THIS IS NOT AN ADVOCACY article...it is an attempt to explain to folks "why" the wolves were remove, by Pres. Obama, from the list.
*************
This is a "hot, emotional" topic for a lot of people so I thought that, speaking with the expertise of a plant ecologist who presently teaches biology and environmental science in a local college I would try to explain something.
The "something" is .....just how does one "define" an endangered species, both in a "law" and "in the courts".
There are several links at the bottom of this, one to the National Park Service's site and one to a wikipedia article but I will quote from the NPS site here:
Now, that reads all "touch feely" and "we can save the animals now!!"
...but....as with most things...the Devil is in the "details".
the operative PROBLEM is this part of the sentence:
"in danger of extinction" (we will leave off "throughout all ....range". and concentrate on the "in danger".
How does one define "in danger" both in "law" and in "the court".
To put it quite simply, people who think an animal is in danger go get other people to do "head counts" in a variety of ways and also consult any historical records that are available.
They then make an estimate....notice the very PREGNANT word "estimate".... of what the population "used to be"....and an "estimate(usually very good) of what it is now and then make "an estimate" of what it will be in the future.
The "estimate" is made in the form of a "graph".
If the species of animal has a graph which is going DOWN....then it is considered to be "in danger of" extinction....
now comes the "within it's range"... an animal can be going down in population in one place and up in another and so that argument comes into play but we will stick with just "in danger".
So.... if it is "in danger of" ....just WHAT does that mean in practical terms in the courts.
Through a complicated and, also I think, just a flip of the coin, set of calculations, perturbation, convolutions and coviviations......
A bunch of people decided that a good working number was "within 40 years"....
And the simple reason is that if a graph that shows that ten jillion marmosets are going down in numbers and that in five hundred years there will be two jillion, is that a species that is "in danger" of becoming extinct?
In other words.....the practical application of the law in court is that if the graph shows that the number was X fifty years ago .....and it is now X - Y.....and that in 40 years OR LESS the graph shows that the number is going to be zero or very close to zero... it is considered "endangered".
There is also another sub-argument about the percentages and actual numbers that get involved with this, but we will leave that aside...
So...........to cut to the chase.....
A graph can go three ways....
a) it can go DOWN.....that means that a species is threatened.
b) it can become stable....that means it has reached "carrying capacity" for the range.
c) it can....go....UP.
Now....what all of us have been conditioned to BELIEVE...is that every single animal on the face of the planet is being threatened by the horrible humans....
But....no..... there were a LOT of animals that a lot of humans recognized were declining precipitously....an example among them the ducks that hunters shoot....the hunters...working with conservation commissions of many states...developed a program wherein the hunters and scientists worked together to figure out just what the endangered species act LATER did...
And they voluntarily banded together to have "duck stamps"...that the hunters themselves bought...which provided money to purchase wetlands etc. and also to limit the hunting of many kinds of ducks so that the duck populations could stabilize and/or increase.
Unfortunately this does not seem to work with animals like the Bangal Tiger or the Oiliphaunt...
But...the Endangered species act in the U.S. has done a great job....
The criticism of the Act comes in when "people with an agenda"...are going to have it their way whether it is right or not...in terms of "I WANT THAT ANIMAL PROTECTED"... AND ALSO....there is the other "agenda" about "to heck with them they are JUST animals"...
But this article is about the "legal way" that determinations are made...and yes...emotion can become involved with that also...but usually the "trials" are not "jury" trials they are "judge" trials.
"Just the facts 'mam, just the facts"...as Jack Webb usedta say!
so....to cut to the chase....again.....
A graph can go many ways....and here is the graph of the population of gray wolves in the U.S.
[img width=400 height=292]http://www.forwolves.org/ralph/wpages/graphics/nr-wolfpop-growth-table05.gif[/img]
If "A"....graph is used and is correct when the numbers are going DOWN to put it ON the ESA list then...
If "A" graph shows the animals going UP in population..... one also has to accept those findings.
If one looks at the graph.....the PROJECTION...is...that...it is going UP...
Here is the graph of the Wisconsin population with some other things on it...
[img width=400 height=298]http://www.dnr.state.wi.us/org/land/er/publications/wolfplan/images/figure_7.gif[/img]
Notice the places where it will be "delisted", "management goal"...etc.
NOW YES....one can ARGUE about the particular numbers involved in delisting, etc. but....
the simple fact of the matter is that "the rubber meets the road"...in a court....with a graph....
Here is the article about the delisting and what is surprising is that it is from the Huff Post which is...shall we say...somewhat "liberal slanted" and the reportage is NON-judgemental... woah!
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/0..._n_850046.html
Here is the article from the National Park Service with the "definition" of an endangered species:
http://www.nps.gov/bibe/naturescience/endangered.htm
Here is the Wikipedia article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endangered_species
Here is the first graph for national population of wolves AND ALSO NOTICE....that it is a "keep the wolves on the endangered species list" advocacy site...
HIS ASSUMPTION is that people don't have enough basic sense to see that the graph is going up for "most" and that "bouncing around" ....MAY.....indicate going back down ...or it may...indicate "reaching carrying capacity"...or it may indeed....mean going down...
http://www.forwolves.org/ralph/historical.html
Here is the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources site on their local population that has the other things in it like when they would be "delisted" etc.
http://www.dnr.state.wi.us/org/land/...s/figure_7.htm
Again, I'm not advocating for or against the delisting, this is just an attempt to get folks to where they can understand the "why" of it..
if anyone has questions i will attempt to answer them.
woodsmoke
*************
This is a "hot, emotional" topic for a lot of people so I thought that, speaking with the expertise of a plant ecologist who presently teaches biology and environmental science in a local college I would try to explain something.
The "something" is .....just how does one "define" an endangered species, both in a "law" and "in the courts".
There are several links at the bottom of this, one to the National Park Service's site and one to a wikipedia article but I will quote from the NPS site here:
The effort to halt human-caused extinctions in the United States is guided by the Endangered Species Act of 1973. This act defines an "endangered species" as any plant or animal species that is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range.
...but....as with most things...the Devil is in the "details".
the operative PROBLEM is this part of the sentence:
"in danger of extinction" (we will leave off "throughout all ....range". and concentrate on the "in danger".
How does one define "in danger" both in "law" and in "the court".
To put it quite simply, people who think an animal is in danger go get other people to do "head counts" in a variety of ways and also consult any historical records that are available.
They then make an estimate....notice the very PREGNANT word "estimate".... of what the population "used to be"....and an "estimate(usually very good) of what it is now and then make "an estimate" of what it will be in the future.
The "estimate" is made in the form of a "graph".
If the species of animal has a graph which is going DOWN....then it is considered to be "in danger of" extinction....
now comes the "within it's range"... an animal can be going down in population in one place and up in another and so that argument comes into play but we will stick with just "in danger".
So.... if it is "in danger of" ....just WHAT does that mean in practical terms in the courts.
Through a complicated and, also I think, just a flip of the coin, set of calculations, perturbation, convolutions and coviviations......
A bunch of people decided that a good working number was "within 40 years"....
And the simple reason is that if a graph that shows that ten jillion marmosets are going down in numbers and that in five hundred years there will be two jillion, is that a species that is "in danger" of becoming extinct?
In other words.....the practical application of the law in court is that if the graph shows that the number was X fifty years ago .....and it is now X - Y.....and that in 40 years OR LESS the graph shows that the number is going to be zero or very close to zero... it is considered "endangered".
There is also another sub-argument about the percentages and actual numbers that get involved with this, but we will leave that aside...
So...........to cut to the chase.....
A graph can go three ways....
a) it can go DOWN.....that means that a species is threatened.
b) it can become stable....that means it has reached "carrying capacity" for the range.
c) it can....go....UP.
Now....what all of us have been conditioned to BELIEVE...is that every single animal on the face of the planet is being threatened by the horrible humans....
But....no..... there were a LOT of animals that a lot of humans recognized were declining precipitously....an example among them the ducks that hunters shoot....the hunters...working with conservation commissions of many states...developed a program wherein the hunters and scientists worked together to figure out just what the endangered species act LATER did...
And they voluntarily banded together to have "duck stamps"...that the hunters themselves bought...which provided money to purchase wetlands etc. and also to limit the hunting of many kinds of ducks so that the duck populations could stabilize and/or increase.
Unfortunately this does not seem to work with animals like the Bangal Tiger or the Oiliphaunt...
But...the Endangered species act in the U.S. has done a great job....
The criticism of the Act comes in when "people with an agenda"...are going to have it their way whether it is right or not...in terms of "I WANT THAT ANIMAL PROTECTED"... AND ALSO....there is the other "agenda" about "to heck with them they are JUST animals"...
But this article is about the "legal way" that determinations are made...and yes...emotion can become involved with that also...but usually the "trials" are not "jury" trials they are "judge" trials.
"Just the facts 'mam, just the facts"...as Jack Webb usedta say!
so....to cut to the chase....again.....
A graph can go many ways....and here is the graph of the population of gray wolves in the U.S.
[img width=400 height=292]http://www.forwolves.org/ralph/wpages/graphics/nr-wolfpop-growth-table05.gif[/img]
If "A"....graph is used and is correct when the numbers are going DOWN to put it ON the ESA list then...
If "A" graph shows the animals going UP in population..... one also has to accept those findings.
If one looks at the graph.....the PROJECTION...is...that...it is going UP...
Here is the graph of the Wisconsin population with some other things on it...
[img width=400 height=298]http://www.dnr.state.wi.us/org/land/er/publications/wolfplan/images/figure_7.gif[/img]
Notice the places where it will be "delisted", "management goal"...etc.
NOW YES....one can ARGUE about the particular numbers involved in delisting, etc. but....
the simple fact of the matter is that "the rubber meets the road"...in a court....with a graph....
Here is the article about the delisting and what is surprising is that it is from the Huff Post which is...shall we say...somewhat "liberal slanted" and the reportage is NON-judgemental... woah!
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/0..._n_850046.html
Here is the article from the National Park Service with the "definition" of an endangered species:
http://www.nps.gov/bibe/naturescience/endangered.htm
Here is the Wikipedia article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endangered_species
Here is the first graph for national population of wolves AND ALSO NOTICE....that it is a "keep the wolves on the endangered species list" advocacy site...
HIS ASSUMPTION is that people don't have enough basic sense to see that the graph is going up for "most" and that "bouncing around" ....MAY.....indicate going back down ...or it may...indicate "reaching carrying capacity"...or it may indeed....mean going down...
http://www.forwolves.org/ralph/historical.html
Here is the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources site on their local population that has the other things in it like when they would be "delisted" etc.
http://www.dnr.state.wi.us/org/land/...s/figure_7.htm
Again, I'm not advocating for or against the delisting, this is just an attempt to get folks to where they can understand the "why" of it..
if anyone has questions i will attempt to answer them.
woodsmoke