DENVER -- The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is narrowing in on a plan that would remove the Mexican wolf from the endangered species list and hand management over to states.
David Parsons, a former Mexican wolf coordinator for the agency, said he thinks it’s the wrong path. He noted that fewer than 150 wolves remain in the wild today, and all their genes derive from the last seven wolves that existed before recovery efforts began.
Parsons said breeders are doing a good job of increasing genetic diversity for wolves in captivity.
"But the Fish and Wildlife Service is just not getting them into the wild in numbers that really make a difference,” Parsons said, "largely because the states are pushing back against releases."
Parsons said wolves are frequently seen as a nuisance by powerful livestock interests, and he noted the last time states managed wolves, their numbers declined by 24 percent.
The new plan authorizes delisting after populations reach a total of 500 in isolated areas. But Parsons said the agency's own scientists say 750 are needed to ensure survival in three distinct but connected regions, including southern Colorado.
Hailey Hawkins, Southern Rockies representative with the Endangered Species Coalition, argued that bringing the Mexican wolf back to Colorado would increase demand for wildlife viewing opportunities, which she said could be a big economic driver.
"Mexican wolves are one of our rarest mammals, and are treasured for their countless contributions - to ecosystems, and as part of our national heritage,” Hawkins said. "Folks want to see the Mexican wolf thrive, and federal management should reflect that."
She added that wolves are a critical player in local ecosystems - helping to strengthen deer and elk populations and control outbreaks of chronic wasting disease.
The Endangered Species Coalition is among several groups delivering public comments to the Fish and Wildlife Service through its website, which are due by August 29.
get more stories like this via email
Recreational fishermen in New England say commercial trawlers are threatening the survival of smaller businesses relying on a healthy stock of Atlantic herring.
The small forage fish is vital to both the marine food chain and the region's economy.
Rich Hittinger, first vice president of the Rhode Island Saltwater Anglers Association, said years of overfishing depleted the population and continue to have negative effects on the ocean ecosystem.
"The predator fish, like the striped bass, they're scrounging for anything that they can eat," Hittinger observed. "And we often see fish that are long and thin because they're really not getting sufficient nutrition."
Hittinger noted anglers want the New England Fishery Management Council to reestablish a 12-mile offshore buffer zone to force large commercial trawlers out to sea and reduce conflicts with businesses closer to shore. The council is accepting public comments through April.
For more than a decade, New England anglers worked to amend the Atlantic Herring Fishery Management Plan to protect inshore areas from the effects of industrial trawling, which can ensnare massive amounts of marine life in football field-size nets. But a previous buffer zone was vacated in 2022 after a court determined the depletion of Atlantic herring could not be scientifically proven.
Jaclyn Higgins, forage fish program manager for the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership, said just 20% of a healthy Atlantic herring stock remains.
"We're hoping that we can really pinpoint what kind of spatial and temporal restrictions need to be put in place," Higgins explained. "So that we can come to a better compromise with managing the fishery."
Higgins pointed out charter businesses, bait and tackle shops, marinas, even whale-watching operators are all dependent on Atlantic herring. She added it is important their voices be heard as regulators consider new ways to manage the population and ensure all entities have access to this small but significant fish.
Disclosure: The Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership contributes to our fund for reporting on Climate Change/Air Quality, Endangered Species and Wildlife, Environment, and Public Lands/Wilderness. If you would like to help support news in the public interest,
click here.
get more stories like this via email
Colorado may soon welcome back wolverines, an animal with a reputation for its ferocity and strength nearly wiped out by trapping, poisoning and habitat loss in the early 20th century.
Last week, lawmakers introduced Senate Bill 24-171, which if passed would kickstart the process of reintroducing the carnivore as soon as 2026.
Michael Saul, Rockies and Plains program director with Defenders of Wildlife, said wolverines are native to Colorado, but just 300 or so remain in the entire lower 48, and that the Rocky Mountains may offer the best chance for their long-term survival.
"Because of the height and climate of the high Colorado mountains, Colorado is one of the best places for holding onto deep snow through the 21st century," Saul explained.
Wolverines rely on hard-packed snow at high elevations throughout the winter to store food and dig dens to raise their young, and Saul noted that stress from shrinking snowfall has led to a decline in mating numbers. Not to be confused with the similarly named wolves, wolverines are a member of the weasel family and weigh between 18 and 40 pounds.
The animal was listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act in 2023 largely due to loss of habitat to climate change. The bill includes compensation to ranchers for any loss of livestock, but Saul said there have only been two known attacks in the past century worldwide.
"A wolverine would much rather find a deer, elk or moose that had been killed by an avalanche, and scavenge the frozen corpse, than try and hunt a sheep," he said.
Wolverines are tenacious scavengers. Their back molar teeth are turned sideways, an adaptation that allows them to tear into and crush frozen meat and bones. They can smell prey beneath 20 feet of snow, and the ferocious critter has been known to fight off animals many times their size.
"There are stories from the 19th century trappers and mountain men of wolverines picking a fight with a grizzly bear over an elk carcass, " Saul said.
Disclosure: Defenders of Wildlife contributes to our fund for reporting on Climate Change/Air Quality, Endangered Species & Wildlife, Energy Policy, Public Lands/Wilderness. If you would like to help support news in the public interest,
click here.
get more stories like this via email
A Connecticut bill would have restricted toxic pesticides called neonicotinoids - or so it seemed. The bill's newest iteration, some experts feel, is a shell of the original, without the same protections.
Joyce Leiz, executive director of the Connecticut Audubon Society, noted the new version won't ban agricultural uses, but still mentions them in the bill. She said the new version also removes a ban on using these chemicals on golf courses or for landscaping.
"Those two areas would still be able to use neonicotinoids," she said. "Golf courses in the state of Connecticut represent between 8,000 to 12,000 acres of land and are the heaviest users of neonicotinoids for grub control."
Leiz said these chemicals don't impact the grubs as much as it seems. She feels the agriculture industry and golf courses are driving the bill's changes since they've used neonicotinoids for so long. Farmers rely on seeds coated with the chemical to repel insects.
The bill is under review by the Joint Committee on Environment.
The Connecticut Audubon Society will hold a conference on neonicotinoids on Monday. Anyone interested in attending can visit ctaudobon.org for more details.
Neonicotinoids have been banned or heavily restricted in numerous areas for the harmful effects they have on wildlife. Leiz says the coated seeds, while important for farmers, are problematic for birds.
"One coated seed can kill a songbird if that bird happens to pick it up in a field," she said. "It has enough neonicotinoids to kill a songbird. And then, the spraying on lawns kills our pollinators. So, we're losing our bees. We're losing our butterflies. "
Research shows beekeepers lost more than 45% of their honeybee colonies from 2020 and 2021. In humans, these pesticides have been linked to muscle tremors, lower testosterone and birth defects such as heart or brain deformities.
get more stories like this via email