Judge Says Refusal to List Wolverine as Endangered ‘Borders on the Absurd’ (Video)

In an 85-page opinion, U.S. District Court Judge Dana L. Christensen rejected as illegal a 2014 decision by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to deny the wolverine protection under the Endangered Species Act.


Central to the case is a key, necessary ingredient for wolverine habitat: snow. Scientific research has shown that the famously tough creature relies on snow to survive, but temperature increases associated with climate change mean there is and will be less of it.

The judge’s opinion sharply questioned attempts by the federal government to challenge this basic premise.

There are only an estimated 300 remaining wolverines in the continental U.S. This ruling could bolster their survival, while potentially setting the tone for future conservation decisions about species affected by climate change.

According to the court opinion, "The wolverine's sensitivity to climate change, in general, cannot really be questioned. In fact, many believe—similar to the polar bear—that the wolverine may serve as a land-based indicator of global warming."

The Fish and Wildlife Service’s reasoning for refusing to list wolverines under the Endangered Species Act "borders on the absurd," according to the court opinion. The judge went on to criticize the agency for buckling under political pressure from Western state agencies instead of basing its decision on the best available science.

The opinion specifically rejected arguments made by the Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks. That state agency sought to prevent wolverine protection by attempting to discredit research by a team of scientists led by Kevin McKelvey. The team documented evidence of the dramatic effects of climate change on wolverine habitat. Judge Christensen wrote:

"Montana's attacks against McKelvey (2011) and its authors, all scientists at the service's Rocky Mountain Research Station, are particularly weak and unsavory. Not only did Montana cavalierly dismiss the study as a ‘hypothesis,’ breezing right by its well-supported conclusions, but Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks accused the service biologists of cooking the science in favor of listing with the intent of receiving additional funding."

The opinion also rejected comments from Stephen Torbit, an assistant regional director at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, who was critical of McKelvey’s scientific findings.

"The court views Torbit's comments as nothing more than an unpublished, unreviewed personal opinion, elicited by [U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Regional Director Noreen] Walsh in the eleventh hour to backfill her foregone conclusion to withdraw the Proposed Rule" that would have protected wolverines.

Judge Christensen dismissed Torbit’s arguments as weak and "insufficient" compared to the extensive scientific research presented in the McKelvey study. The judge termed the Fish and Wildlife Service’s reliance on Torbit’s comments "the essence of arbitrary and capricious decision making."

Judge Christensen understood that protection under the Endangered Species Act is an existential issue for the wolverine.

"If there is one thing required of the [Fish and Wildlife] Service under the [Endangered Species Act], it is to take action at the earliest possible, defensible point in time to protect against the loss of biodiversity within our reach as a nation. For the wolverine, that time is now."

Watch this video of a wolverine documented last summer near Leavenworth, Washington, by Conservation Northwest and the Citizen Wildlife Monitoring Project:

Enjoy this piece?

… then let us make a small request. AlterNet’s journalists work tirelessly to counter the traditional corporate media narrative. We’re here seven days a week, 365 days a year. And we’re proud to say that we’ve been bringing you the real, unfiltered news for 20 years—longer than any other progressive news site on the Internet.

It’s through the generosity of our supporters that we’re able to share with you all the underreported news you need to know. Independent journalism is increasingly imperiled; ads alone can’t pay our bills. AlterNet counts on readers like you to support our coverage. Did you enjoy content from David Cay Johnston, Common Dreams, Raw Story and Robert Reich? Opinion from Salon and Jim Hightower? Analysis by The Conversation? Then join the hundreds of readers who have supported AlterNet this year.

Every reader contribution, whatever the amount, makes a tremendous difference. Help ensure AlterNet remains independent long into the future. Support progressive journalism with a one-time contribution to AlterNet, or click here to become a subscriber. Thank you. Click here to donate by check.

Close