Fishy science hampers endangered species efforts
Americans would like to have confidence that the government regulates with a sound scientific basis for its actions — actions that can cost huge sums of money, impact the economy and, in some cases, trample private property rights. But that confidence can’t help but be shaken by debacles like the Preble’s meadow jumping mouse, whose taxonomic status didn’t get the serious scrutiny it deserved until years after it was listed as an endangered species and critical habitat regulations were imposed.
Another blow to public trust in “official science” was delivered last week, when it was revealed that “Biologists trying to save endangered trout used wrong fish,” as an Associated Press headline succinctly put it. “A study led by University of Colorado researchers says an effort to restore the endangered greenback cutthroat trout has been using the wrong fish for two decades,” according to the story. “Researchers say genetic tests show that some fish believed to be remnants of the greenback were actually the more common Colorado River cutthroat trout. The study says the results could mean that more than two decades of trying to save the greenback from extinction haven’t improved the species’ chances.”
Rabid supporters of the Endangered Species Act, a well-meaning but terribly flawed law, would like Americans to believe these are isolated incidents. But roughly a third of the plants or animals taken off the endangered species list over the years were removed because of listing errors. Either the purportedly rare species were more plentiful than claimed by petitioners, or closer scrutiny revealed that they were not a separate species or subspecies.
Honest mistakes, perhaps. But that’s little consolation for those Americans who have had their pockets picked or property rights violated because of a scientifically unsound regulatory action. The good intentions of government shouldn’t give regulators a pass when they engage in regulatory and scientific malpractice. But they face no penalty. The biologists and the wildlife bureaucrats simply shrug these things off.
In response to the latest revelation concerning the trout, “Colorado Division of Wildlife spokesman Tyler Baskfield said the research results are a setback but state biologists believe the program will succeed over the long term,” reported the AP. Perhaps it will. But 20 years of effort and millions of dollars spent in error shouldn’t so easily be dismissed.
The evolution of techniques that allow researchers to parse DNA sequences with increased precision — which is what led to the exposure of the latest mistake — could add some clarity to the situation. Or it could add confusion, by slicing and dicing species so precisely that any tiny genetic deviation merits a separate listing. That could make an already unmanageable law even more so, by further scattering its focus and directing limited recovery resources down 10,000 rabbit holes. And that’s what the ongoing fight over the identity of the Preble’s mouse is really about.
If the so-called lumpers prevail, we’ll make listings decisions based on the fact that a set of animals may have minute genetic differences but have enough in common to count as a species. If “splitters” prevail, those minute genetic differences will take on a monumental importance, earning each population segment protected status and vastly expanding the ESA’s regulatory reach. That’s where advances in DNA diagnostics can potentially lead us into trouble, unless we clarify, on a policymaking level, where we want to draw the lines.
