Last fall, the state Fish and
Wildlife Commission voted 4-2 to remove protections of the state
Endangered Species Act for gray wolves. It was a flawed decision, and
the state Legislature could make it worse.
Oregon’s law requires that listing
decisions be based on “documented and verifiable scientific
information,” which would be defined “by a scientific peer review panel
of outside experts.” Oregon lawmakers are considering legislation that
would make the delisting decision immune to legal review, undermining
the separation of powers and the checks and balances we learned about in
grade school.
I am part of a growing group of scientists
who serve the public interest with research rather than serving donors
or special interests. I feel obligated to write in defense of the broad
public interest and to clarify what the best available science says.
Oregon’s wolf delisting misses the mark on
scientific evidence, and legislative decisions should never be immune to
legal review.
Determining what’s the best available
science for a policy decision isn’t a matter of voting for your favorite
science. Multiple, qualified scientists conduct a careful review to
interpret the quality and quantity of the evidence used to support a
decision. The state Department of Fish and Wildlife and the state Fish
and Wildlife Commission appear to have ignored the quality of the
evidence despite ample, timely warning.
I was one of 25 scientists and researchers
who recommended against wolf delisting after interpreting the data on
wolf recolonization and reviewing the state’s evidence behind the
proposal to delist. Our documents are available at faculty.nelson.wisc.edu/treves/reports/Oregon_Archive.zip .
Fish and Wildlife got the evidence flatly
wrong and didn’t communicate with most (any?) of the corresponding
scientists to understand how to fix the mistakes.
The state contracted with a young
researcher from abroad to conduct a wolf population viability analysis,
which predicts the likelihood of extinction. It’s not clear why the
department hired someone so far afield when more experienced regional
experts were available, as shown by their public comments.
Those senior scientists found the analysis
was unreasonably optimistic and did not accurately represent the actual
risks wolves face in Oregon.
One scientist described the analysis as
fatally flawed. Another found the analysis was not statistically
correct, not properly validated, used unrealistic values for wolf
biology, and was not the right tool to justify delisting.
He wrote, “There appears to be little substance for ODFW to consider a population of (about) 85 wolves as being recovered.”
The state also justified delisting as a way
to raise social tolerance for wolves. That assumption runs exactly
counter to the evidence.
My team at the University of Wisconsin,
Madison conducts the world’s longest-running study to monitor human
tolerance for wolves. We’ve been measuring individual attitudes toward
wolves since 2001.
After the federal government delisted
wolves in the Great Lakes region, three things changed. First, tolerance
for wolves decreased. Second, demands for more wolf-killing increased.
And finally, poaching increased.
A particularly important finding was that
Wisconsin’s first-ever public hunting and trapping season on wolves
resulted in lower tolerance for wolves among a large sample of men
living in wolf range.
Our research papers are all available at faculty.nelson.wisc.edu/treves/publications.php . Policies to liberalize wolf-killing seem to worsen social tolerance for wolves, contrary to state assumptions.
I heard from 23 of the 25 scientists
opposed to delisting that neither the state nor the commission ever
contacted them about their recommendations. Ignoring one scientist might
be excusable, but ignoring so many who cited flaws in the commission’s
evidence is worrisome.
Why did the department and the commission proceed with poor science and assumptions that ran contrary to the evidence?
Consider Montana, where the state wildlife
agency found that tolerance for wolves did not improve after
wolf-hunting began, but tolerance for the agency’s policy improved
among some constituents. So it appears that killing wolves made that
agency feel loved by some.
In my own state, I have seen problems start
when commissioners and agencies make decisions based on who loves them
instead of the public interest. Commissioners and agencies in Oregon, as
in Wisconsin, have legal duties as trustees for wildlife to benefit
current and future generations.
For more than a century, our states’
courts and statutes have recognized wild animals as a public trust.
Think of wildlife as a legacy for future generations.
When politicians make their decisions
immune to judicial review, they are saying, “We are not accountable for
the public interest and the permanent wildlife trust.” Checks and
balances exist to prevent tyranny.
Reclaim your legacy. The health of our wolves reflects the health of our democracy.
Adrian Treves is director of
the Carnivore Coexistence Lab at the University of Wisconsin, Madison.
He is the author of more than 100 scientific articles, including
“Predators and the Public Trust” (2015).
No comments:
Post a Comment