New Issue: Science’s Impossible Questions. Read Now

U.S. to Be Sued for Denying Protections for Wolverines

Conservationists said on Wednesday they will sue the Obama administration over its decision to deny federal protections for rare wolverines in the mountains of Idaho, Montana and Wyoming

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

By Laura Zuckerman

SALMON Idaho (Reuters) - Conservationists said on Wednesday they will sue the Obama administration over its decision to deny federal protections for rare wolverines in the mountains of Idaho, Montana and Wyoming.

In a 60-day notice of intent to file the suit, a coalition of 13 conservation groups told the administration that politics underpinned this week's decision, instead of the "best available science" as required by the U.S. Endangered Species Act.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


Last year the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service proposed adding the estimated 300 wolverines in the Lower 48 states to the federal endangered and threatened species list, saying global warming was reducing snows in the high country that the animals depend on for digging dens and storing food.

But on Tuesday federal wildlife managers said there was "insufficient evidence" that climate change would severely harm wolverines, carnivores from the weasel family that resemble small bears with bushy tails. Wolverines are known for their cantankerous disposition and fearless defense of their territories.

The Obama administration's decision on wolverines came after states such as Idaho opposed the proposed listing, which would have banned the trapping of the animals and imposed restrictions on snowmobiling and other winter recreation in areas inhabited by the solitary creatures.

Bethany Cotton, wildlife program director for WildEarth Guardians, one of the 13 groups, said peer-reviewed scientific studies show wolverines depend on snow, and that the amount of snow in their range is expected to decrease because of a warming U.S. West.

"The Fish and Wildlife Service's own biologists recommended listing and then the agency did an about face after complaints by states and industry," she said. "Science and the law are on the side of saving the wolverine from extinction."

The Fish and Wildlife Service did not immediately respond to a request for comment on Wednesday.

 

(Reporting by Laura Zuckerman; Editing by Daniel Wallis and Bill Trott)

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe