Nearly 130 scientists today asked the Interior Department to change a policy set under the Bush administration guiding how agencies decide whether a species is endangered.

At issue is guidance issued in 2007 that redefined when the Fish and Wildlife Service would protect a species as "endangered" or "threatened." The Endangered Species Act requires protection of any species in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range.

Then-Interior Solicitor David Bernhardt issued guidance that recommended agencies focus on plants and animals most at risk in their current locations, rather than throughout their historic range or in other locations where species may be healthy.

The scientists want Interior Secretary Ken Salazar to rescind that memorandum. They say it sharply limits the scope of the ESA by limiting analysis to species' current range and by specifying that species will be listed only in the portion of range considered significant.

"We are concerned that these interpretations will result in imperiled species not receiving protection and limit where species that are listed are ultimately recovered," they wrote. "We are also concerned that the memorandum will limit protection for endangered species to small portions of range where they may not be recoverable."

Duke University's Stuart Pimm, Michigan Tech University's John Vucetich and the Center for Biological Diversity's Noah Greenwald headed up the letter. They said the policy is limiting protections for species including the gray wolf and Colorado River cutthroat trout.

"Ignoring loss of range when determining whether species require protection as endangered species makes little sense," Pimm said in a statement. "Resetting the clock to the present day could result in many species that have lost significant portions of range being wrongfully denied protection."

An Interior spokeswoman said the department is reviewing the letter.

The Bush-era memorandum was written to respond to the department's losing record in court on its previous interpretation of species' range. A group of career Interior lawyers contributed to the guidance and all signed onto the document.

Reprinted from Greenwire with permission from Environment & Energy Publishing, LLC. www.eenews.net, 202-628-6500

4 Comments

1. 1. Soccerdad 08:17 AM 12/11/09

   The old "Bush era" guidelines make a lot more sense. If a species is marginal just in one area, maybe it's just not well suited to live in that area. You know, Polar Bears are really endangered in Michigan - maybe they need protection there.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

2. 2. Bops 11:27 AM 12/11/09

   soccerdad,
   Every time I read your comments...you are negative to everything that helps to keep the earth beautiful.
   
   We have areas that NEED TO BE REBUILT all over the place.
   
   People like you want to enter beautiful wooded areas and destroy it.
   You have NO RESPECT for life...
   It's our responsibility to take care of the earth.
   
   If your religious...It's a quote from the Bible. (it uses the word garden)
   If there's a God, I fear for Bush. He regularly says something nice to our face...and did something sneaky behind our backs.
   
   

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

3. 3. Soccerdad 02:40 PM 12/11/09

   I am only negative towards stupidity. Most of what the government is attempting at this time fits that description.
   
   All I'm saying is that if there are plenty of wolves in the US, but not many in a certain area of the US, there is no need to deprive people of their property rights to save wolves in that certain area.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

4. 4. Michael Cook 08:10 PM 12/12/09

   The Bush-era directives will be as nothing when Sarah Palin comes into the White House and cleans out that bunch of self-serving rats in the EPA who can make up a species out of any miniscule local variation in order to have themselves a sinecure for life being the cottage industry in-house expert on the sub-species.
   
   At one time there were 90-something subspecies of black bear identified. What a golden opportunity for 270 more wildlife biologists to be on the federal payroll, at least three post-Docs for every sub-species so that they can have committee meetings and publish papers with big titles.
   
   The public is getting wise to all the federal employees who make six figures anymore. Any snot post-Doc must be a GS-12 or better.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this