Defenders of Wildlife Blog

Jamie Rappaport Clark, President and CEO 

As a wildlife biologist and former director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, I know first-hand the harm lead can cause to condors, eagles and other species of wildlife that ingest it. These mighty birds are innocent victims that often scavenge carcasses of big game animals left by hunters. Little do they know that what they have just eaten could kill them.

The fact that lead is toxic is old news. Decades ago, we took the lead out of paint, gasoline, cans used for food storage and even pipes. I remember growing up and seeing ads warning parents about lead paint in our homes. When I sold my first home, I had to fill out a lead paint disclosure form. And, as a biologist with the Fish and Wildlife Service, I remember the Service requiring the use of non-lead ammunition for the hunting of waterfowl throughout the United States. Clearly, our country has been serious about getting the lead out for some time.

Lead shot at a shooting range, with a quarter placed for scale. ©USGS

So even though hunters have used steel shot to hunt ducks for more than two decades, why are they still using lead bullets for hunting everything else? And why are there people stridently advocating to keep using lead ammunition for hunting? You would think they would be concerned about their own health if not for the health of our wildlife.

Fifty years of scientific research has shown that the presence of lead in the environment poses an ongoing threat to the health of the general public and the viability of our state’s wildlife, including the California condor, bald eagle and golden eagle. Dr. Don Smith, Professor at the Department of Microbiology and Environmental Toxicology at UC Santa Cruz stated, “Lead-based ammunition is likely the greatest, largely unregulated source of lead knowingly discharged into the environment in the U.S.”

Lead bullets fragment into tiny pieces when they hit an animal during hunting. These small lead fragments are then easily digested by humans as well as wildlife that eat the gut piles of dead animals. Animals also ingest lead when foraging in fields and pick up spent ammunition mistakenly. These lead fragments are highly toxic in the humans and animals that digest them. In humans, exposure to lead causes brain damage, learning problems and slowed growth. For children, no amount of lead exposure is acceptable. In wildlife, lead poisoning causes an agonizing death through paralysis and starvation.

X-ray of lead shot in the digestive tract of a young bald eagle. ©USGS

Fortunately, California has always been a forward-thinking state on environmental issues, starting the dialogue on many of the significant conservation issues of our times. And so it is again, with the state Senate’s Natural Resources Committee recent 7-1 vote in favor of Assembly Bill (AB) 711 (authored by Assemblymembers Anthony Rendon and Richard Pan), bringing California one step closer to enacting the first law in the nation that would require the use of non-lead ammunition for all hunting.

Lobbyists for the gun and lead ammo industry claim that there is insufficient science to justify requiring non-lead ammunition in the killing of wildlife. But those arguments ring hollow, especially after 30 nationally and internationally known scientists issued a strongly worded statement, “Health Risks from Lead-Based Ammunition in the Environment: A Consensus Statement of Scientists,” on March 22.

These scientists are experts in lead and environmental health from universities, hospitals and laboratories from around the United States, England and Canada. And they were unequivocal in their assessment of lead’s toxicity and their support for the reduction and elimination of the use of lead ammo in order to protect human and environmental health. Their research provides overwhelming evidence that lead is toxic; that lead ammunition in the environment poses significant health risks to humans and wildlife; that there is no level of lead exposure to children known to be without deleterious effects and that lead poisoning poses a serious and significant threat to wildlife.

Who would you trust with your health, your children’s health and that of our wildlife: world renowned scientists or lobbyists from the gun and ammo industry?

There is clearly no scientifically valid reason why wildlife and humans should continue to be threatened with lead poisoning from lead ammunition. Opponents of the bill are just ignoring the facts – just like those who fought against getting lead out of gasoline, paint and cans used for food.

AB 711 is a reasonable and common sense solution to a public health and environmental threat. Given the toxic threat from lead ammunition, there is no legitimate reason to continue to use toxic lead ammunition when non-lead alternatives are effective and comparative in price.

The elected officials of California have an opportunity to once again be environmental leaders for our country and pass this first ever requirement for the use of non-lead ammunition. Hopefully some day, the thought of using lead ammunition to hunt will seem as foreign and foolish as using lead paint in our homes is today.

Originally published in The Huffington Post

Delisting decried nationwide – While the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service tried to paint last week’s announcement as a resounding success, many newspapers saw the national delisting proposal quite differently. An editorial from Oregon’s Register-Guard, for example, noted that leading wildlife biologists say that wolf numbers have not reached sustainable levels in key parts of the species historic range. The paper also criticized Northern Rockies states for killing more than 1,000 wolves only two years after Endangered Species Act protections were removed in Idaho, Montana and Wyoming. Never before has an imperiled species gone from being fully protected one day, to being aggressively hunted the next.

The Salt Lake Tribune picked up on a similar theme, saying that delisting is premature, especially when the wolf still faces such hatred out West. For many wolf opponents, wolf “management” means killing as many wolves as possible. But treating wolves like unwanted vermin completely ignores the vital ecological role they play in maintaining healthy, balanced ecosystems.

In a New York Times op-ed, Jim, Jamie and Garrick Dutcher contrast the rush to strip federal protection for gray wolves with the more measured approach taken with the recovery of iconic species like the bald eagle and American alligator. Those species were not delisted until stable populations had recovered across a greater portion of available habitat. Bald eagles were soaring in the skies from coast to coast before protections were removed. And alligators were swimming not just in the Florida Everglades, but in Louisiana bayous and halfway up the Atlantic sea board by the time states took over management. More importantly, neither species has been persecuted like wolves have been.

But there’s more at stake than just poor state management. As our top wolf expert Suzanne Stone points out, stripping federal protection likely means that wolves will never even make it to places like Colorado, where there is excellent habitat but no wolves. (Listen to the full story on Northwest Public Radio)

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service officially published its proposal this week and will be taking public comments for the next 90 days. Make sure you tell the Service as well as Interior Secretary Sally Jewell not to give up on wolf recovery!
Click here to submit your comments!

Don’t blame wolves for elk decline — Wyoming researchers are uncovering new information that may cause all of us to revisit our understanding of how elk and wolves interact. In a recent three-year study, biologists with the Wyoming Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit found that elk do not dramatically change their behavior in the presence of wolves, as previously thought. Specifically, the study team found that elk that encountered wolves more often were just as likely to retain fat and get pregnant as those that had fewer wolf encounters.

These findings directly undermine the claims of anti-wolf extremists who have blamed wolves for declining elk herds in select areas. Many wolf opponents have claimed that wolves frighten elk and prevent them from eating enough food to maintain weight and get pregnant, but the current study would seem to contradict that argument. The bigger influence may come from direct predation by grizzly bears as well as other factors like drought and climate change.

It also appears, however, that wolves may not be the primary or only driver of “trophic cascades” that have restored native vegetation in certain parts of Yellowstone National Park. Many biologists provide compelling evidence that wolves help keep elk and other ungulates on the move, thus preventing them from destroying communities of young willow and aspen trees.  This study indicates that the effect of wolves may be far more subtle in certain landscapes.  Another paper released this week from Poland indicates that the trophic cascade benefits of wolf predation may have greater influence in woody habitat as opposed to open range.

By Cynthia Bournellis

Some people are born with an innate understanding of and appreciation for wildlife and wild places. That is the case for me. A California Bay Area native, I grew up with the giant Redwoods and Pacific Ocean to the west of the Santa Cruz Mountain range and the majestic oaks and fertile farms to the east.

Cynthia outside DOW HQ in Washington, D.C.

As a child, I spent most of my summers in the Northern Sierras. The Alpine peaks and towering pines captivated me. It is these wild places that spawned my passion for hiking. On occasion, my hikes along our country’s trails have placed me within a stone’s throw of iconic inhabitants such as brown bears and bison.

Unfortunately, many of America’s most treasured natural assets are now at risk due to urban sprawl, climate change, a lack of human understanding of nature’s place within the ecosystem, and legislative attacks on the endangered wildlife and habitats. This is why I partook in Defenders of Wildlife’s “Conservation Crossroads” lobby day in Washington, D.C.

I have never lobbied in my life. Yet there I was, the average citizen preparing to talk to our nation’s decision makers and influencers about an issue close to my heart. But wasn’t that the point? To stand up for wildlife, to have my voice be heard, to remind our elected leaders what’s really important?

Thanks to Defenders, my world expanded tremendously as a result of this opportunity. During our training session, Defenders provided us with a wealth of valuable information. However, the content overwhelmed me a bit and left me wondering how I was going to incorporate it into the meeting with my representative’s aid the next day. My Sherpa (Defenders’ guide on Capitol Hill), though, calmed my nerves, pointing out that while I’d probably be speaking with representatives from California who generally support wildlife, it was still important that I meet with them in-person to express why defending the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and providing adequate funding for related programs are important to me. She advised me to be sincere and be myself.

That night, I compiled my talking points on notecards and practiced my pitch. I carried my cards with me the next day, referring to them often before my meeting. I was mildly nervous going into our first meeting with Rep. Mike Thompson, a true champion for endangered wildlife. Yet, his approachable and engaging demeanor led to lively and informative conversation, which fed my confidence for subsequent meetings.

Defenders California lobby team in DC.

As it turned out, the next meeting with Rep. Anna Eshoo, who represents my district, was better than I expected. The legislative aide we met with was very welcoming and had a good sense of humor. He listened with genuine interest while I shared my own story, and also educated me on my congresswoman’s activities regarding the ESA—primarily her vote against wolf delistings. Furthermore, he took time out to provide me with details on habitat conservation activities in my county. I walked away from the meeting with a true sense of accomplishment.

Our subsequent meetings with both Senators Barbara Boxer and Diane Feinstein’s aides were also satisfying. However, it was the latter meeting that was the most exciting: Feinstein’s aide turned the tables on us, asking for our opinions the Bay Delta Conservation Plan—a heated issue— in California that has been occupying the senator’s time. The fact that he wanted our feedback impressed me and ignited intelligent conversation that amounted to an informal brainstorming session.

My day on the hill—including the evening reception—was both invigorating and like nothing I had imagined. In fact, there were moments when the experience seemed downright surreal, such as when chatting with Rep. Thompson about our shared passion for wine, taking a group picture with Sen. Boxer and meeting the longest-serving member of congress—John Dingell, Jr.—and Defenders President Jamie Rappaport Clark at the reception. I must say that I have a deep respect for what Defenders does: Having their support, as well as support from the other constituents in my group, made for a positive experience.

I now have a better understanding of what it takes to lobby, the role it plays and, most important, the need for constituents to talk to their representatives in-person—not just through letters or phone calls—so that they can see the faces behind the concerned voices.

Defenders’ president and CEO, Jamie Rappaport Clark

Jamie Rappaport Clark, President and CEO

When federal wolf recovery efforts began more than 25 years ago, I had very high hopes. I was working for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service as an endangered species biologist at the time and remember thinking what an incredibly ambitious and inspiring project it was.

A decade later, I was honored to release three Mexican gray wolves into Arizona’s Apache National Forest as director of the Service. I’ll never forget looking into the crate and seeing in the wolf’s eyes the fierce green fire that inspired Aldo Leopold to develop his famous land ethic. Carrying those wolves into their new wild home, I felt a deep connection with both the animals and the great conservation leaders who came before me. It was thrilling to think that someday gray wolves would thrive once again across much of the West — a direct result of our collective efforts to bring them back.

Restoring a native predator to the American landscape represented a grand vision for the future of wildlife conservation. Not only was the federal government fighting to save imperiled species from extinction, it was also working hard to reintroduce animals that had been ruthlessly and foolishly eliminated decades earlier. I could think of no nobler and more worthy set of conservation values than those set forth in the Endangered Species Act (ESA).

Fast forward to today. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service announced recently that it plans to prematurely delist wolves under the ESA and abandon their restoration efforts for gray wolves everywhere except for the Southwest. With wolves struggling to gain a toehold in the Northwest and still nonexistent in places with excellent suitable habitat like California, Utah and Colorado, the federal government is giving up on the dream of full gray wolf recovery. Put simply, they are quitting before their work is done.

Some 5,000 wolves currently inhabit six states in the lower 48. This is a marked improvement since the late ’80s when there were only a few hundred left in northern Minnesota. Yet, the reality is that the recovery of the species throughout key areas in the West remains as uncertain as ever. Idaho, Montana and Wyoming have already started to drive their wolf populations down. Anti-wolf legislation has cropped up in Oregon and Washington, where there are presently only about 100 wolves. Utah’s legislature passed a bill several years ago banning wolves altogether. And without continued federal protection, we’re as likely to see sustainable populations of unicorns in five years in Colorado and California as we are to see sustainable populations of wolves.

By walking off the job before the task is done, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is redefining what it means to recover imperiled species…and not in a good way. The agency has adopted a shrunken vision of what wolf conservation is all about, failing to stick with the program until full recovery is achieved. We didn’t take this easy way out in recovering the bald eagle or the American alligator, and we shouldn’t do it now for wolves.

But this isn’t just about wolves or eagles. Sadly, what’s happening with wolves could become the new normal for federal endangered species recovery work nationwide. The premature national wolf delisting proposal signals a major shift in the conservation vision and philosophy of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Optimism seems to be disappearing, and settling for second best seems to be settling in.

Wolf recovery was on the path to become one of our nation’s greatest conservation successes, but now that success is threatened because the federal government wants to wash its hands of the wolf. It’s a disappointing, far cry from the vision and boldness — the commitment to conserving our wildlife and natural resources — that used to characterize our nation’s stewardship goals.

Originally published in The Huffington Post

The dark blue squares on the left side of the building are the solar panels.

Karla Dutton, Alaska Program Director

It has been a while since we moved Defenders’ Alaska office a block away to The Solar Building at 441 West 5th Avenue, Anchorage. The 1957 art deco building is aptly named for the recent installation of a full wall of 64 solar energy panels that make this one of only a few commercial buildings in Alaska powered in part by renewable energy, and the largest project for a commercial building in Anchorage. The panels are expected to supply 11,651 kilowatts per year — five to 10 percent of the five-story building’s electricity needs, said Marvin Kuentzel of Renewable Energy Systems, the Anchorage business that ordered the panels and installed them. Anchorage businessman and building owner Steve Zelener is pleased with the results and continues to remodel the building’s interior. In fact, he’s planning to install a ticker device so tenants and visitors can see how much energy the solar panels are generating.

Claire Colegrove, our Alaska Representative, and I really like our new office. It is bright, sunny and has high-efficiency lighting and heating – a huge improvement over our previous office space. Since Alaska and the Arctic are ground zero for climate change, we believe it is important to work in a building that uses energy sources with reduced emissions, which helps to fight the shifts in climate that are affecting our wildlife and environment.

Other conservation-minded tenants share space in the building, and the owner hopes that these energy-saving retrofits will encourage still other progressive companies to lease space in the Solar Building.

This past weekend, our building was featured in the Anchorage Solar Tour, sponsored by American Solar Energy Society, ACAT, REAP, ACE as the Solar Building at 441 W. 5th Avenue in 2012.

Jamie Rappaport Clark, President and CEO

This country has been bogged down for too long with the intractable debate about whether or not humans’ consumption of fossil fuels is causing global warming. As a result, we’ve dangerously delayed the debate we really should be having: what should we do about the change in climate that is clearly taking place?

Defenders’ president and CEO, Jamie Rappaport Clark

Unfortunately, the national leadership that we need to answer that question will not be forthcoming anytime soon from our gridlocked and paralyzed Congress. By default, this means that President Obama will need to accelerate his efforts to take control of the climate change conversation by promoting the proper conservation and management of our natural resources, maximizing energy efficiency in this country and ensuring the safety and protection of our vulnerable communities. Federal agencies are already taking steps to address climate change impacts on federal lands and have established overarching frameworks for responding to climate change, such as the development of the National Fish, Wildlife and Plants Climate Adaptation Strategy and the release of individual federal agency climate adaptation plans. The administration has also made important investments in applied science to better understand climate impacts, such as the new National Climate Change and Wildlife Science Center. But much more needs to be done to reduce our vulnerability to climate change.

We need to move beyond debating whether this is happening to our planet. What we should be discussing is how to most effectively respond and take action. How best to move forward and change our policies to plan for extreme weather? How to promote energy efficiency in a way that keeps our economy strong and makes a significant difference? And while it’s important to talk about how climate change can affect weather patterns and make storms, droughts and flooding more severe, simply linking climate change to the latest weather disaster doesn’t help the conversation. Supportive media must take the next step and bring attention to the conservation and adaptation work that helps reduce the severity of these effects, like wetland restoration and managing forests to reduce the intensity of wildfires.

The time for “ifs” about climate change is over. Now, our leaders have to ask themselves what to do next, and how.

Originally published in the National Journal