I've now read the Federal Register notice proposing to delist Preble's meadow jumping mouse, and I find the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service's description of the reviews disingenuous. They received 14 peer reviews and classify 5 as supportive of the conclusions from the unpublished report, 3 leaning towards support of the study, and 6 who were generally critical of its conclusions. But by their own description, at least two of the positive reviewers agreed with the taxonomic decision (to synonymize the Preble's and Bear Lodge subspecies) but “expressed concern for the conservation status of the synonymized taxonomic unit.” In other words, these two reviewers appear to regard it as important that the populations composing what is now known as Preble's meadow jumping mouse continue to receive conservation protection.
What does the Service propose to do?
“The Service will evaluate threats to the combined entity (Zapus hudsonius campestris) in all or a significant portion of its range before this rule is finalized.” At the same time, however, they point out that
Section 4(g)(1) of the Act requires us to monitor a species for at least 5 years after it is delisted based on recovery. Because Prebles is being delisted due to new information that demonstrates that the original classification was in error, rather than due to recovery, the Act does not require us to monitor this animal species following its delisting.
In other words, the Service has decided it will not monitor the status of Preble's populations, even though a majority of the expert views they solicited (8 to 6) either expressed concern about the conservation status of Preble's or expressed serious concern about the conclusions of the study. I've already pointed out that the conclusion that Preble's is not genetically distinct appears to be in error. I'll have to study the available information more before I have a firm opinion on whether or not continued listing is warranted, but this much is clear. Although the Service may not be required to monitor Preble's once it is delisted, it would violate the spirit of the Endangered Species act were they not to do so. The “original error”, as the Service refers to it, concerned the taxonomic status of Preble's, not the threat its populations faces. And even that may not be an error. At least 6 of the 14 experts who have reviewed the case so far concluded that the evidence is not conclusive. Prudence would seem to dictate caution. But caution seems to be a rare trait among most agencies in the Bush administration.
Leave a comment