Are Gray Wolves Endangered in the Northern Rocky Mountains? A Role for Social Science in Listing Determinations

Forum Are Gray Wolves Endangered in the Northern Rocky Mountains? A Role for Social Science in Listing Determinations Conservation scientists increasingly recognize the need to incorporate the social sciences into policy decisions. In practice, however, considerable challenges to integrating the social and natural sciences remain. In this article, we review the US Fish and Wildlife Service’s (FWS) 2009 decision to remove the northern Rocky Mountain population of gray wolves from the federal list of endangered species. We examine the FWS’s arguments concerning the threat posed by humans’ attitudes toward wolves in light of the existing social science literature. Our analysis found support for only one of four arguments underlying the FWS’s assessment of public attitudes as a potential threat to wolves. Although we found an extensive literature on attitudes toward wolves, the FWS cited just one empirical research article. We conclude that when listing decisions rest on assumptions about society, these assumptions should be evaluated using the best available natural and social science research. Keywords: Endangered Species Act, listing determination, wolves, social sciences, conservation policy I n recent years, several authors have called for greater integration of the social and natural sciences in conservationrelated decisions (e.g., Jacobson and McDuff 1998, Mascia et al. 2003, Adams 2007). These authors point out that although conservation issues are composed of both natural (e.g., the ecology of systems) and social components (e.g., the policies that guide decisionmaking), most conservation practitioners receive limited training in the social sciences (Jacobson and McDuff 1998). This condition is reflected in conservation decisions, in which biological elements are emphasized with minimal, if any, social science contributions. Yet as Mascia and colleagues (2003) noted, the success or failure of programs is often determined primarily by social factors. In this article we review the April 2009 decision by the US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) to remove the northern Rocky Mountain (NRM) population of gray wolves (Canis lupus) from protection under the US Endangered Species Act (ESA). This decision provides an opportunity to examine the degree to which the social sciences were integrated into a controversial conservation action with long-recognized human connections. The reintroduction of gray wolves to the NRM region in 1995–1996 was one of the most politically contentious wildlife management actions in modern history. The effort spanned two decades, involved more than 120 public hearings, and elicited more than 160,000 public comments (Wilson MA 1997). Dozens of special interest groups weighed in on the debate, in which value-laden rhetoric and hyperbole were pervasive and willingness to compromise was in short supply (Bangs and Fritts 1996). Notwithstanding strong rhetoric and the threat by some opponents to “shoot, shovel, and shut up,” reintroduced wolves have thrived in the northern Rockies. Beginning in 2002—and in every year since— the NRM wolf metapopulation exceeded the population threshold specified for removal from ESA protections. The question of how to manage wolves in the northern Rockies transcends the biological and ecological sciences (Fritts et al. 1997, Wilson MA 1997). Biologists directly involved in the reintroduction of wolves to the northern Rockies concluded that “wolf recovery issues have more to do with deeply held personal values...than with wolves themselves” (Fritts et al. 1997, p. 11). We concur with this assessment. Indeed, 15 years of intensive monitoring and rigorous biological studies have not reduced the conflict concerning wolf management, nor lessened the controversy surrounding wolf reintroduction. Instead, these management efforts underscore how intricately human behaviors are linked with the long-term success of wolves: Of 2094 wolf mortalities documented by the FWS over the past decade (i.e., from 2000 to 2009), 84% (1763) were caused by humans, and at least 80% of these (1402) were intentional (i.e., legal control actions or harvest). (We calculated these figures by aggregating data from the FWS’s annual reports from 2000 to 2009, available online at www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/species/ mammals/wolf. Contact the authors for a copy of these data.) These data imply that the successful conservation of wolves in BioScience 60: 941–948. ISSN 0006-3568, electronic ISSN 1525-3244. © 2010 by American Institute of Biological Sciences. All rights reserved. Request permission to photocopy or reproduce article content at the University of California Press’s Rights and Permissions Web site at www.ucpressjournals.com/ reprintinfo.asp. doi:10.1525/bio.2010.60.11.10 www.biosciencemag.org December 2010 / Vol. 60 No. 11 • BioScience 941 Jeremy T. Bruskotter, Eric Toman, Sherry A. Enzler, and Robert H. Schmidt Forum Listing status determinations under the ESA To determine the listing status of a species (i.e., threatened, endangered, or neither), the secretary of the interior or the secretary of commerce (jurisdiction varies by species) must decide whether a species is threatened with or in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range, as the result of any of five statutorily defined listing factors: (1) the present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range; (2) overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; (3) disease or predation; (4) the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or (5) other natural or anthropogenic factors affecting its continued existence. Listing status determinations are to be made “solely on the basis of the best scientific and commercial data available” (16 USC §§ 1531–1544). In short, the ESA requires the secretary (and corresponding agency) to review the best available information and determine whether the balance of evidence indicates that the threat posed by these five factors is sufficient to warrant listing the species as threatened or endangered (figure 1). In practice, these “threats analyses” typically focus on the proximate causes of a species’ mortality, and include an examination of relevant biological Figure 1. Determining the status of a species under the Endangered Species Act of 1973. The starred question is an analysis that could be improved by the inclusion of social science data. DPS, district population segment. 942 BioScience • December 2010 / Vol. 60 No. 11 www.biosciencemag.org the NRM region ultimately depends upon human behaviors and the values and attitudes that underlie these behaviors. When threats to a species are driven primarily by social factors (e.g., attitudes and values), reliance on biological data alone is insufficient to understand and evaluate these threats. The application of theory and data from the social sciences can improve our understanding of the (...truncated)