Defenders of Wildlife Blog

Eva Sargent, Southwest Program Director

Mexican gray wolves, according to science and common sense, are the most endangered wolf in the world.  We should have a new count in a couple of weeks, but last year there were fewer than 60 wild Mexican wolves in the entire world.  They are all offspring of the emergency captive breeding effort that saved the species from extinction – an Endangered Species Act miracle, really.  But what’s happened since then, since the first captive-bred Mexican gray wolves put their paws on the wild ground in 1998, is more frustrating.

Mexican gray wolf

Because the entire population is derived from only seven wolves (a brush with extinction that no critters should come close to), they didn’t have a great deal of genetic diversity. That is, they didn’t have a large number of different traits carried in their genes. A high amount of genetic diversity is the engine of adaptability – it allows populations to change their biology when conditions change, and that’s key to survival. The captive population has been carefully managed to preserve genetic diversity, but this only goes so far. From the beginning, geneticists knew that in order to overcome their limited genetic heritage, the Mexican gray wolves would need to rapidly expand their numbers beyond what was possible in captivity. They needed to get out of the zoos that had taken such care to save them and really take off in the wild.  By reproducing quickly in the wild, they would express every ounce of genetic diversity they had in their genes.  The wolves did their part immediately – pairing up, denning up, eating elk and having puppies.

Unfortunately, humans haven’t held up their part of the deal, and the population has never expanded fast enough to preserve their genetic diversity.  Overzealous management and a lack of political will have kept the numbers low. Now, nearly 15 years after the first wolves were released, the Mexican gray wolf is facing a genetic emergency that could keep them from ever recovering. Already, it  seems that a lack of genetic diversity is causing lower litter sizes. If the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service doesn’t act soon to release more wolves, this and other effects of a small gene pool could doom the species, no matter how hard we try in the future to recover them.

Many opportunities to improve the genetics of Mexican gray wolves have been squandered.  Instead of supporting stable, reproducing packs, wolves are captured and moved around because they get into trouble, or cross the invisible boundaries of their small recovery area in eastern Arizona and western New Mexico.  Until recently, many were sent back to captivity, and some were killed, for eating livestock.  These removals were indiscriminate – it didn’t matter if the suspected cattle-eater was a mom with pups, or a genetically valuable dad. With the future of the species relying on so few individuals in the wild, we – joined by several other conservation groups – went to court over this issue, and as part of the settlement, this disastrous removal policy was ended. But its effects linger – there are still too few wolves, and too few with the best genes to keep the species on the road to recovery.

There are other pressures too; despite their protected status, illegal killing is the largest source of dead wolves.  But the window is closing on fixing the genetic issue, and one solution is amazingly simple: Release more wolves from captivity, and do it now.

Mexican gray wolf

The last time a wolf from captivity was released was in 2008.  Since then, there have been roadblocks and reasons and excuses, but no one has demonstrated the gumption necessary to get the job done. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, which is responsible for recovering Mexican gray wolves, has waited with an absurd amount of patience for agreement from the states before acting, and all at the wolves’ expense.  Opportunities have been lost, and they won’t be regained.  Finally, last week, they decided to release a single male wolf in hopes that he will pair with a female of the Bluestem pack, whose mate was illegally shot and killed last year.

Of course all of us who work on Mexican gray wolf recovery are grateful for this small step in the right direction, and we hope this new male gets right down to business saving the species. But much more needs to be done, and soon, or it will be too late.  The geneticists who have spent years sounding the alarm haven’t stopped, and Defenders won’t stop, until the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service implements an emergency genetic rescue plan for the Mexican gray wolf. Such a plan would entail selective breeding in captivity, perhaps even using in vitro fertilization, to recreate the genetic makeup of the founding wolves. Still, one of the easiest steps this plan would include is to release more wolves into the wild. We’ll keep you posted on our progress with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Meanwhile, stay tuned and keep your fingers crossed for an increase in the 2012 count, due in a few weeks.  More wolves from the same old breeding pairs won’t solve the genetic issue, but it will improve the outlook for the most endangered wolf on the planet.

Tim Male, Vice President of Conservation Science and Policy 

It was the best of times, it was the worst of times. For lesser prairie chickens and greater sage grouse, two very similar birds, things are trending toward the latter.  Greater sage grouse have disappeared from more than 50 percent of their range, and the prairie chicken from more than 86 percent of theirs.  Both are candidates for listing under the Endangered Species Act.  But the stark differences in federal goals for these two species highlight problems in how the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) is managing different species.

The sage grouse has lost much of its habitat to agricultural development (Credit: USFWS)

For some species that have not yet been added to the endangered species list, federal and state agencies, private landowners and businesses that might be affected by it sometimes make a last ditch effort to keep that listing from happening.  To prevent it, conservation efforts need to eliminate or reduce threats to the species, including the threat of having a population so small that it  could go extinct simply by chance. Below a certain number, the population can’t survive. The question is how biologists determine what that number is for each species.

Currently, there are up to 300,000-500,000 sage grouse on tens of millions of acres of western sage brush habitat.  The FWS determined that any population of sage grouse with fewer than 200 males, or a total of fewer than 500 birds, must be considered ‘at risk’ because the small population is inherently more vulnerable to extinction. They identified more than 40 populations that meet these conditions, and set goals for their conservation. The agency’s strategy calls for the smallest of these populations of sage grouse to be protected so that threats go down and numbers go up – a sensible approach, and one that should be applicable to most species under similar conditions.

The FWS’s conservation goals for the lesser prairie chicken, however, offer a stark contrast. There are currently an estimated 37,000 prairie chickens remaining – a far lower number than the sage grouse, and this out of a historic population of two to three million.  For this bird, the agency has hinted that the species is not “at risk” so long as it maintains a minimum of four “strongholds,” each consisting of 25,000-50,000 acres of habitat and just 6 male and 6 female birds.  Add that up and what do you get?  200,000 acres of habitat and only 500 birds in total. Although the documents also obliquely reference ‘additional strongholds,” it looks like they are setting this low threshold up as being enough conservation to avoid listing.  And even if additional strongholds are established, there would likely remain large, unaccounted gaps between the goals for the prairie chicken and those for the sage grouse.  Dan Ashe, Director of the Fish and Wildlife Service, stated that he sees this plan as having all the ‘right ingredients’ for conservation to make an endangered species listing unnecessary.

A lesser prairie chicken in New Mexico (Credit: Larry Lamsa)

As a scientist, it’s extremely difficult for me to understand any scientific rationale for the differences in conservation goals between these two very similar bird species.  Both species have generally similar diets, longevity, reproductive potential and breeding system.  How can one say that the sage grouse’s future depends upon having 20,000 birds in dozens of populations across 165 million acres of habitat, but at the same time state that prairie chickens only require 200,000 acres of habitat and 500 breeding birds in total? And, if the Service’s goals for the prairie chicken are scientifically valid, and a population of 500 means a species is neither threatened nor endangered, how can FWS even have considered listing the 500,000-strong greater sage grouse?  Those differences certainly look like the agency is setting expedient goals rather than scientific ones.

The Endangered Species Act is capable of achieving great things for species on the brink, but with taxpayer dollars funding their recovery it is important that the Act’s protections be applied to the species that need it most. It’s unfortunate that FWS has never set measurable standards that define what makes a threatened or endangered species, even though the IUCN, the State of Florida, New Zealand and other countries have already done so.  Those standards would be one step toward a more scientific basis for one of the most important wildlife questions the U.S. government faces: whether a species is or isn’t endangered.

Jamie Rappaport Clark, President & CEO

When skeptics of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) ask me, as a professional biologist, what “good” is some obscure, endangered mollusk, amphibian or plant, I often think back on the great words of the 19th century poet Ralph Waldo Emerson, who once said, “What is a weed? A plant whose virtues have never been discovered.” Their virtues may not be well known or understood by humans, but that doesn’t  mean that they shouldn’t exist and be preserved and protected.

While many species still remain a mystery, there are myriad others that are beloved and celebrated. Each winter, people gather in Sauk City, Wisc., during January to see the abundance of bald eagles that gather on the banks of the Mississippi River. The city is just one of hundreds nationwide that host festivals, tours and more to watch expanding populations of our national bird. Off the coast of California, ecotourism guides lead wildlife lovers in search of sea otters at play in the ocean; and in Massachusetts, tourists head off in boats to watch whales migrating through the Atlantic waters. In Tennessee, biologists are working hard to recover freshwater mussels that help filter impurities out of streams and rivers. And scientists are continuously exploring the medicinal value of imperiled amphibians, plants and other species.

What do all these creatures have in common? They have all been protected by the Endangered Species Act.

Read the rest on The Huffington Post

Elizabeth Fleming, Florida Representative 

With only an estimated 100 to 160 individuals remaining in the wild, the Florida panther (Puma concolor coryi) is one of the most endangered mammals in the United States, and the last surviving puma subspecies in the eastern U.S. Though its historic range spanned eight southeastern states, today the panther is restricted to less than 5 percent of its original habitat, remaining as a single breeding population in south Florida.

Animals like the Florida panther depend on the state’s public lands for survival.

While no one knows how many panthers once roamed the southeastern states, one estimate suggests 1,360 in Florida alone. Once European settlers arrived, clear-cutting, building and other human activities began to destroy and degrade panther habitat and break it up into disconnected fragments. Misconceptions and fear led to widespread persecution — the state of Florida even authorized a $5 bounty for panther scalps in 1887 — and panthers were practically hunted out of existence by the turn of the century. Not until 1950 did Florida end the bounty and begin to look toward the protection of the species.

When the Endangered Species Act (ESA) became law in 1973, the Florida panther was one of the first species listed. The population at that time was only an estimated 12 to 20 individuals. Though it is still endangered today, in the decades since its listing, great strides have been made to halt the panther’s downward spiral towards extinction.

In 1981, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) issued the first Florida Panther Recovery Plan to prevent the species’ extinction and to re-establish viable populations of the Florida panther in its former range. This spurred several years of progress for the Floria panther, in which it was designated the official state animal, and the Florida state legislature approved new programs to help fund panther conservation and research. The 1980s also saw speed limits reduced to 45 mph at night on certain key roads to protect panthers from being hit by speeding vehicles, and in the 1990s, the Florida Department of Transportation included wildlife underpasses and fencing along more than 40 miles of roadway. Since then, additional slow-speed zones have been designated, more crossings have been installed, and others are planned to protect panthers on dangerous roads.

Slow zones help increase awareness of panthers on roads.

The listing under the ESA also prompted federal and state agencies to purchase additional land to give panthers more room to roam. Today, Florida panthers can travel across several protected regions including Big Cypress National Preserve, Fakahatchee Strand State Preserve, Florida Panther National Wildlife Refuge, Picayune Strand State Forest, Okaloacoochee Slough State Forest and Corkscrew Regional Ecosystem Watershed, and the Spirit of the Wild and Dinner Island Ranch Wildlife Management Areas. This year saw the inclusion of American Prime as protected panther habitat — a critical piece of undeveloped land along the Caloosahatchee River where panthers have crossed to expand their range northward. While most Florida panthers reside south of Lake Okeechobee, in recent years several males have dispersed northward into central and northeast Florida, and one even traveled back into its historic range in northwest Georgia by using this connection to move out of south Florida.

With such a small population to begin with and serious problems arising due to inbreeding, the FWS also had to look at how to increase the panthers’ numbers before there simply weren’t enough left in the wild to save. In fact, the IUCN Captive Breeding Specialist Group predicted that without some kind of intervention, the Florida panther population would decline by six to 10 percent each year, eventually reaching extinction. The FWS and Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission made the bold decision to temporarily introduce eight female pumas from Texas — animals that Florida panthers used to breed with before they became isolated in south Florida — into the Florida panther population in 1995. A recent University of Florida study concluded that without the new genetic material that the Texas pumas provided, the Florida panther population would most likely have fallen below 10 panthers by 2010. Instead, thanks to a genetic restoration program that would not have been possible without the authority of the Endangered Species Act, a much larger, healthier panther population exists today.

Despite being rescued from certain extinction, the Florida panther continues to face numerous threats due to an increasing human population and development in panther habitat. Collisions with vehicles take a terrible toll on panthers — 17 have been killed so far in 2012. And while the greatest threats to the panthers’ survival are destruction, degradation and fragmentation of habitat — something we combat by advocating for additional habitat to be protected and restored — one of the greatest impediments to panther recovery is the lack of human tolerance for living with a large predator. That’s why we have established a multifaceted outreach program that works to counter misinformation about panthers and provide people with practical solutions for living with this beautiful, wild cat so that all residents of Florida, feline and otherwise, can safely coexist.

Jonathan Proctor, Rockies and Plains Representative 

What’s the Deal with Ferrets?

Black-footed ferrets rely on large prairie dog colonies for food and shelter.

Black-footed ferrets are small predators that live only in large prairie dog colonies across the central and western grasslands of North America. They live in prairie dog burrows and prairie dogs make up more than 90 percent of their diet. They are one of only three ferret species in the world and the only one native to North America. They are often confused with domestic ferrets, which appear similar but are actually a different species originally from Europe.

Black-footed ferrets numbered in the tens of thousands before the 1800s, but were brought to the brink of extinction due to widespread human destruction of their prairie-dog-colony habitat and the arrival of exotic diseases including sylvatic plague in the 1900s. Back then, before the protections of the Endangered Species Act, the U.S. government viewed prairie dogs as a pest, and actually paid for the widespread poisoning of prairie dog colonies that brought the black-footed ferret to the brink of extinction.

The ESA Saves the Day
The Endangered Species Act (ESA) is our nation’s landmark wildlife conservation law. It was signed into law in 1973. So few black-footed ferrets remained at that time that they were one of the original species protected under the new law. But they were already too far gone in the wild, and when the last known black-footed ferret died in captivity in 1979 they were declared extinct.

Then, on September 26, 1981, a ranch dog named Shep caught a black-footed ferret in Meeteetse, Wyoming, leading to the discovery of a single remaining population. This time, the protections of the ESA led to a flurry of activity to save this species from a “second” extinction. Dedicated conservationists from federal, state and private agencies jumped on the opportunity to help the species survive and recover.

This last population was mapped, studied and monitored. But before long, disease struck. The few remainders were captured. By 1986, only 18 black-footed ferrets were alive, all in captivity. Thus began a 25-year-and-counting captive breeding program. A federal recovery plan was drafted in 1988, which guided plans to increase the captive population and then restore the species to the wild.

Defenders’ Jonathan Proctor releases a black-footed ferret in Conata Basin, South Dakota (Credit: Steve Forrest)

Since the first reintroduction into Wyoming’s Shirley Basin in 1991, black-footed ferrets have been reintroduced in 19 locations in Wyoming, South Dakota, Montana, Colorado, Utah, Arizona, Kansas, New Mexico, the Mexican state of Chihuahua and the Canadian province of Saskatchewan. Today, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service estimates that about 750 ferrets now live in 17 of these locations (half of the population goal outlined in the 1988 Black-footed Ferret Recovery Plan) and another 350 or so in captive breeding facilities. Four locations have surpassed the required minimum of 30 breeding adults.  At least six more must reach this goal. For a species once at the very brink of extinction, an amazingly full recovery of this species is within our grasp.

It is difficult to speculate how much of this work would have been done without the ESA, but it is likely that the black-footed ferret would be extinct today without the level of commitment and funding that resulted from this law. Federal oversight under the authority of the ESA has led to the collaboration of dozens of federal, state and tribal agencies, in cooperation with private landowners, conservation groups including Defenders of Wildlife, and the North American zoo community. A national black-footed ferret conservation center has produced thousands of black-footed ferrets for reintroduction.

As an official member of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service black-footed ferret recovery implementation team, Defenders is assisting the effort to reintroduce black-footed ferrets and protect them in their native habitat. Because prairie dogs are so important to black-footed ferrets, we are working to restore prairie dogs to new sites such as Thunder Basin National Grassland in Wyoming and prevent the destruction of prairie dog colonies in existing black-footed ferret areas like Conata Basin in South Dakota.

We’re also helping a group of ranchers in Kansas who are fighting to save prairie dogs and their newly reintroduced ferret population from a century-old state law requiring the death of all prairie dogs. And we’re working on solutions to help reduce conflict with neighbors of these sites who do not want prairie dog colonies expanding onto their properties. By installing portable electric fences to keep cattle out of 100 foot “buffer zones” along property boundaries, the grass can grow tall enough to discourage prairie dogs from colonizing there —  prairie dogs avoid tall grass due to threats from predators.

Looking Forward
Though we have a long way to go to full black-footed ferret recovery, by nearly all measurements the ferret’s reintroduction to the wild has been a stunning accomplishment. Our challenge now is to restore more large colonies of prairie dogs and reintroduce more ferrets so that we can finish the job of recovering one of the most endangered mammals on the continent. Ferrets have been given a second chance. Now it’s our job to make sure their rediscovery was not in vain.

Want to see a black-footed ferret in action? Check out this neat video of one in the wild.

Elizabeth Fleming, Florida Representative

Loggerhead Sea Turtle Hatchling (NPS)

Of the world’s seven species of sea turtles, six are found in U.S. waters or nest on U.S. beaches: green, hawksbill, Kemp’s ridley, leatherback, loggerhead and olive ridley. The seventh species, the flatback turtle, is found only in Australia. At one time, millions of sea turtles swam in our oceans — but now all sea turtle species in U.S. waters are listed as endangered or threatened under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The protection of the ESA is actually a major reason that we still have sea turtles swimming our oceans today.

Sea turtles have been around for about 110 million years — since dinosaurs roamed the Earth. While sea turtles were exploited for centuries for their meat, demand escalated during European exploration of the Americas and the green turtle was nearly exterminated. In the 1950s and 1960s, expanding international markets for sea turtle shell, skin and other products were taking a toll on sea turtle populations.  By the 1970s many sea turtle populations had plummeted from direct harvest. During that decade all species occurring in the U.S. were listed on the Endangered Species Act and by 1981 all species were included on the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES), which banned international commercial trade in sea turtles and their products.

Being listed on the ESA was a turning point for sea turtles. ESA listing makes it illegal to harm, harass or kill sea turtles, hatchlings or their eggs, or to import, sell, or transport sea turtles or their products. Once sea turtles were listed, federal agencies developed recovery plans and started programs cooperating with states for sea turtle conservation. They also created new regulations to reduce the number of turtles accidentally caught in fisheries and developed plans to acquire and protect important sea turtle habitat.

Green turtles are endangered in the U.S. Photo courtesy Andy Bruckner, NOAA

The listing also compelled the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service to consult with other federal agencies on projects they fund, permit, or conduct to ensure that they do not cause harm to sea turtles or their habitat.  These new protections included important regulations requiring turtle excluder devices or TEDs in U.S. shrimp nets that were passed under the authority of the ESA to prevent the deaths of thousands of sea turtles each year. The United States also cooperates with other countries to protect sea turtles. For example, in 2004, Congress passed the Marine Turtle Conservation Act to provide funding for conserving sea turtles and their nesting habitat in other countries. The Act recognizes the global plight of sea turtles and the need for close cooperation among countries, and provides the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service support for on-the-ground conservation initiatives to benefit sea turtles.

ESA listings are relevant at the state level as well as the federal and most states where sea turtles nest have now passed additional laws to protect turtles. In Florida, for instance, the Marine Turtle Protection Act gives state agencies the power to enforce regulations that protect turtles and their habitat. States coordinate extensive monitoring and research efforts on nesting beaches. Some local governments have also passed regulations to eliminate or control artificial beachfront lighting, which deters females from nesting and disorients hatchlings.

Even though the Endangered Species Act is a U.S. law, it has made a big difference to sea turtle recovery on a global scale. Sea turtles are highly migratory — over the course of their lives they will live not only off the U.S. coast but in waters of other countries. Because sea turtles rely upon different habitats during their lifetimes and migration, they are vulnerable on multiple fronts, and conservation efforts for turtle populations in one country may be undermined by activities in another. It is critical that all nations cooperate to ensure the survival of sea turtles.

Loggerhead Sea Turtle (Photo: NOAA)

In North America, sea turtles primarily nest from North Carolina through Florida and along the beaches of the northern Gulf of Mexico, with over 90% occurring in Florida which hosts a globally-important nesting population of loggerhead turtles. Numbers of nesting leatherback and green turtles have been steadily increasing in Florida. Considering that green turtles were on the brink of extinction in the late 20^th century, the resurgence of this species in Florida is cause for celebration.

Because the ESA encourages habitat to be protected for listed species, Congress established the Archie Carr National Wildlife Refuge in 1989 to protect federally endangered and threatened sea turtles. The Refuge offers hope for saving one of the most important sea turtle nesting sites in the world along a 20.5-mile stretch of beach on Florida’s east central coast. It contains long stretches of quiet, undisturbed sandy beaches, with little or no artificial light, that are essential to the reproductive success and survival of sea turtles. The refuge also includes the most significant area for loggerhead sea turtle nesting in the Western Hemisphere, the most important nesting beach for green turtles in North America and a small but quickly growing rookery for leatherbacks.

While several sea turtle populations have improved since being listed on the ESA and CITES, serious threats remain.  Turtles are accidentally caught in commercial fishing operations, often drowned in nets or caught on lines intended for other types of marine life, or can accidentally eat or get caught up in plastic or other debris. The turtles’ coastal habitat is also in trouble – development is a constant threat to nesting grounds, as is construction of seawalls and artificial light pollution.  And as with so many species, a changing climate is causing swaths of the sea turtle habitat to change drastically, or even disappear.

That is why the protections provided by the ESA, along with the work we and many other organizations do to defend this important legislation, are as important today as they were when they were adopted 40 years ago. In the coming year, Defenders will build upon its work to protect sea turtles from death and injury both at sea and on U.S. and Mexican nesting beaches, continuing to focus on reducing the number of turtles that die accidentally in fisheries and expanding our work to protect Florida’s and Mexico’s important nesting beaches from harmful coastal development and disturbance.