Advertisement

The Critical Habitat Crisis

According to a new report, the US Fish and Wildlife Service ignored science advisors and shrunk protected habitats for endangered species from 2002 to 2007.

By | July 9, 2012

image: The Critical Habitat Crisis The Southwestern Willow Flycatcher (Empidonax traillii extimus), one of the endagered species allegedly given short shrift by the FWS

The Southwestern Willow Flycatcher (Empidonax traillii extimus), one of the endagered species allegedly given short shrift by the FWSWhile George W. Bush was president of the United States, the US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) reduced the area of land set aside to protect endangered species, disregarding the advice of scientists, according to a new report based on researcher-authored documents made public by the agency.

The report, authored by researchers at Tucson, Arizona-based advocacy group Biological Diversity, analyzed 169 peer reviews authored by scientists the FWS commissioned between 2002 and 2007 when making determinations about how much "critical habitat" to set aside for the protection of endangered species. The authors found that in more than 90 percent of cases, the agency decided to shrink critical habitat areas even in the face of peer reviews that suggested the species would be better served by increasing protected areas. "It's very hard to imagine circumstances where less habitat translates to a better outcome," Duke University biologist and study coauthor Stuart Pimm told ScienceInsider.

Though the FWS told ScienceInsider that it had not yet fully explored the damning report, it did offer this statement: "The Fish and Wildlife Service is strongly committed to using the best available science to inform its policy decisions under the law. ... Scientists may not always agree on the conclusions of a scientific analysis, especially in analyses as complex and challenging as critical habitat designations. In some cases, peer reviewers may disagree; in others, our biologists may not agree with the conclusions of individual peer reviewers. Additionally, in the case of critical habitat, the law gives us the authority to consider other factors when making final designations, including economic considerations and new information we receive through public review and comment."

Advertisement
The Scientist
The Scientist

Add a Comment

Avatar of: You

You

Processing...
Processing...

Sign In with your LabX Media Group Passport to leave a comment

Not a member? Register Now!

LabX Media Group Passport Logo

Comments

Avatar of: GrandpaTarkin

GrandpaTarkin

Posts: 8

July 9, 2012

Well, it was the Bush era, the dark days when Bush appointed ideologues to agencies such as the EPA for the express purpose of undermining them.

It would be more interesting to know if this has continued under Obama.

Follow The Scientist

icon-facebook icon-linkedin icon-twitter icon-vimeo icon-youtube
Advertisement
RayBiotech
RayBiotech

Stay Connected with The Scientist

  • icon-facebook The Scientist Magazine
  • icon-facebook The Scientist Careers
  • icon-facebook Neuroscience Research Techniques
  • icon-facebook Genetic Research Techniques
  • icon-facebook Cell Culture Techniques
  • icon-facebook Microbiology and Immunology
  • icon-facebook Cancer Research and Technology
  • icon-facebook Stem Cell and Regenerative Science
Advertisement
R&D Systems
R&D Systems
Advertisement
The Scientist
The Scientist