For years, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has argued that Montana's dwindling population of river-dwelling arctic grayling deserve protection under the federal Endangered Species Act.
Now it's saying they don't.
It's certainly a departure from more than 20 years of previous research done by FWS scientists, who long ago concluded that the fluvial, or river-dwelling, arctic grayling struggling to survive in the Big Hole Basin is a “distinct population segment.”
In 1994, the agency concluded that this particular grayling population was dying out and recommended the fish be placed on the endangered species list. That didn't happen right away because, FWS officials explained, other species needed to be listed first. The grayling didn't become a top priority until 2004, the same year the agency was sued by two conservation groups to get it to stop dragging its feet and determine whether the grayling is an endangered species or merely a threatened one.
That determination finally arrived April 24, when FWS announced it was dropping the fluvial arctic grayling of the upper Missouri Basin from its list of endangered species candidates.
The agency's abrupt reversal and new line of reasoning force us to say this: Something smells fishy.
And apparently we're not the only ones who think so. A handful of conservationists, including some who brought the 2004 lawsuit, recently filed another suit against Fish and Wildlife to force the agency to reconsider its decision. Their concern justifiably hinges on the fact that the decision was made during the tenure of Julie MacDonald, the former deputy assistant secretary for Fish, Wildlife and Parks.
Six days after FWS filed its new grayling finding with the National Register, MacDonald resigned following allegations she had abused her position to push scientists into changing their findings. Fish and Wildlife then announced it would review eight major Endangered Species Act decisions made during her tenure, including determinations for Canada lynx, white-tailed prairie dog and Preble's Meadow jumping mouse.
But in what's proving to be a pattern for the hapless species, the arctic grayling didn't make the list.
This week, the Department of the Interior conceded that seven of those eight decisions require revision. We can only hope that these findings spur a broader review of other ESA decisions MacDonald may have influenced - and especially the findings concerning Montana's fluvial arctic grayling.
This once-plentiful fish is now found only in the upper Big Hole Basin. FWP previously decided these fluvial arctic grayling constitute a distinct population segment because they are both geographically and behaviorally distinct, and the agency has not disproved these findings. Instead, it has added that “currently available genetic information indicates this population does not differ markedly in its genetic characteristics from adfluvial (lake and reservoir dwelling) Arctic grayling native to the Missouri
River system.”
We'd be interested to know what sort of genetic information contradicts the physical and behavior factors the FWS relied on earlier. Unfortunately, that information doesn't appear to be publicly available yet. Hopefully, the current lawsuit against the agency will bring it to light.
Despite ongoing protection efforts, the population of arctic grayling in the upper Big Hole River continues to suffer from drought and habitat degradation. Low water levels and high water temperatures have negatively affected several populations of fish in Montana recently. This past summer, too warm water killed entire schools of lake-dwelling arctic grayling. Their carcasses studded the surface of Rogers Lake near Kalispell.
The same factors could very well be taking a heavy toll on their river-dwelling cousins in the Big Hole Basin. If the Fish and Wildlife Service already has information that would make us shrug off these concerns, they had better provide it. At the very least, the fate of Montana's last river-dwelling arctic grayling is worth an in-depth review.
|
 |
 |
Add your comment now! Write your comment in the form below.
(Email address is for verification only. If you'd like to email a story, look for the link above)