Black Footed Ferret
In the past three decades very few endangered
species have been restored to
viable populations. The black footed ferret
(Mustela nigripes) was believed to
be the most endangered mammal in the
united states. It is a small mink sized
carnivore of the Great plains and
intermountain basins The ferrets appear to be
obligatory predators on the
prairie dogs and once occupied a range essentially
identical to that of the
prairie dogs. They prey on them and also use their
burrows for shelter and
nesting. The prairie dogs are considered agricultural
pests and competitors
with livestock since white settlement first began in the
American west.
Large scale rodent control programs were implemented by the state
and federal
governments. They drastically reduced the population of prairie dogs
(and
other species related to the prairie dog ecosystem) through trapping,
gassing
and poisoning. These poisoning programs were considered a major cause of
the
ferret’s demise. But, the main cause was the loss of the ferret’s prey
base
and appropriate habitat. Their remaining habitat was fragmented thus
leaving
the ferret population vulnerable to extinction from various causes
including
inability to find mates, inbreeding depression, environmental events,
and
disease of ferrets and their prey. The ferrets were believed to be extinct
in
1974, but in 1981 a ferret was discovered in Meeteetsee, Wyoming when a
ranch
dog killed an unusual animal eating from its food dish and the rancher
took the
carcass to a knowledgeable taxidermist. This was viewed as a rare
chance to
recover the species. In 1985, a catastrophic disease struck the
small ferret
population, and most remaining animals were taken into
captivity. Captive
breeding was initiated, and reintroduction into the wild
from the captive
population began in 1991. The ferret is just one of more
than 900 species listed
under the Endangered Species act as either threatened
or endangered. Over three
thousand more species wait on a list of candidates
for such status, but in the
1980s over thirty-four species went extinct
while on the waiting list (Cohn,
1993). Is the ferret program
representative of the national effort to recover
species? Main body: United
States policy on endangered species, including the
ferret and hundreds of
other plants and animals, is codified in the 1973
Endangered Species act
(ESA ,as amended, U.S. Congress 1983, Bean 1991) . This
piece of legislation
sets a national goal the prevention of any further
extinction and the
restoration of species currently threatened with extinction.
The ESA is a
highly popular piece of legislature because no one would advocate
the killing
of an entire species. But the simple goal of saving a species cloaks
a
complicated process. The ferret case is a good illustration of how the ESA
is
actually outfitted, how and state officials and others tackle the complex
work
of restoring species, and how problems come about in nearly all recovery
plans.
In short, the ferret rescue is a measure of how the ESA really
works. After
finding the small population in Wyoming, in 1981, one might
expect a well led
and smoothly coordinated recovery effort to have been
quickly organized to save
a species that had been recognized as America’s
most endangered mammal. Many
universities, conservation organizations, state
and federal agencies, and local
people were willing to help. Collectively
they command substantial resources,
not only in terms of money: national and
international expertise on population
genetics and small population
management, experienced field researchers, tested
breeding facilities, and
support staffs from major zoos. All that was needed for
the ferrets to be
restored swiftly, professionally, and efficiently was a means
to bring the
talent together in a productive well organized program. Under the
ESA,
the task of organizing recovery efforts is the responsibility of the
federal
government acting through the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the
U.S.
National Marine Fisheries Service. Federal officials had numerous
options
open to them at the start of the ferret program, one of which was to
function
like administrators of a large hospital, pulling together a
world-class
professional team, supporting the necessary work with adequate
funding,
equipment and facilities, and relying on the team’s judgment to
bring about
the patient’s recovery. But this model was not selected. The
ferret program
was organized and operated very differently. Section 6 of the
ESA requires that
states be involved to the "maximum extent practicable."
Early in 1982,
the federal government turned the main responsibility for
ferret restoration
over to the state of Wyoming. Almost immediately, problems
began to emerge.
Through a formal resolution, the American Society of
mammologists (1986:786)
urged "the Fish and Wildlife Service, the Wyoming
Fish and Game department,
and other state wildlife departments, and numerous
and numerous interested
conservation groups to make broader recovery efforts"
than those exhibited
by the current program. Miller, Reading, and Forest
(Miller et al.1996:208)
identify the FWS as the national agent responsible
for maintaining professional
restoration programs. "It is our contention,"
they write, "that Region 6, of the FWS, failed to make the ferret recovery a
national program. It
may have been easiest for Region 6 to acuiesence to
Wyoming’s agenda in the
short term, but the strategy has probably impaired
the recovery in the long run.
People, or agencies, in a position to
improve conservation should not simply
throw money at a problem, but invest
in time and attention as well." The
Wyoming Game and Fish department was
interested in doing whatever was necessary
to insure that the ferrets be
returned to the wild in Wyoming first, whether or
not Wyoming was the best
place to introduce them. There could have been sites in
other states which
were better suited for ferret reintroduction, but the
jealousy of the Wyoming
Game and Fish department prevents them from considering
such an alternative.
The Greater Yellowstone Coalition (1990) concluded that
state-level concerns
had taken precedence over national recovery issues. The
Wilderness
Society concluded that of the 495 species listed in 1988, only about
16
(3.2 percent) are recovering. Another 18 listed species (3.6 percent)
may
have already been extinct. This is a record that fails to demonstrate the
basic
promises of the act. The General Accounting Office (1992) added that of
sixteen
species removed from the list, five were recovered, seven were
extinct, and four
were reclassified because of misinformation. Two federal
audits of the ESA
implementation have been conducted. Reviews of the FWS
endangered species
program and found that the federal government did not
maintain centralized
information needed to determine how well the overall
program was operating.
Required recovery plans have not been developed
and approved for many species.
In 16 recovery plans that were
investigated in depth, nearly half of the tasks
listed had not been
undertaken even though the plans had been approved, on
average, more than
four years earlier. Fws officials attributed this to shortage
of funds, "the
inspector general of the Interior department has lambasted
his federal
colleagues at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, charging that they
may be
sending species to extinction" (Holden1990). Conclusion: The
destruction of
other life forms because of the actions of people is a problem
with profound
biological, ecological, economic, and ethical dimensions. We must
assume that
a healthy biosphere is in the common interest of humanity.
Appreciation
of the fundamental importance and far-sightedness of the
Endangered
Species Act and other biodiversity protection policies has
grown over the last
two decades, but that has neither prevented nor
appreciably slowed the
extinction crisis. Around the globe, the problem of
extinction is extreme and
growing, with perhaps scores of species
disappearing everyday. The ESA is
potentially a powerful tool to better the
extinction crisis, and in many ways
has served as a global model. But despite
its value both substantively and
symbolically, there are problems with it, as
both the biological and political
trends of the past years attest.
Implementation has fallen short of promise.
Protecting species under the
ESA is a long , complex process. Once species are
recognized as deserving of
protection and are listed, conservation programs must
be designed, approved,
and then implemented. Almost four thousand species in the
United States
now wait to be afforded the basic protections of the ESA; several
hundred,
many of them plants may already be extinct. Beyond the listing process,
there
are innumerable steps, activities and processes that make up the
ESA
implementation. The extinction problem in the U.S. and the world is
apparently
growing faster than practical policy responses can be generated to
stop it. The
black footed ferret was a good example for showing how there are
problems with
the conservation process and limitations of conventional
approaches. The ferret
restoration program was fraught with problems, which
has added to its notoriety
in the public eye and the scientific and
conservation communities. If we are to
improve the policy-making process for
conserving biodiversity, we must
acknowledge the problem openly, honestly,
and realistically. We must turn our
knowledge of saving species and take turn
it into more effective, more efficient
conservation gains. In other words, we
must reconstruct the endangered species
recovery
process.
Bibliography
American Society of Mammologists. 1986.
Recovery and
restoration of the black footed ferret. Journal of mammology
67:786. Bean,
M.J.1983. The evolution of national wildlife law. Prager,
New York. Cohn,
J.P.1993. Defenders of biodiversity. Government executive
national journal,
April:18-22 General accounting office. 1988. Endangered
species: Management
improvements could enhance recovery programs. GAO/RCED
89-5. GPO, Washington.
Holden, C.1990. Ecology hero in the interior
department. Science 250:620-621.
Miller, B.J., R. Reading, C. Conway,
J.A. Jackson, M.A. Hutchins, N. Snyder, S.
Forest, J. Frazier, and S.
Derricson. 1994. Improving endangered species
programs: Avoiding
organizational pitfalls, tapping the resources, and adding
accountability.
Environmental Management 18:637-645. Reffault, W. 1991. The
endangered
species lists: Chronicles of extinction? P.77-75. Island
Press,
Washington.