A tiny shorebird, the Piping Plover, is a species of concern. It is protected by the Endangered Species Act, but it needs constant vigilance to make sure its beach nesting habitat is protected. (Photo by Gene Nieminen,
USFWS)
The Kirtland's Warbler needs jack pine habitat in northern Michigan to survive. It is protected by the Endangered Species Act, but it's still listed on the WatchList 2007 as one of the species at greatest risk of disappearing. (Photo by Lou George, USFWS)
The Reddish Egret lives along the Gulf Coast. It needs high quality coastal habitat for its food, and it's vulnerable to human disturbances. It's not currently listed under the Endangered Species Act. (Photo by James Leupold,
FWS)
A new report says more than one quarter of America’s bird species are
at risk of serious declines. Rebecca Williams reports most of the
species are not protected under the Endangered Species Act:
Transcript
A new report says more than one quarter of America’s bird species are
at risk of serious declines. Rebecca Williams reports most of the
species are not protected under the Endangered Species Act:
The National Audubon Society and American Bird Conservancy put together
a list of the birds at the greatest risk.
More than 175 species in the continental U.S. and 39 bird species in
Hawaii made the list.
Greg Butcher directs bird conservation for Audubon. He says many bird
species are threatened by habitat loss. He says some coastal birds are
losing nesting habitat to rising sea levels caused by global warming.
He says most of the bird species are not on the Endangered Species
List:
“And most of them don’t belong on the Endangered Species Act at this
point. And one of the things we want to do is start active
conservation for these species before they need to be listed.”
Butcher says it’s not just up to conservation groups. He says
homeowners can also help by making backyard habitats better for birds.
A recent report accuses the federal government of failing to take simple, inexpensive steps that could reduce the risk of live animal imports. Zebra mussels, Asian carp, and pets that get loose, such as Burmese pythons in Florida, hurt native wildlife and can damage the nation’s economy. Lester Graham talked with Peter Jenkins, one of the authors of the report issued by the Defenders of Wildlife. Jenkins says the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is one of the agencies that needs to do a better job screening for invasive species:
Transcript
A recent report accuses the federal government of failing to take simple, inexpensive steps that could reduce the risk of live animal imports. Zebra mussels, Asian carp, and pets that get loose, such as Burmese pythons in Florida, hurt native wildlife and can damage the nation’s economy. Lester Graham talked with Peter Jenkins, one of the authors of the report issued by the Defenders of Wildlife. Jenkins says the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is one of the agencies that needs to do a better job screening for invasive species:
Peter Jenkins: They’re charged with protecting native species. They’re charged with enforcing the
Endangered Species Act, which is an important part of this issue because these non-
native species threaten our native species, including threatening endangered species in
many cases.
Lester Graham: In the past, the US Fish & Wildlife Service has been accused of being too
slow to act, even when a problem is pointed out. Would the regulation changes you’re
talking about help speed that process?
PJ: Well, Congress would have to agree to commit more resources to the agency…I mean,
there is only one person, believe it or not, only one person whose job is to assess species
to be listed under that law to keep out of the country. Obviously, we need more than one,
we need some qualified professionals working this area. We don’t need millions and
millions of dollars, but we do need a significant increase, probably five or six or up to ten
professional staff looking closely at these imported animals to assess whether we’re
gonna have problems and which ones need to be restricted.
Now, how’s that gonna be paid for? Well, the industries that are bringing these species in
and that want to benefit from the import trade, whether it be pet or live animals or
biomedical testing or zoos or what have you…Those people bringing these species in
clearly should carry some of the cost of what they’re bringing in and in that way, the
taxpayers don’t get burdened too much.
LG: As you’ve mentioned, this is as much an economic problem as it is an environmental
problem. Why haven’t the dollars and sense of this issue really had an impact on the
politics behind making sure that we can restrict this kind of trade?
PJ: Well, that’s a great question and defenders of wildlife did do a white paper on the
economic impact of animal imports trade. The reason is very simple…the people who
benefit do not suffer the cost when these things go wrong. That is to say, the costs are
suffered by the public in terms of disease or invasive species concern or pests, so these
costs are externalized or passed on to the general public and it’s the taxpayers in the end
who wind up having to pay the costs. On the whole, these species that are brought in,
non-native species, are brought in for the pet trade…That’s by far the biggest reason that
species are brought in. That’s basically a luxury item, that’s not an essential item. Those
that benefit from luxury items should bare the cost.
LG: Now, nature seems to eventually cope with many of these exotic species, even the
invasive species to one degree or another and some people would say that this biological
pollution is nearly impossible to prevent so why fight the inevitable?
PJ: Uh, I don’t buy that argument at all. It’s like saying diseases are natural and people are
going to eventually cope with diseases, so why bother trying to prevent diseases? I mean,
we do it because we want to protect certain values. We want to protect our native species,
we want to protect human health, we want to protect the health of our livestock. Of
course we need to be protective and have adequate standards. I mean, we don’t need to be
operating under a law that was written in 1900 just because some people think it’s futile
to try to deal with this issue…We could cope with it.
HOST TAG: Peter Jenkins was one of the authors of a Defenders of Wildlife report calling on the government to do a better job of screening live animal imports. He spoke with The Environment Report’s Lester Graham. The report is available at www.defenders.org.
Finding a balance between natural habitat and commerce on America's rivers is causing problems. (Photo by Lester Graham)
When Lewis and Clark traveled up the Missouri River 200 years ago, they
recorded the abundant wildlife they saw along their way. Fur trapping was a
thriving industry on Frontier Rivers. But it took another 100 years of over-hunting
for the US to realize it was wiping out its wildlife. Today, conservation,
commerce and tourism all intersect on the nation’s big rivers. Each of those
industries relies on a steady supply of water. In the last of three reports, Kevin
Lavery looks at how all of those interests share – and struggle – over water:
Transcript
When Lewis and Clark traveled up the Missouri River 200 years ago, they
recorded the abundant wildlife they saw along their way. Fur trapping was a
thriving industry on Frontier Rivers. But it took another 100 years of over-hunting
for the US to realize it was wiping out its wildlife. Today, conservation,
commerce and tourism all intersect on the nation’s big rivers. Each of those
industries relies on a steady supply of water. In the last of three reports, Kevin
Lavery looks at how all of those interests share – and struggle – over water:
The Missouri River is known as the Big Muddy. Sure, it’s muddy at its mouth
where it joins the Mississippi River near St. Louis. But a thousand miles
upstream, the Missouri cuts a gleaming blue ribbon through Bismarck, North
Dakota. It looks like paradise to Mike Peluso… and with a broad smile, he rushes
his boat smack into the middle of it.
Peluso grew up fishing on this river. It’s a place brimming with history. Lewis
and Clark camped here in 1804. As he’s fishing, Peluso points to a frontier-era
fort that now sits within a state park:
“That’s actually where Custer started off, right up there before he went to his final… Here’s
a bite!”
Peluso lands a 4-pound walleye. It’s the most abundant fish species in the upper
Missouri system, and he wants to keep it that way:
“Just going to let her go down. You know, hopefully my kids at some point in time will get
to enjoy the same thing I just did. (SPLASH). Oh yeah… she took off. Perfect.”
Fishing on the Missouri River is crucial to North Dakota’s economy. In the 1950’s
the Army Corps of Engineers dammed the Missouri River 80 miles north of
Bismarck. The formation of Lake Sakakawea gave rise to a 150 million dollar
annual recreation industry.
That industry largely exists because of the US Fish and Wildlife Service. The
Garrison Dam National Fish Hatchery breeds 80% of the state’s game fish.
There’s about 70 million walleye eggs in one building alone. But officials here
also care for fish that are never meant to be caught.
Rob Holm is with the Fish and Wildlife Service. He watches several pallid
sturgeons circling an 8,000 gallon tank. Each five-foot fish weighs about 60
pounds. The pallid has survived for 70 million years. But Holm says threats to
its habitat have made it an endangered species:
“If we can change things just enough to give them a fighting chance, I think it’s a good
thing. They’ve been around since the time of the dinosaurs. If we miss a beat on it now…
they’re not going to be there in 10 years.”
The pallid sturgeon was harvested for its caviar before it was federally protected.
But illegal catches still happen. Environmental groups see the pallid as a
barometer that gauges the overall health of the Missouri River. Chad Smith runs
the Nebraska field office of American Rivers:
“We lose the pallid sturgeon, that’s an indication that we may start to see problems with
the catfish and the paddlefish and the mallards and the bass, and then people are really
going to start screaming.”
The pallid sturgeon needs deep water to lay its eggs. In 2006, the Army Corps of
Engineers released extra water from a South Dakota reservoir to mimic the flood
pulse that cues the fish’s reproduction. It was a highly controversial act 15 years
in the making:
“I’m uncomfortable with the Corps playing God.”
Paul Rhode is with the national shipping advocacy group Waterways Council,
Incorporated. He says the artificial rise meant dropped water levels later in the summer.
That hurt commercial barge operators. Rhode questions the Corps’ methods:
“I hope there are studies going on to try to capture whatever it is that they’re doing to justify
having a spring rise. In past years it was to stimulate least tern and piping plover
populations, and then it was discovered that there was no science behind that. That was
just guesswork.”
The interior least tern and the piping plover are two birds that are also protected
by the Endangered Species Act. Spokesman Paul Johnston says the Corps has
evidence that its methods are working:
“Near Ponca, Nebraska we dredged out an old channel that had been closed off to create
shallow water habitat for the sturgeon and created an island. It was still being groomed
when the terns and plovers began nesting on it. We had to shut the bulldozer operator
down.”
The Corps says it understands the needs of all the different interests along the
Missouri River. That’s why it’s agreed to pay for an independent scientific study
of its habitat construction program. That study is expected to begin this fall. The
Corps says it’s still committed to trying to find a balance between nature and
business on America’s longest river. But barge owners, sportsmen and
environmentalists will try to tip that balance in their favor.
The federal government has a plan that it hopes
will continue to protect the bald eagle. But the
proposal would allow times when the bird
could be killed or moved. Chuck Quirmbach reports:
Transcript
The federal government has a plan that it hopes
will continue to protect the bald eagle. But the
proposal would allow times when the bird
could be killed or moved. Chuck Quirmbach reports:
The bald eagle population in the US has recovered, but critics worry
that without Endangered Species Act protection some landowners and
developers could carelessly harm a lot of the large birds. So, the
Fish and Wildlife Service is proposing a permit that would authorize
very limited killing or harming of eagles during otherwise lawful
activity.
Service Director Dale Hall says the permit would also let eagle nests
be moved if they pose a threat to human safety, such as near airport
runways:
“We expect to issue very few of these permits, since they would only be
available for safety emergencies.”
Conservation groups pushed the government for clearer plans to protect
the bald eagle, and generally welcome the new language. But a public
comment period could bring additional changes.
These polar bears lives at the Pittsburgh zoo where food is plentiful. In the wild, however, global warming might be making it harder for the bears to find food.
(Photo by Reid Frazier)
(Photo by Reid Frazier)
(Photo by Reid Frazier)
(Photo by Reid Frazier)
(Photo by Reid Frazier)
(Photo by Reid Frazier)
If global warming is represented by one symbol, it
might be the polar bear. It’s an icon of the North
Polar region. Now, federal biologists have asked that
polar bears be listed as threatened under the Endangered
Species Act. They’re the first species to be considered
for protection because of global warming. Reid Frazier
reports that the polar bear might help connect the
abstract idea of global warming with the concrete
actions of people in their homes:
Transcript
If global warming is represented by one symbol, it
might be the polar bear. It’s an icon of the North
Polar region. Now, federal biologists have asked that
polar bears be listed as threatened under the Endangered
Species Act. They’re the first species to be considered
for protection because of global warming. Reid Frazier
reports that the polar bear might help connect the
abstract idea of global warming with the concrete
actions of people in their homes:
(Sound of kids talking to polar bears)
Parents and children gather around a large window to watch Nuka and
Koda frolick in the aqua water tank. The polar bears are having a
blast. They splash and dive, play with foam toys, and duck their heads
underwater to look around. The young brothers are only two-years-old
and already they weigh 600 pounds each. These bears, born and raised in
zoos, eat about 18 pounds of food a day. But, their cousins in the wild
are finding food much harder to come by these days.
Henry Kacprzyk is a curator at the Pittsburgh Zoo. He wants crowds to
know just how fragile the bears’ situation is. Walking along a
boardwalk near the exhibit, Kacprzyk points to a sign. It welcomes
visitors to “Piertown,” a replica village designed to resemble a
growing Alaska fishing town:
“The thing to note here is the human population has increased from 110
to 1,712, on the other side the bear population has declined, from 1,784
to 368, which, the message there is, as humans increase in population in some
of the bears’ habitat, the bears go down. It’s a sad but true fact.”
The situation for the world’s 25,000 polar bears is increasingly dire.
Besides people crowding them out, overfishing has depleted arctic
waters of fish for seals to eat, and seals are the bears’ main source
of food.
But here’s the biggest problem: the polar ice cap is melting. That’s
depriving the bears of a main hunting ground. The vast majority of
scientists attribute this to global warming. They say the warming is
caused by a buildup in the atmosphere of greenhouse gases from burning
fossil fuels.
Scott Schliebe is a biologist with the Fish and Wildlife Service. His
team recommended polar bears be added to the protected list because
they’re losing their habitat. Schliebe says the bears need sea ice to
hunt seals. No sea ice means no food for the bears:
“They will wait at a breathing hole for a seal and wait until the seal comes up
and then catch the seal. They’re not effective at hunting seals in open
water, seals have the severe advantage of being able to outpace the polar bears in that environment.”
In areas with receding ice, polar bears are already hurting. Scientists
see the world’s polar bear population shrinking by a third in the next
50 years.
Back at the Pittsburgh zoo, the polar bears are a big hit with
visitors. They helped the zoo break an attendance record last year.
Curator Henry Kacprzyk hopes visitors tie their own behavior with the
plight of the arctic:
“It’s sometimes little things, as a general family, for instance, what you
can do is conservation of fuel and energy, keeping your lights off,
maybe living closer to work is a great idea. By choosing conservation
you can make a difference.”
The bears are popular with Cindy Jagielski, who’s visiting the zoo with
her small grandchild. Jagielski’s worried the bears will one day become
extinct but she admits she doesn’t know much about global warming:
“Maybe it’s just the Earth’s changing. I don’t know that industry has
anything to do with the melting of the ice there. Maybe it’s just a
natural occurrence.”
Despite some lingering doubts over what causes global warming,
polar bears are a popular cause. The Fish and Wildlife Service has
already received 40,000 emailed comments since it proposed protecting
the species. The Service will make its final decision on protecting
polar bears by next January.
While people are lining up to see animated penguins with “happy feet,” environmental groups are predicting some breeds of the bird will go extinct because of global warming. Lester Graham reports:
Transcript
While people are lining up to see animated penguins with “happy feet,” environmental groups are predicting some breeds of the bird will go extinct because of global warming. Lester Graham reports:
Penguins are popular these days. Last year people flocked to the theatre to see the documentary March of the Penguins. This year they’re laughing at penguins in the animated movie Happy Feet.
But the Center for Biological Diversity says the penguins are in serious danger. It’s calling for protections for the birds.
Kassie Siegel is Director of the Center’s Climate, Air and Energy Program. The group is petitioning the government to protect 12 breeds of penguins under the Endangered Species Act.
“And we believe if and when penguins are listed, just like polar bears that we’ve also petitioned for, that entities that are responsible for major sources of greenhouse gas emissions would have additional regulation to consider the impact of those emissions on listed species.”
Siegel says some of these penguins will go extinct in coming decades unless greenhouse gas pollution is brought under control within the next ten years.
For the Environment Report, this is Lester Graham.
A group of private landowners recently asked for help from the federal government to stop what they say is a threat to a rare fish in the region. The GLRC’s Gretchen Millich reports:
Transcript
A group of private landowners recently asked for help from the federal
government to stop what they say is a threat to a rare fish in the region.
The GLRC’s Gretchen Millich reports:
The Huron Mountain Club, along with the Sierra Club, claims a
proposed mine in Michigan’s Upper Peninsula would pollute the only
remaining spawning grounds of the Coaster Brook Trout. They’ve asked
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to declare the Coaster Brook Trout
endangered.
Peter Dykema is a spokesperson for the Huron Mountain Club. He says
the fish was once abundant, but now spawns in only one stream.
“150 years ago, it was one of the most celebrated game fish in America.
It is one of the most beautiful animals you’d ever see and we believe it
will be possible to restore that fish, if not to its original abundance to
considerably greater abundance than we now have.”
Kennecott Eagle Minerals Company wants to dig for nickel and copper
underneath the Coaster Brook Trout’s spawning grounds. Dykema says
an endangered listing would require the company to make sure their
mining activities don’t harm the fish.
Federal wildlife officials have proposed removing the bald eagle from the endangered species list. In the lower 48 states, bald eagles have recovered from around 400 nesting pairs in the early 1960’s, to more than 7-thousand pairs today. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Erin Toner reports:
Transcript
Federal wildlife officials have proposed removing the bald eagle from
the endangered species list. In the lower 48 states, bald eagles have
recovered from around 400 nesting pairs in the early 1960s, to more than
seven thousand pairs today. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Erin
Toner reports:
Major environmental groups hailed the government’s proposal to remove
the bald eagle from the endangered species list.
Doug Inkley is senior science advisor for the National Wildlife
Federation, which helped lead the bald eagle recovery.
“The success of recovering our nation’s symbol…the bald eagle…
demonstrates that with the right resources and with cooperative action by
all of those involved, the Endangered Species Act does chart a successful
path to recovery.”
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service will take public comment until May
17th on the proposed de-listing of the bald eagle. It was added to the
endangered species list in 1967, after becoming nearly extinct because of
the use of the pesticide DDT.
Some biologists are calling the proposed de-listing premature, saying the
bird’s numbers haven’t rebounded everywhere, and that its habitat still
needs protection.
The U.S. House of Representatives is set to vote on a bill this week that would change the Endangered Species Act. Critics say if the bill is passed into law, it would severely restrict the government’s ability to protect endangered plants and animals. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Mark Brush reports:
Transcript
The U.S. House of Representatives is set to vote on a bill this week that would change the Endangered Species Act. Critics say if the bill is passed into law, it would severely restrict the government’s ability to protect endangered plants and animals. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Mark Brush reports:
The bill’s sponsors say they’re trying to reduce the amount of conflict that comes up when the Endangered Species Act is enforced. They say developers face too many hurdles when they want to build on, log, or mine private land.
Jamie Rappaport Clark is a former director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. She says the current law already allows most development projects to go forward.
“The Endangered Species Act has rarely stopped a project. In fact, less than one percent of the hundreds of thousands of projects that have been reviewed by the Fish and Wildlife Service have ever been stopped in their tracks.”
Today, landowners have to go through a permitting process before they’re allowed to develop land that might harm an endangered species. That requirement might change if the current version of the bill is eventually signed into law.
The piping plover is a tiny bird, about the size of a parakeet. (Photo courtesy of the USFWS)
The plover lays its eggs in nests of little round stones on wide open, sandy beaches. (Photo by Mark Brush)
Amanda Brushhaber and her crew building an exclosure around a plover nest to try to keep predators out and give the eggs a better chance of hatching. (Photo by Mark Brush)
The Endangered Species Act protects plants and animals that are on the brink of extinction. The American Bald Eagle and the Timber Wolf are examples of animals that have recovered because of the Act. But, some conservative members of Congress think the Endangered Species Act goes too far. They say the law often stands in the way of economic progress and private property rights. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Mark Brush has this story:
Transcript
The Endangered Species Act protects plants and animals that are on the brink
of extinction. The American Bald eagle and the Timber wolf are examples of
animals that have recovered because of the Act. But some conservative
members of Congress think the Endangered Species Act goes too far. They say
the law often stands in the way of economic progress and private property
rights. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Mark Brush has this story:
(Sound of shoreline and low peeps of the plover)
The piping plover is a tiny little bird. It’s not much bigger than a parakeet. This plover scurries around on the beach. It’s making a distress call and showing a broken wing display because it’s
nervous about a group of people building a cage around its nest.
(Sound of metal cage rattling)
But the people are here to help; they’re trying to protect its nest. Plovers build their nests out of little round stones right on the beach. Amanda Brushaber is a biological technician with the National Park Service. She’s leading a group of volunteers who are working to save this rare little bird.
“Right now, we’re exclosing the nests that have eggs in them. The
exclosures keep the predators out, and keep the birds of prey out, so that
the eggs have a chance of making it to hatch, which takes 28 days.”
These birds are getting help because they were put on the Endangered Species
List back in 1986. At one point there were only eleven breeding pairs left in the Great Lakes
region. The birds like wide sandy beaches that have strips of stones and cobble.
But these shorelines have been under a lot of development pressure. And with more buildings and more people on the beaches, the bird’s had a tough time surviving.
The piping plover is just one of the more than 1,800 plants and animals that
are protected by the Endangered Species Act. The Act has been around for more than thirty years. It’s considered the strongest law in the world in protecting endangered
plants and animals, and for the most part, it’s remained unchanged since it was first passed.
But some members of Congress think the Endangered Species Act goes too far. They say enforcement of the Act is often heavy handed to the point that it’s an abuse of federal power.
California Congressman Richard Pombo chairs the House Committee on
Resources. He’s a vocal critic of the Act. Brian Kennedy is a spokesperson for Congressman Pombo and his Committee. He says the Congressman’s constituents are afraid of finding an endangered
species on their land because it could limit how they use their land.
“In other words, if the federal government finds an endangered species on a
fraction of an individual’s private property, he loses the use of that
property and then when that individual goes to sell it, it is worth less
than it would be otherwise.”
Private property advocates say they want owners compensated for this loss. Otherwise they say their rights to their land are being taken away. They refer to this loss as a ‘taking.’ But people who enforce the Act say there’s a lot of misunderstanding about
what it means.
Jack Dingledine is a biologist with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. He says they work closely with landowners to make sure a development won’t harm a protected species.
“If a landowner finds an endangered species on their property, they do have
an obligation not to harm the species when it’s there. It doesn’t mean that
we’re going to close beaches, and we don’t seize people’s property, but we
would ask that they consider any actions that might harm the species.”
Harming a species includes damaging the place where it lives – even if that
habitat is on privately owned land. And this is what makes private property advocates bristle. They see this as an infringement on their rights to do whatever they want
with their land.
Several bills are being developed that would change the way the Act is
implemented. The sponsors of these bills say the changes they want to make to the
Endangered Species Act will be an improvement.
But supporters of the Act say these bills do nothing to improve the law. Kieran Suckling is with the Center for Biological Diversity. He says these critics of the Endangered Species Act are hiding their true
agenda.
“Down the line, these are all industry sponsored bills that have no purpose
other than to get rid of environmental protection to benefit industry,
period. They can spin it any way they want, but at the end of the day, that’s
what their bill says.”
Supporters of the Endangered Species Act are troubled by the way Congress
has changed its tune. When the Act was first passed 32 years ago, Congress voted for it by a 355
to 4 margin. The law was extremely popular because there was a sense of urgency about
protecting endangered plants and animals.
Many environmentalists are concerned that if the Endangered Species Act is
weakened now, we’ll see more wildlife wiped out of existence.
A tiny shorebird, the Piping Plover, is a species of concern. It is protected by the Endangered Species Act, but it needs constant vigilance to make sure its beach nesting habitat is protected. (Photo by Gene Nieminen, USFWS)
