Unlisted

For those of you who have been faithful blog-followers of mine from the start, you'll recall that this past summer I worked extensively in the field in northeastern Wyoming. You'll also remember that one of my main priorities involved tracking five radio-collared Greater Sage-Grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) on a weekly basis (which you can read about here, here, here, here, and here, among others).

Although my feelings regarding my time spent in Wyoming are ambivalent at best, I can say with utmost certainty that the thing I enjoyed most about my fieldwork for the BLM was tracking sage-grouse. I loved radio telemetry. I loved going out every week, usually on Fridays, and finding "my" birds. I loved being out on the prairie. And the places I visited and the areas in which the birds spent their time was consistent enough to lend some stability, some constancy, to my otherwise volatile life in the field.

Not only was sage-grouse tracking the most enjoyable of my field activities, I also felt that the data I was collecting was, potentially, the most important, the most likely to make an impact in terms of management strategies and conservation.

Greater Sage-Grouse are the largest type of grouse in North America. As their name suggests, they live only in areas of the West where sagebrush provides adequate cover, including parts of Nevada, Colorado, Utah, California, Wyoming, and Montana. During winter months, the birds subsist entirely on the leaves of sagebrush. They also rely on sagebrush for cover, both from predators and as protected sites for nesting.

Largely, however, Greater Sage-Grouse remain poorly understood. Scientists have yet to determine variation in seasonal patterns of movement and habitat use, the importance of habitat connectivity to breeding site selection, or the effects of anthropogenic influences, such as noise pollution, on nesting success.

What is known is that the number of Greater Sage-Grouse are dwindling right alongside sagebrush landscapes. In the last century, Greater Sage-Grouse have experienced a 90% decline in population and a 50% decline in habitat availability. Habitat loss is the single greatest threat to the survival of the species. The birds have been extirpated from much of their historic range, including British Columbia, Arizona, New Mexico, Kansas, Nebraska, and Oklahoma.

Greater Sage-Grouse were first petitioned to be listed as an endangered species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) during the early part of the G.W. Bush administration. In 2004, it was ruled that the species did not need protection. In 2007, however, following an internal investigation of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (the agency responsible for implementing the ESA), the ruling was overturned, citing that the executive responsible for the initial decision had acted improperly and without adequate scientific evidence.

Greater Sage-Grouse were then re-petitioned for listing, and after several years of delay, a final decision was made. This past Friday, March 6th, 2010, officials with the Department of the Interior (DOI) announced that the Greater Sage-Grouse will not be listed as an endangered species-- or even a threatened species-- under the ESA. Despite the rapid loss and degradation of sagebrush habitat across the West, as well as plenty of evidence that suggests that Greater Sage-Grouse numbers are under serious threat, the DOI refuses to list the birds.

The most frustrating aspect of this all? The government concluded that listing the birds as endangered is "warranted but precluded" by higher priorities, meaning that the species meets the scientific criteria for protection but that other species are in greater need of conservation.

Really, DOI? Is it really that "other species are in greater need," or is it that listing the birds would impact energy development throughout the West, including the all-important oil and gas industry? I have a feeling that the final decision had more to do with politics than anything else.

The good news is that the status of the species will be reviewed on an annual basis. Thus, if numbers continue to decline, Greater Sage-Grouse could be listed as a threatened or endangered species in subsequent years. Additionally, federal officials announced that they would review plans for new energy development on federal land with an eye to minimize the impact on sage-grouse habitat.

Fairly early on last summer, when I first began tracking sage-grouse, I mentioned the debate about whether to list the Greater Sage-Grouse to my supervisor, Dwayne. "God, I hope they don't list them. That would suck so much," he said.

"What do you mean it would suck?" I asked. "We're talking about protecting a species from extinction."

"Do you know how much extra work I'd have to do?" he replied.

I wonder how many government officials would prefer less work at the expense of effective conservation practices. I have a sinking feeling that Dwayne isn't the only one.

I also have a feeling that I'll be faced with similar situations for much of my professional career-- scenarios wherein protection is "warranted, but precluded by 'higher priorities'."