangered animal’s habitat. Environmental groups, such as the Center for Biological Diversity, argued that protections for the habitats of endangered wildlife “are crucial to ensuring they don’t go extinct.” Noah Greenwald, co-director of endangered species at the conservation group, slammed the proposal, noting that “nobody voted to drive spotted owls, Florida panthers or grizzly bears to extinction.” As for the grizzlies — the animals at the core of the University of Wyoming case study — Dunning described the nears as “a cultural symbol of the American West” and an embodiment of the country’s shift in wildlife management. The grizzly bear was listed as threatened in 1975 when its population dwindled to fewer than 1,000 and its ranged narrowed by 98 percent, according to the study. In the Yellowstone region, the bear’s numbers have now risen to more than 700, surpassing recovery goals set by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. Characterizing this growth is “a success story” that makes the grizzly bear eligible for “delisting” by its own metrics, Dunning pointed out that attempts to remove federal protections in 2007 and 2017 were overturned by courts. This occurred, she contended, not due to the absence of science, but because the ESA delisting procedure “has become a lightning rod for political interests.” To draw these conclusions, Dunning and her colleagues sifted through 750 documents and 2,832 stakeholder quotes to track the politicization of grizzly bears. They identified five key threads of discourse surrounding the delisting question: scientific uncertainty, the role of regulated hunting, human-wildlife conflict, rising state-level management and recovery goal status. What the researchers found was that “the most dominant voices belong to legislators, legal advocates, and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) who are increasingly crowding out the agency scientists,” according to Dunning. On the one hand, she explained, elected politicians like Wyoming Sen. John Barrasso (R) have declared that “the grizzly is fully recovered in Wyoming. End of story.” Acknowledging the legitimacy in his statements, Dunning recognized that population targets set by the ESA have been met and that the bears might harm livestock or tourists. On the other hand, the researchers found that many well-known environmental advocacy groups and their attorneys argue that delisting would be premature. In addition, they observed that the courts “have flexed their muscle” as well. “There are no easy answers,” Dunning said. “This conflict reveals a stark reality: wildlife management is no longer just about science, it's about who dominates the political discourse, and the power that accompanies it.” An unrelated grizzly bear study, also published on Tuesday, focused on the specific need to return the animals to California — regardless of whether they are delisted as a threatened species under the ESA. While about 10,000 grizzlies inhabited California prior to the Gold Rush, the last reliable sighting occurred in the spring of 1924, according to the authors. Today, although grizzlies appear on California’s flag and seal, none inhabit the state’s woodlands. Yet at the same time, the bears that did once live there were genetically indistinguishable from those that now inhabit the Northern Rockies, the researchers noted. “Whether or not we bring grizzly bears back to California is a choice, as there is no biological reason we couldn’t do it,” lead author Peter Alagona, of the University of California, Santa Barbara, said in a statement. Although the bears are unlikely to return to California on their own, the researchers determined that a well-managed reintroduction and recovery program could ensure a sustainable population. This would involve reconnecting fragmented habitats via land management and infrastructural investments, the study found. If grizzlies do end up removed from the ESA’s threatened species list, Alagona and his coauthors stressed that “California would have to take the lead on its own recovery efforts.” “Nothing in state law would prevent grizzlies from being reintroduced or listed as endangered in California before or after a reintroduction,” they concluded. As far as a path forward for both the grizzly bears and the ESA is concerned, Dunning, from the University of Wyoming, stressed that agencies must adapt to a political reality in which species recovery has become “a bargaining chip.” “Scientists can’t afford to ‘stay out of politics’ when protected species like grizzlies are lightning rods for political debate,” Denning said, noting that the animal’s future “isn’t just about one species.” The ESA, she contended, must mature “beyond a scientific ideal into a framework that navigates the messy, human politics of conservation.”
Political battles and partisan ideologies are threatening the survival of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and the animals that it is supposed to serve, researchers are warning. Wildlife management under the ESA has changed dramatically since its bipartisan and unanimous passage 50 years ago, during the Nixon administration, according to a new case study, published...
Political battles and partisan ideologies are threatening the survival of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and the animals that it is supposed to serve, researchers are warning.
Wildlife management under the ESA has changed dramatically since its bipartisan and unanimous passage 50 years ago, during the Nixon administration, according to a new case study, published on Tuesday in Frontiers in Conservation Science.
Best available science has given way to bureaucratic delays, power struggles and competing political interests, argued lead author Kelly Dunning, who heads the University of Wyoming’s Wildlife & Wilderness Recreation Lab.
“The survival of the ESA, a wildlife policy mimicked all over the world, may depend on our ability to navigate these waters,” she said in a statement.
Dunning’s case study, which focuses on the fate of the grizzly bear in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem, was published just before the Trump administration proposed a rollback in federal protections for endangered species.
The proposal would involve repealing the current definition of “harm” that is forbidden under the ESA, according to a draft rule issued by the Fish and Wildlife Service and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
The proposal specifically targets the inclusion of “habitat modification” in that definition — meaning that looser terms could enable industrial activities that might damage an endangered animal’s habitat.
Environmental groups, such as the Center for Biological Diversity, argued that protections for the habitats of endangered wildlife “are crucial to ensuring they don’t go extinct.”
Noah Greenwald, co-director of endangered species at the conservation group, slammed the proposal, noting that “nobody voted to drive spotted owls, Florida panthers or grizzly bears to extinction.”
As for the grizzlies — the animals at the core of the University of Wyoming case study — Dunning described the nears as “a cultural symbol of the American West” and an embodiment of the country’s shift in wildlife management.
The grizzly bear was listed as threatened in 1975 when its population dwindled to fewer than 1,000 and its ranged narrowed by 98 percent, according to the study.
In the Yellowstone region, the bear’s numbers have now risen to more than 700, surpassing recovery goals set by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service.
Characterizing this growth is “a success story” that makes the grizzly bear eligible for “delisting” by its own metrics, Dunning pointed out that attempts to remove federal protections in 2007 and 2017 were overturned by courts.
This occurred, she contended, not due to the absence of science, but because the ESA delisting procedure “has become a lightning rod for political interests.”
To draw these conclusions, Dunning and her colleagues sifted through 750 documents and 2,832 stakeholder quotes to track the politicization of grizzly bears.
They identified five key threads of discourse surrounding the delisting question: scientific uncertainty, the role of regulated hunting, human-wildlife conflict, rising state-level management and recovery goal status.
What the researchers found was that “the most dominant voices belong to legislators, legal advocates, and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) who are increasingly crowding out the agency scientists,” according to Dunning.
On the one hand, she explained, elected politicians like Wyoming Sen. John Barrasso (R) have declared that “the grizzly is fully recovered in Wyoming. End of story.”
Acknowledging the legitimacy in his statements, Dunning recognized that population targets set by the ESA have been met and that the bears might harm livestock or tourists.
On the other hand, the researchers found that many well-known environmental advocacy groups and their attorneys argue that delisting would be premature. In addition, they observed that the courts “have flexed their muscle” as well.
“There are no easy answers,” Dunning said. “This conflict reveals a stark reality: wildlife management is no longer just about science, it's about who dominates the political discourse, and the power that accompanies it.”
An unrelated grizzly bear study, also published on Tuesday, focused on the specific need to return the animals to California — regardless of whether they are delisted as a threatened species under the ESA.
While about 10,000 grizzlies inhabited California prior to the Gold Rush, the last reliable sighting occurred in the spring of 1924, according to the authors.
Today, although grizzlies appear on California’s flag and seal, none inhabit the state’s woodlands. Yet at the same time, the bears that did once live there were genetically indistinguishable from those that now inhabit the Northern Rockies, the researchers noted.
“Whether or not we bring grizzly bears back to California is a choice, as there is no biological reason we couldn’t do it,” lead author Peter Alagona, of the University of California, Santa Barbara, said in a statement.
Although the bears are unlikely to return to California on their own, the researchers determined that a well-managed reintroduction and recovery program could ensure a sustainable population. This would involve reconnecting fragmented habitats via land management and infrastructural investments, the study found.
If grizzlies do end up removed from the ESA’s threatened species list, Alagona and his coauthors stressed that “California would have to take the lead on its own recovery efforts.”
“Nothing in state law would prevent grizzlies from being reintroduced or listed as endangered in California before or after a reintroduction,” they concluded.
As far as a path forward for both the grizzly bears and the ESA is concerned, Dunning, from the University of Wyoming, stressed that agencies must adapt to a political reality in which species recovery has become “a bargaining chip.”
“Scientists can’t afford to ‘stay out of politics’ when protected species like grizzlies are lightning rods for political debate,” Denning said, noting that the animal’s future “isn’t just about one species.”
The ESA, she contended, must mature “beyond a scientific ideal into a framework that navigates the messy, human politics of conservation.”