New West Feature
How Preble’s Mouse Hopped Back into Protection
Relisting in Wyoming of the Preble's meadow jumping mouse tells much about how EPA protections arise.By New West Editor, 8-05-11
Preble's meadow jumping mouse (Zapus hudsonius preblei). Photo courtesy of United States Fish and Wildlife Service.
The reinstatement on Saturday, Aug. 6, of protection under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) for a mouse in Wyoming might seem a small move, but it encapsulates many of the special interest considerations that dominate land use decisions in the West.
The issue, which goes back several years, revolves around the familiar question of what “best science” means. Government agencies, the courts, the media, and biologists themselves have weighed into the debate, closely attended by conservationists, ranchers, and politicians.
The animal in question, the Preble’s meadow jumping mouse, is found exclusively in riparian habitats between Casper, Wyoming and Colorado Springs, Colorado, much of it privately owned.
To communicate, the small rodent stands on its hind legs and drums its tail, which comprises about sixty percent of its body length. It bounds on big feet like a kangaroo, covering up to four feet in one hop.
Discovered in Colorado in 1899 by Edward A. Preble, the mouse was scientifically established as a subspecies in 1954. Since the 1970s, the ESA has allowed the listing of subspecies for protection.
Currently, there are a dozen recognized subspecies of the meadow jumping mouse. Preble’s mouse was listed as threatened in 1998, after which the real trouble began.
In 2002, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service proposed to designate 57,000 acres of critical habitat for the rodent, but that figure was reduced to about 26,000 acres the following year.
In 2003, a survey appeared in the scientific journal, Conservation Biology, that showed 379 landowners had degraded as much habitat as they had enhanced for the mouse after its listing. “Private landowners’ responses suggested that the current regulatory approach to rare species conservation is insufficient to protect the Preble’s mouse,” wrote Amara Brook, Michaela Zint and Raymond De Young of the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor.
“This work suggests that listing the mouse may have done more harm than good,” a Conservation Magazine article about the study concluded. “Better approaches may include letting landowners know how conserving the mouse’s habitat can benefit them, reimbursing landowners for the cost of fencing to keep cows away from riparian areas, and reducing landowners’ fears of regulation by including them in the conservation decision-making process.”
In 2005, Rob Roy Ramey of the Denver Museum of Nature and Science and colleagues published a paper in Animal Conservation that contended the Preble’s mouse was not a distinct subspecies.
The following year, Animal Conservation published two papers on the topic in its August issue. One, by University of Washington biologist S. N. Vignieri and colleagues, implied that the paper by Ramey and colleagues was a politically motivated attempt to roll back ESA protections for geographically isolated subspecies.
The authors wrote that Ramey’s group “dismissed the geographic isolation of this population as unimportant, ignored most of the diagnostic characters initially cited in the taxon’s original description by Krutzsch (1954), concluded without data or citation a lack of ecological distinctiveness of this population, and finally misinterpreted the morphological and molecular data they presented.”
The second paper was a response by Ramey’s team defending its work and pointing out that the 1954 classification of Preble’s mouse as a subspecies was “based on measurements of only three skulls and comparisons of only four skins – sample sizes that no modern taxonomist would accept.”
This controversy occupied interested parties for some time, including bloggers, landowners, the scientific community, and government agencies.
In 2006, University of Wyoming surveys of Preble mouse populations in that state showed a significant rise in 2005 compared to previous annual surveys going back to 1996.
In November 2007, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) proposed removing protection from the subspecies in Wyoming, but continuing it in Colorado. The proposal was based on an interpretation of ESA that allowed the agency to place protections on those parts of a species’ range where the agency believed it was most threatened.
The Wyoming populations were delisted in 2008. The following year, conservation groups sued. Two subsequent court rulings invalidated the USFWS interpretation of the so-called “significant portion of range” policy, after which the agency requested court permission to reinstate protections for the mouse in Wyoming.
Eventually, the Ramey study was discredited by an independent panel of genetics experts, according to the Center for Biological Diversity, a leading opponent of delisting in the lawsuit. The panel not only found that the Ramey samples had been contaminated, but seconded the conclusion of a federal study that Preble’s mouse was genetically distinct from other meadow jumping mouse subspecies.
Late last year, USFWS increased the mouse’s critical habitat to about 35,000 acres in Colorado, followed now by the reinstatement of Wyoming protections.
“This is a great day for wildlife,” Duane Short of the Biodiversity Conservation Alliance of Laramie, Wyoming told the Center for Biological Diversity. “Wyoming streamside habitats offer the best chance for survival of the jumping mouse, and especially with Colorado jumping mouse populations decimated by development, it is critical to protect this rare animal where it has the best chance to survive.”
Others weren’t so exultant.
“The Endangered Species Act designations are said to be based on the ‘best available’ science,” a press release from the office of U.S. Representative Cynthia Lummis (R-Wyo.) said. “Today’s relisting announcement by the USFWS is another reminder that many listings are actually based on the best available lawyer.”
The release declared, “These designations are now mostly driven by the courts instead of wildlife experts, which was never the original intent of the ESA.”
Like this story? Get more! Sign up for our free newsletters.
Comments
Add your comment below
If C of BD thinks the mouse is worth making the farmers decrease their out put and take a financial hit, why are they not taking some of the tens of millions in their own assets tp pay for habitat? This action will of course raise the price of ceral and bread and flour, and I think those who feel it is worth the cost should be the ones to shoulder the cost.
People have to come first-we can't save every mouse rat,lizard butterfly or anything else-more species have gone extinct than currently exist on the planet-species would continue to go extinct with or without humans on the planet.
If the CBD really is so concerned about this mouse-they should buy up some land themselves,and start a breeding program,and release them into the wild-using their own money.
So,how much longer are the Vegans and their Ecology based Conservation Biology going to continue this crusade against the hunting culture and lifestyle?
Will we be going back to a "SCIENCE" that explains the human variable as something more than just an invasive species anytime in the near future? Because it has been more than 15 years now, and replacing the human with the wolf in the ecological method, does not seem to be working! The wolves have done exactly what my Grandfather told me they would do, and he never even quoted "Little Red Riding Hood" once!
I have to say that was a nice touch changing from the evolutionary science to the two separate fields in ecology and human ecology! Even threw in some philosophy, sociology, and psychology, just to make sure Conservation Biology was the "BEST" that it could be?
It is probably time to start acting like big boys and girls now though, and get back to managing our natural resources based on a mathematically based method of science, and not a statistical philosophy. Statistics are OK for gambling, but probably not all that accurate in establishing facts? Like how many wolves it takes to not be endangered?
The Endangered Species Act is a crucial piece of legislation to be used in the extreme circumstances when humans run over a species that would have not otherwise gone extinct! NOT a legal toy to advance one religion over another! If it is not going to be used responsibly, then maybe it needs to go in fairness to other religions, not of the Environmentalist faith!
Just my opinion!
Better do something about the ever increasing hawk, falcon, and eagle population. Much less the seagulls, coyotes, foxes, etc. that eat these vermin.
What happens when you catch one of these mice in a trap in your house?
Nuts
http://trib.com/news/state-and-regional/article_5a7e442e-162f-56d3-b3e3-22a747fdbf57.html
I'm tired of being nice when others lie and the media fails to check facts and subsequently report the lie(s). I'm telling all you readers and in no uncertain terms... "Please don't listen to U.S. Representative, Cynthia Lummis (R-WY)." I, in my rightful opinion and based on facts, assert that Lummis is lying in this article and that she likely knows it.
Lummis, in my opinion, would do or say just about anything to protect her campaign contributors ~ Oil & Gas moguls, hobby ranchers, and other land developers who, in spite of their boldface lies to the contrary, don't give a rat's derriere about this mouse. I protect the least among us because they have NO voice or campaign contributions whatsoever to give anyone.
Shame on Rep. Lummis for misleading the public. The Preble's meadow jumping mouse lives only along a few Front Range and far eastern Wyoming streams where it is never a good idea and violates both science and common sense to build or overgraze or otherwise do harm to our precious limited water supplies. Lummis is merely a shill for those that best fund her narcissistic political campaigns. What has Lummis done for you lately? Her record shows what she has done TO you. She has voted against any bill that benefits the general population if it "inconveniences" her wealthiest constituents.
Imagine how little Lummis would do for this helpless, voiceless, and penniless (I might add) little mouse. Caring for the least among us is how I was raised. I have to wonder how Lummis was raised? I was also raised to speak truth to power and to respect science--the best tool human beings have to understand our natural, physical world. I wonder how Lummis was raised?
Speaking of truth...
This imperiled mouse had Endangered Species Act protection from 1999 to 2007. I challenge Rep. Lummis to produce one shred of evidence that during this period the listing of Preble's meadow jumping mouse wrecked Wyoming's economy as she implies and in her anti-ESA comments claims. I challenge her to document that just one rancher, developer or other land user or abuser went broke because Preble's was protected under the ESA. Lummis, in this article, tooted that science gave way to "the best lawyer." Readers, please ask Lummis about disgraced Rob Roy Ramey and the pseudo-science he produced (at our Wyoming government's request and with its funding) that helped get the mouse de-listed in the first place. See how (if she even tries) she explains or explains away her support of Ramey's junk science.
This mouse is imperiled as are many creatures, great and small, in Wyoming and around the world. If Lummis just doesn't care about our natural world she should just say so and stop blowing smoke. With Representatives like Lummis in power our warming natural world is toast... no pun intended. And the foundation of our natural world will be the first to go. That foundation is clean water to drink, fresh air to breathe and pollution and poison-free land to grow the food we eat. The near extinction of tiny creatures like this mouse is a clarion call that, unless we elect leaders that give a rat's derriere about our planet and its ability to support life, we are killing ourselves. Lummis, in this mindless effort to kill ourselves and our planet (beginning with the least among us) is doing a fine job.
and to heck with the people who live there.....
Maybe you and all anti-mouse folks should open your mind and read the article at: http://www.mnn.com/local-reports/wyoming/local-blog/one-gopher-two-gopher-three-gopher-four
Just as a dollar consists of 100 pennies "life" on this singular planet earth consists of many living things. Just like pennies lost forever, a single living plant or animal lost forever diminishes the value of all life (including human life) on planet earth. The hardest truth to accept, for some folks, is that unlike pennies living plants and animals are tied to other living plants and animals (including human life). Collectively the individual strands form a web of life that is also a safety net for life on earth. How many strands of that safety net must you cut before you begin to see the danger of cutting them? Unfortunately, the strands you are willing to cut put not just you in danger but all of us people, especially our children and their children! This you can take to the bank. I will do all in my power to stop you and anyone else from selfishly and mindlessly destroying that web of life and the safety net we all depend on for our long-term survival. Now go eat your pennies. Better yet, go read the article at: http://www.mnn.com/local-reports/wyoming/local-blog/one-gopher-two-gopher-three-gopher-four
If you are so concerned about this mouse then go buy some land in it's native area,and make all of it a perfect mouse habitat-when the population explodes-then live-trap and relocate the extras to other areas-problem solved.
"extinction is forever"- Yes it is,and species were going extinct long before humans appeared on the planet. Species go extinct on a daily basis,and will continue to do so,with or without the presence of humans,or human intervention.
This process is known as evolution-those species who adapt survive,those who do not-go extinct.
Extinctions of the past were driven and caused by biological, geological, climatic, cosmic and other natural conditions. Now extinctions are largely being driven and caused by mostly unnatural human actions. Maybe you think that it is our role... to have "dominion" over all other life as if we are gods. On a philosophical level you could be right... science can't touch the metaphysical. But the God I identify with also told human beings to have "dominion" over their children. Mr. Mountain hunter "Dominion" does not mean domination in the sense of being a conqueror. Parents have, or should have, dominion over their children but consider what that means. We want our children to be free and to grow and to not be constrained to one place (well, at least most of us parents think that way). We want them to be able to thrive, not just survive, wherever they live. Right? Dominion over wildlife, likewise, does not mean to conquer and certainly not to ignore wildlife until any given species is driven to extinction. Of course, this idea is heresy to the selfish and those with an "I'm human and therefore am Almighty God" complex.
You, Mr. mountain hunter, mock me by saying: "If you are so concerned about this mouse then go buy some land in it's native area,and make all of it a perfect mouse habitat-when the population explodes-then live-trap and relocate the extras to other areas-problem solved." Interesting. Your assumption is that I have that kind of money and your implication is that money is the solution to the problem. If money can solve the world's problems, maybe you should suggest that whoever it is that our nation owes 17 trillion dollars buy all the Preble's habitat and protect it for that one species. Mr. Mountain hunter, your simplistic suggestion is absurd whether directed to me our whoever it is that is so rich that they can loan the US 17 trillion dollars. Sir, the love of money and greed is the source of the mouse's problem, not its solution. All anyone is asking is that a tiny fraction of Wyoming's streamsides be allowed to function as naturally and as healthily as possible and in a way that still allows for all sorts of human activities and desires to be fulfilled. You, Mr. Mountain hunter, are the one making a mountain out of a molehill.
I disagree with the opinion because of the following facts. FACT ~ Human beings do eliminate habitats because ours is a finite planet. We cannot create more earth. FACT ~ Habitat we turn to concrete and steel or asphalt relatively overnight is no longer a functional biological habitat. For example, the earth's moon has plenty of "habitat" if, that is, you define habitat as simply "surface area." FACT ~ A given surface area is not habitat if there are no biological qualities on that surface capable of supporting life. The opinion expressed in the article is just that... a mere opinion. The author of that ill-conceived opinion also fails to consider that if, relatively overnight, we change habitat to concrete or steel or asphalt or plastic or poison... species that go extinct as a result are no longer around to provide the genetic material necessary for evolution to continue. FACT ~ The process of natural evolution (adaptation)requires thousands and millions of years. Relatively overnight changes to habitat do not allow enough time for species to adapt. Thus, the disappearance of dinosaurs due to rapid global changes. The opinion that man does not eliminate wildlife habitat is simply absurd. ~~~
There are in fact two things, science and opinion; the former begets knowledge, the latter ignorance.
Hippocrates (c460-c.377 BCE) Greek physician. Law
But to those who are intent on protecting mice....in other folks homes, I would like to remind you that mice carry disease....deadly disease at times. Right now, I am thinking of Hanta Virus, I was working as a health care provider on the Navajo Nation when that big outbreak that killed folks occurred in 1993. Can any one guarantee that the preble mouse will not harbor and spread a deadly disease at some point?
Unfortunately emotions and a power to control other people replace common sense all too often.
Habitat is not being lost on ranches and farms, it is being lost in cities, that is where our focus needs to be. The mice are small enough that city folks could set aside a portion of their yards for habitat and they could be raised and it would be easier to keep an eye on them to make sure they were properly cared for and alloowed to breed freely. Perhaps city parks could be turned into larger intact pieces of habitat. That would be a win win for everyone. The food supply would not be interrupted, it would not take lawsuits since most city folk are in favor of protecting endangered species and they would be welcome. Everyone would be happy.
I'm done here. Good luck you city folk... raising Preble's meadow jumping mice in your flower boxes. "Good Luck and Good Night" (some of you know what that quoted reference is refers to).
No, I do not mock you-the whole environmental movement has been hijacked by extremists who refuse to recognize that humans live on the planet,and are part of the equation,and we are never going to go back to a time when there were no,or few humans.
Humans change the landscape,and build buildings for shelter,and to manufacture things-that will not change.
There is plenty of wilderness set aside,and every small population of a species can not,and will not be saved-that is called facing reality.
Humans will continue to do things that benefit humans.
You are right money is the problem,and all the money paid out for absurd enviro lawsuits by groups who have hijacked the intent of the ESA to apply to blocking any human development, or any extraction of natural resources is a huge part of the problem.
The mouse was on the list for 8 years,it didn't recover at all during that time?
You can not force private land owners to manage their land to suit your personal idea of how that land should be managed. If the landowners wish to take steps to create/preserve habitat for the mouse-they will,if they don't no one has the right to force them to not use their private property as they see fit.
Enviros you will be believable only if you lead by example...not beating folks into submission.
99.8% of all species (probably more) that have ever lived have become extinct. I am certainly not saying that this mouse should be made extinct, but I am saying that you should have no say over the lives of the people who live in that area.
Suggestions are fine. Change some farming techniques, suggest some grazing options, etc. But in no way should you or your kind have the say to tell others how to live....which is what the mouse (or the wolf) is used for.
Nice play of words, but wonder how many of these mice were in these areas in the past.
You are right about the "rules". Every time you liberals get a post somewhere in government, you make up more and more rules so the rest of us have to live in a sea of paperwork. Case in point is the liberal caucuss in congress that cannot or will not do the right thing and cut spending. That basically means less rules for the rest of us. So now we all have to suffer for the liberal cause.
The story is really not about the mouse. Its about closing land that can be utilized by people for the benefit of people. Thats the real issue. Control of others lives is the theme.
Amazing... what a giant leap from the topic of a little mouse to one of Congress, our national budget, and the evils of rules. And I thought the Preble's meadow jumping mouse was an incredible jumper.
I hope the next argument that comes my way stays focused in accordance with the "evil" rules that come with this free opportunity to comment online. Mr. bigsky your very actions demonstrate the need for rules in an imperfect world.
" I know a tantrum when I see one"
So do I,and that is what you are doing because people do not agree with all the ESA protections afforded to so many species.
You are upset because some ranchers own so much land-(control is the word you used)
What is right also does not always favor the enviro cause either.
Look at all the uproar the enviros caused over the spotted owl-injuring people who were just trying to make a living,filing multiple lawsuits,stopping logging operations-and guess what? The enviros were wrong-the spotted owl was being wiped out by a larger,more aggressive species of owl.
I don't know of anyone who is intentionally trying to kill the Preble's mouse.
In both cases the numbers are samples, not absolute values. Again, the listing or delisting of any imperiled species or subspecies is determined by considering 5 criteria described in the Endangered Species Act.
The decision to list or delist a species is not always a simple or easy decision. Those that believe people have no responsibility to prevent wildlife from going extinct disapprove of listings and those of us that believe people do have a responsibility to prevent wildlife from going extinct sometimes disapprove of delisting decisions but we disapprove only when it clear, in scientific terms, that the species is still struggling to survive and that some political or industrial power influenced the decision.
I know of no environmentalist that believes all wildlife should be on the Endangered species list. But I do know plenty of folks that will tell you they don't believe the Endangered Species Act has any validity at all because and I quote, "species go extinct every day." Tell me, who is radical?
If science, rather than wild claims, accusations and insults was applied to these delisting and listing decisions reason would dominate these discussions. There would be no room for emotion, dogma, politics, or hysteria.
Our planet's fabric of life is wearing thin. We can behave as children and live in denial of this glaring fact, kick and scream when someone suggests that just maybe we should change our old ways a bit, or we can just quietly bury our heads in the sand. I, for one, choose not to fear the present state of our natural world but instead choose to change my youthful ways to adapt in ways that will hopefully leave a better world for my kids and theirs. Sometimes it is extremely hard to look past one's own nose but I choose to try.
The sad truth is this. Those that just don't care or don't believe there is anything people can do to help prevent extinctions or the poisoning of our land, water and air have the power to poison everyone else's land water and air and the power to drive the wildlife some of us are trying save from extinction in the abyss of no return.
Environmentalists efforts, if successful, can only improve the world the polluter's kids and our kids will inherit. The polluter's efforts, if "successful" can only degrade the world our kids and their kids will inherit.
Nobody's kids will ever be able to eat money, drink oil, or breathe Greenhouse Gases. Maybe you choose to leave them these things. I choose to leave my kids clean air to breathe, fresh water to drink, healthy pollution-free land to grow their food and, yes, a planet with a robust population of wildlife. After all, without the robust wildlife of the past we would not have a drop of oil to burn.
My kids and yours need the oil to fuel transportation and keeping warm in the winter, and to cook whatever the enviros will allow them to eat. No one drinks oil, but we all use it.
Get rid of the cattle and not only will there be no beef, but no leather for shoes and the myriad other things we use. Will hikers be able to hike in their bare feet since there will be no minerals to manufacture shoes out of anything?
You guys are the victims of brain washing.
Maybe you and all anti-mouse folks should open your mind and read the article at: http://www.mnn.com/local-reports/wyoming/local-blog/one-gopher-two-gopher-three-gopher-four
Just as a dollar consists of 100 pennies "life" on this singular planet earth consists of many living things. Just like pennies lost forever, a single living plant or animal lost forever diminishes the value of all life (including human life) on planet earth. The hardest truth to accept, for some folks, is that unlike pennies living plants and animals are tied to other living plants and animals (including human life). Collectively the individual strands form a web of life that is also a safety net for life on earth. How many strands of that safety net must you cut before you begin to see the danger of cutting them? Unfortunately, the strands you are willing to cut put not just you in danger but all of us people, especially our children and their children! This you can take to the bank. I will do all in my power to stop you and anyone else from selfishly and mindlessly destroying that web of life and the safety net we all depend on for our long-term survival. Now go eat your pennies. Better yet, go read the article at: http://www.mnn.com/local-reports/wyoming/local-blog/one-gopher-two-gopher-three-gopher-four
~~~
Mountain hunter, species do go extinct regularly and extinction, due to natural causes, is normal. However, whether you consider human beings to be the most highly evolved species or one created, as is, by God human beings are different from wildlife. We build machines that are not like rocks that just sit there. Our animatable machines, at the command of human beings, do very unnatural things like drain wetlands, dam rivers, remove entire mountain tops. All of these colossal actions benefit the one species in command of the machines. Machine driven change is not part of our natural world and, in fact, often goes 180 degrees against the natural order of life. How anyone can excuse human beings of any responsibility to exercise self control and self restraint regarding our machines' unnatural impacts on our natural world is beyond me.
Extinctions of the past were driven and caused by biological, geological, climatic, cosmic and other natural conditions. Now extinctions are largely being driven and caused by mostly unnatural human actions. Maybe you think that it is our role... to have "dominion" over all other life as if we are gods. On a philosophical level you could be right... science can't touch the metaphysical. But the God I identify with also told human beings to have "dominion" over their children. Mr. Mountain hunter "Dominion" does not mean domination in the sense of being a conqueror. Parents have, or should have, dominion over their children but consider what that means. We want our children to be free and to grow and to not be constrained to one place (well, at least most of us parents think that way). We want them to be able to thrive, not just survive, wherever they live. Right? Dominion over wildlife, likewise, does not mean to conquer and certainly not to ignore wildlife until any given species is driven to extinction. Of course, this idea is heresy to the selfish and those with an "I'm human and therefore am Almighty God" complex.
You, Mr. mountain hunter, mock me by saying: "If you are so concerned about this mouse then go buy some land in it's native area,and make all of it a perfect mouse habitat-when the population explodes-then live-trap and relocate the extras to other areas-problem solved." Interesting. Your assumption is that I have that kind of money and your implication is that money is the solution to the problem. If money can solve the world's problems, maybe you should suggest that whoever it is that our nation owes 17 trillion dollars buy all the Preble's habitat and protect it for that one species. Mr. Mountain hunter, your simplistic suggestion is absurd whether directed to me our whoever it is that is so rich that they can loan the US 17 trillion dollars. Sir, the love of money and greed is the source of the mouse's problem, not its solution. All anyone is asking is that a tiny fraction of Wyoming's stream-sides be allowed to function as naturally and as healthily as possible and in a way that still allows for all sorts of human activities and desires to be fulfilled. You, Mr. Mountain hunter, are the one making a mountain out of a molehill.
~~
The article I've linked above does a good job presenting hard scientific facts about today's extinction rates. But in the end the article expresses an opinion which claims: "Another reason diversity may rebound -- as it normally does after a major extinction episode -- is that disturbances caused by human beings do not eliminate habitats, but merely change them."
I disagree with the opinion because of the following facts. FACT ~ Human beings do eliminate habitats because ours is a finite planet. We cannot create more earth. FACT ~ Habitat we turn to concrete and steel or asphalt relatively overnight is no longer a functional biological habitat. For example, the earth's moon has plenty of "habitat" if, that is, you define habitat as simply "surface area." FACT ~ A given surface area is not habitat if there are no biological qualities on that surface capable of supporting life. The opinion expressed in the article is just that... a mere opinion. The author of that ill-conceived opinion also fails to consider that if, relatively overnight, we change habitat to concrete or steel or asphalt or plastic or poison... species that go extinct as a result are no longer around to provide the genetic material necessary for evolution to continue. FACT ~ The process of natural evolution (adaptation)requires thousands and millions of years. Relatively overnight changes to habitat do not allow enough time for species to adapt. Thus, the disappearance of dinosaurs due to rapid global changes. The opinion that man does not eliminate wildlife habitat is simply absurd. ~~~
There are in fact two things, science and opinion; the former begets knowledge, the latter ignorance.
Hippocrates (c460-c.377 BCE) Greek physician. Law
Oh for crying out loud. People carry more contagious diseases that kill people than does any other animal... pneumonia, tuberculosis, hepatitis, aids, measles, mumps, menningitis, and the list goes on and on. So are you suggesting we kill off people so people don't get diseases? Of course you are not suggesting that. Disease and dying are a most natural part of living. Some folks simply can't accept those facts. Those that refuse to accept disease and dying as a part of life itself deceive themselves and in fact, demonstrate a fear of both life and death. If we let every species that might have a remote potential to transmit a disease to humans go exticnt, we might as well just let ourselves go extinct. Todd's comments make no sense whatsoever. Hey Todd.... just like I asked Rep. Lummis to back up her claims with scientific documentation I ask you to document even one case where a Preble's meadow jumping mouse (Zapus hudsonius preblei)transmitted a disease to one (just 1) human being. If you can, then document and 2nd case. If you can, document a 3rd and so on. I suggest you save yourself some trouble and preserve your integrity and just admit you're blowing smoke about something you know nothing about. "Watch out people, the Preble's meadow jumping mouse is coming to kill you!!!" How utterly fictional.
~~~
The delisting was not based on simple numbers but to a large degree on DoI Solicitor David Longly Bernhardt's re-interpretation of something called "Significant Portion of Range." Bernhardt was a George W. Bush administration appointee as was the now infamous Julie McDonald. Both of these anti-endangered species plants were appointed to their positions with the expectation by Bush that they would undermine the very Act their position required them to defend. They did not disappoint former Pres. G. W. Bush. These two and many others in similar positions were no less than foxes guarding the henhouse. One just has learn teh biographies of the Bush era appointees to positions that were intended to protect the environment and wildlife to see what I mean by "foxes guarding the henhouse." Listing decisions are supposed to be based on the application of science to the 5 part criteria used to determine if a species or subspecies is in danger of extinction. Politics is to have no role in the application of science. No one has claimed to know as you put it.... "how many mice" there are at given time. Science has these great tools that only scientists or those well educated in the sciences fully understand and appreciate. These tools involve sampling to estimate population numbers. It is my understanding that the last survey, involving sampling, conducted by Wyoming Natural Diversity Database (the most well qualified organization in the state for this kind of survey) found more mice than in their previous survey. But so what? So what is the most difficult question in the sciences.
In both cases the numbers are samples, not absolute values. Again, the listing or delisting of any imperiled species or subspecies is determined by considering 5 criteria described in the Endangered Species Act.
The decision to list or delist a species is not always a simple or easy decision. Those that believe people have no responsibility to prevent wildlife from going extinct disapprove of listings and those of us that believe people do have a responsibility to prevent wildlife from going extinct sometimes disapprove of delisting decisions but we disapprove only when it clear, in scientific terms, that the species is still struggling to survive and that some political or industrial power influenced the decision.
I know of no environmentalist that believes all wildlife should be on the Endangered species list. But I do know plenty of folks that will tell you they don't believe the Endangered Species Act has any validity at all because and I quote, "species go extinct every day." Tell me, who is radical?
If science, rather than wild claims, accusations and insults was applied to these delisting and listing decisions reason would dominate these discussions. There would be no room for emotion, dogma, politics, or hysteria.
Our planet's fabric of life is wearing thin. We can behave as children and live in denial of this glaring fact, kick and scream when someone suggests that just maybe we should change our old ways a bit, or we can just quietly bury our heads in the sand. I, for one, choose not to fear the present state of our natural world but instead choose to change my youthful ways to adapt in ways that will hopefully leave a better world for my kids and theirs. Sometimes it is extremely hard to look past one's own nose but I choose to try.
The sad truth is this. Those that just don't care or don't believe there is anything people can do to help prevent extinctions or the poisoning of our land, water and air have the power to poison everyone else's land water and air and the power to drive the wildlife some of us are trying save from extinction in the abyss of no return.
Environmentalists efforts, if successful, can only improve the world the polluter's kids and our kids will inherit. The polluter's efforts, if "successful" can only degrade the world our kids and their kids will inherit.
Nobody's kids will ever be able to eat money, drink oil, or breathe Greenhouse Gases. Maybe you choose to leave them these things. I choose to leave my kids clean air to breathe, fresh water to drink, healthy pollution-free land to grow their food and, yes, a planet with a robust population of wildlife. After all, without the robust wildlife of the past we would not have a drop of oil to burn.
~~~
Todd, I have not advocated for any of those things you falsely accuse me of advocating in your last comment. What I have said is right here in this comment thread for all readers to read and reread to their hearts (and hopefully their mind's) content. You should probably stop, take a deep breath, and differentiate what I have said from what you, apparently, wish I had said so you could blast me and accuse me of saying things that are extreme and unrealistic. Your fantasyland notion that you can read my "brainwashed" mind is sinking your comments deeper and deeper into the quicksand of irrelevance. Read what I write, not what you think I say. I definitely advocate for weaning ourselves off anything that is harmful to our environment if there is a safer, cleaner, healthier alternative. I advocate for change when change can improve the world we live in. Change for the better is almost painful and scary. Some are willing to sacrifice a little to bring about positive change (not necessarily overnight but however long it takes). Some fear change. Go back and see if anywhere in my comments I even hint ~ much less advocate ~ that we stop eating beef, driving cars, or wearing shoes... even leather shoes. Yes, even I (wacko environmentalist that you say that I am) wear leather shoes and "oh my god," leather belts. You fabricate words you wish I had said, apparently, to make your side of this online debate sound more plausible. It's the oldest trick in the book of argument... and frankly a tired old trick. Remember, Todd the article and our discussion is about (or supposed to be about) protecting a mouse from extinction. In the process of protecting Preble's we protect about 75% of southeast Wyoming's terrestrial wildlife since this high percent of all s.e. Wyoming' wildlife spend at least part of their cycle in riparian (streamside) habitat. The Preble's riparian habitat makes up only about 1% of all s.e. Wyoming land area. One percent! Is it really extreme or radical to ask that we keep 1% of this corner of our state healthy to protect 75% our terrestrial wildlife? In N. America 60% to 80% of all bird species inhabit streamside habitat. Protecting Preble's habitat helps keeps bird habitat healthy too. What makes your anti-Peble's protection argument even less credible is the fact that in the decade Preble's was listed (before the anti-environment G. W. Bush folks delisted it under false pretenses) no rancher, developer or other user or abuser went broke due to Preble's protection. Not ONE! You, whether intentional or not, are simply regurgitating Rep. Cynthia Lummis' political soundbite that falsely claims the Preble's listing is the end of Wyoming's economy. Pure hogwash! Lummis cannot back her claim with one shred of documented fact. She might try to document her claim with "doctored" facts but "doctored facts" and "documented facts" are two very different things.
The facts remain regardless. Give an environmentalist an inch, they will take it all if they can. Wolves in every state, Jon Marvels concept of letting land sit for eterntiy without any benefit to the folks who live in the area, destruction of property, no oil drilling, no coal development, etc. etc.
If only there was middle ground.
Unfornately, in dealing with these people, their is none.
I used to try and compete, but now I just siot back and smile at the amusement.
...and you're trying to convince people? I admire your futility.
http://www.rodentproofaz.com/rodent-extermination-articles/diseases-carried-by-rodents/
http://www.cdc.gov/rodents/diseases/direct.html
I can provide you even more if you wish about rodent borne disease.
Battles to educate must be fought on every front... not just those comfortable or highbrow fronts or those fronts where praise and acclaim is won for one's effort. Again, nice try, Ollie, to silence one of many fronts in the ongoing effort to make a difference. With friends like you, who needs enemies? And that smug smile is a futile gesture if you are trying to dissuade the efforts of others. Whether expressed by the imbecile or the intellectual, arrogance is ugly. And among the courageous, those smug little smiles are known to be hiding the tears of clowns. So Ollie, go back to the circus from which you came and ask yourself, "why was I reading that 'futile' forum in the first place?"
And Todd... I have not had time to review the links you provided above but I bet ya, sight unseen, that these links and the links they link (if they do) will not even mention any transmission of disease that can even remotely be attributed to the streamside dwelling Preble's meadow jumping mouse or any mouse other than those that tend to live inside human dwellings. Post the Dark Ages, incidents of mouse diseases being transmitted to humans are about as rare lightning strikes are to humans out standing in a field. I have asked for documentation that Preble's meadow jumping mouse has ever, in the recorded history of humankind, transmitted a disease to a human being. Still waiting. And Todd, please be careful using Google. Information obtained with the click of a key should be understood before it is used to bolster one's argument... lest one look rather silly presenting irrelevant material.
http://www.rodentproofaz.com/rodent-extermination-articles/diseases-carried-by-rodents/
http://www.cdc.gov/rodents/diseases/direct.html
I can provide you even more if you wish about rodent borne disease.
Todd, I've had the time to review those links. One is an advertisement trying to sell rat poison. The other is general coverage of rodent borne diseases. Here is what I said:
~~~ "Hey Todd.... just like I asked Rep. Lummis to back up her claims with scientific documentation I ask you to document even one case where a Preble's meadow jumping mouse (Zapus hudsonius preblei)transmitted a disease to one (just 1) human being. If you can, then document and 2nd case. If you can, document a 3rd and so on. I suggest you save yourself some trouble and preserve your integrity and just admit you're blowing smoke about something you know nothing about.~~~ Neither link even remotely suggests that Preble's meadow jumping mouse has ever been known (scientifically documented) to have transmitted any kind of disease to any human. Todd you said, "I can provide you even more if you wish about rodent borne disease." I did not ask for information about rodent borne disease.. I know a little about that topic already. Again re-read what I asked for one more time. ~~~"Hey Todd.... just like I asked Rep. Lummis to back up her claims with scientific documentation I ask you to document even one case where a Preble's meadow jumping mouse (Zapus hudsonius preblei)transmitted a disease to one (just 1) human being. If you can, then document and 2nd case. If you can, document a 3rd and so on. I suggest you save yourself some trouble and preserve your integrity and just admit you're blowing smoke about something you know nothing about.~~~
Sadly, the last sentence in the previous paragraph is exactly the case. One situation in particular, remains as a permanent monument to the insanity of this particular issue. The completion of a major highway was stalled for a couple of years in order for "researchers," to determine if a particular area "could be"a habitat. It was ruled as "probable," thus requiring a taxpayer-funded $4 million bridge over this relatively small bit of prairie, further adding to the highways completion and along with that, more "unjustified," expense. Maybe it's time we round them up and deport them all to Wyoming or better yet, New York or Washington DC!
Wyoming doesn't want the mice, we have more than enough.
Up to that point, it's just a promise, vaporware, " the faith of your government".
If enviros are so prolific at stuffing their pockets with " other people's money " , why are they mostly some of the most austere or even poorest people I know ? A rich environmentalist ?---what an oxymoron.
Your delusions about enviros are consuming you . You should direct your delusional ire at the Ayn Rand capitalists and corporations instead, the sub-breed of people who are truely warping America in the name of money. The energy companies and food cartels most of all...
An aside: If only the agrarians of Wyoming actually grew something I could eat...they seem to expend all their effort growing animal feed where I live. And that interior Big Horn Basin semi-arid desert is not exactly a Garden of Eden. 150+ acres required to sustain one cow, if you can find the water....
And Todd, who grows wheat and takes their tractors into the boggy Preble's habitat? I'd like names. Not to turn them in or anything but to teach them a thing or two about basis farming principles. You are blowing smoke when you say Preble's protection is hindering the growing of wheat. And blowing smoke is just a nice way of saying you aren't telling the truth. But the truth clearly does not matter to you, sir.