Today, Judge Dana Christensen overturned the 2014 USFWS decision not to list wolverines, ruling that decision “arbitrary and capricious,” and ordering the USFWS to issue a new decision. The judge’s ruling states that the USFWS failed to adequately consider the effects of both climate change and genetic isolation on the wolverine population in the US Rockies, and that the Service discounted the best available science in reaching the decision not to list.
What does this mean for the status of wolverines in the US? The listing decision has been sent back to the USFWS, and they must issue a new decision. The timeline for this is not yet clear.
The full text of the decision is available here: 16-04-04 Doc. 108 ORDER
For those who are interested in the wolverine policy process and the debate about the science, it’s worth reading through the entire document. Check it out, and enjoy.
Follow
Who cares about if climate change is effecting them positive or negative for freekin
gods sake there is only 300 or so in the lower 48 to me that’s perilously low. no brainer they are in trouble
J8m from va
Need to close all the ski hills, back country ski trails and snow mobile trails and give the mountains back to the wolverine. Close wilderness areas to any sort of human intrusion.; including so called expert biologists that the judge has clearly defined as idiots.
I approved this comment for posting solely for the opportunity it provides to make a clear statement that the Wolverine Foundation doesn’t stand for any of these views, and to offer a reply on standards for civil commenting.
While I appreciate you taking the time to share your perspectives, locking people out of the wilderness is not a solution for garnering support for conservation. And as an ice age animal, the wolverine evolved sharing the landscape with humans, so it’s obviously resistant to some degree of interaction and proximity. The idea that wolverines need pristine wilderness entirely removed from all human intrusion is erroneous. TWF doesn’t support evicting people from public lands.
Finally, for anyone else reading these comments, we appreciate it if people refrain from formulating their remarks in a trollish, provocative manner. Try to project something other than gleeful hate, and keep the incendiary insults to a minimum. We work with a lot of the biologists in question and they are not idiots. They may be wrong about certain things, but that is due to flaws in their science and reasoning, not intrinsic and insurmountable mental qualities. Thanks.
– Rebecca