Over the past thirty years, there have been few effective endeavors to restore endangered species to viable populations. One instance is the black footed ferret, scientifically identified as Mustela nigripes, which was once deemed the most endangered mammal in the United States. This tiny carnivorous creature is similar in size to a mink and primarily dwells in the Great Plains and Intermountain basins.
Once, the ferrets and prairie dogs lived together in the same area. The ferrets relied on the prairie dogs for food and shelter. However, efforts to control the prairie dog population through trapping, gassing, and poisoning greatly reduced their numbers. These programs had a significant impact on decreasing the ferret population as well. However, the main reason for their decline was the loss of suitable habitat and prey. The remaining habitat became fragmented, making it easier for ferrets to become extinct due to various factors like a lack of potential mates, negative genetic effects from inbreeding, environmental events, and diseases that affected both ferrets and their prey.
In 1974, the ferrets were thought to be extinct. However, in 1981, one of these animals was found in Meeteetsee, Wyoming. Sadly, it was killed by a dog while eating from its food dish on a ranch. The rancher then took the dead animal to a taxidermist specializing in such species. This discovery offered a unique chance to revive this endangered species. Tragically, in 1985, a severe disease affected the small ferret population and led to the capture of most remaining animals. Consequently, a program for breeding these ferrets in captivity started and their reintroduction into their natural habitat began in 1991.
The ferret is classified as an endangered species under the Endangered Species Act, along with more than 900 other species. Currently, there are over 3000 species waiting to be included in this list. Regrettably, during the 1980s, more than 34 species became extinct while awaiting protection (Cohn, 1993). Consequently, it is crucial to assess whether the ferret program accurately represents the national endeavor to revive endangered species.
The 1973 Endangered Species act (ESA, as amended, U.S. Congress 1983, Bean 1991) contains the United States policy on endangered species, including the ferret and numerous other plants and animals. The legislation aims to prevent further extinction and restore species currently at risk of extinction. The popularity of the ESA lies in its goal to protect species from complete elimination. However, the process of saving a species is intricate, as evident in the case of the ferret. This case exemplifies how the ESA is implemented, highlighting the efforts of state officials and others in restoring species and the challenges that arise in recovery plans. Essentially, the rescue of the ferret serves as an example of how the ESA functions in reality.
Despite the small population discovered in Wyoming in 1981, there was an expectation of a prompt and organized initiative to save America’s most endangered mammal. Many universities, conservation organizations, state and federal agencies, as well as local individuals were enthusiastic about providing assistance. Together, they had significant resources including financial means and expertise in population genetics, managing small populations, conducting field research, operating breeding facilities, and supporting zoo staff. The only requirement was a properly coordinated program to successfully restore the ferret population.
The ESA states that the federal government, including the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the U.S. National Marine Fisheries Service, is in charge of coordinating recovery efforts. Initially, when establishing the ferret program, federal officials had multiple choices available to them. They could have decided to act as administrators of a major hospital, gathering a team of skilled professionals, offering sufficient funding, equipment, and facilities, and relying on their expertise to aid in the patient’s recuperation. Nevertheless, this approach was not selected.
The ferret program was administered in a distinct manner. In accordance with Section 6 of the ESA, states were to be involved to the greatest extent feasible. At the start of 1982, Wyoming was entrusted with the primary role in ferret restoration by the federal government. However, issues quickly arose.
According to a formal resolution by the American Society of monologists (1986:786), there is a call for various organizations such as the Fish and Wildlife Service, the Wyoming Fish and Game department, state wildlife departments, and numerous conservation groups to expand their recovery efforts beyond what the current program is offering.
According to Miller et al. (1996:208), the FWS, or Fish and Wildlife Service, is recognized as the national entity responsible for maintaining professional restoration programs. The authors argue that Region 6 of the FWS failed to prioritize the recovery of the ferret as a national program. While it may have been easier for Region 6 to comply with Wyoming’s agenda in the short term, this strategy has likely hindered long-term recovery efforts. The authors emphasize that individuals or organizations in a position to improve conservation should not simply offer financial support, but should also invest time and attention into the cause.
The Wyoming Game and Fish department prioritized returning the ferrets to the wild in Wyoming, even if it might not have been the most suitable location for their reintroduction. Despite the existence of better sites in other states, the department’s unwavering focus on Wyoming hindered them from exploring this alternative. According to the Greater Yellowstone Coalition (1990), this emphasis on state-level concerns outweighed the broader national recovery efforts.
According to The Wilderness Society, only around 3.2 percent (approximately 16 species) out of the 495 listed in 1988 are currently undergoing recovery. Additionally, there are worries that about 3.6 percent (18 listed species) may have already gone extinct. These statistics raise doubts about the act’s effectiveness in achieving its main goals. The General Accounting Office (1992) supports this argument by stating that out of sixteen species removed from the list, five have been successfully recovered, seven are confirmed as extinct, and four have been reclassified due to misinformation.
Two federal audits have evaluated the implementation of the Endangered Species Act (ESA), specifically focusing on the endangered species program of the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). The results showed that there is a lack of centralized information necessary to assess the overall effectiveness of the program. Additionally, many required recovery plans for species have not been developed and approved. Further examination of 16 recovery plans revealed that almost half of the specified tasks remained incomplete, even though these plans had received approval over an average period exceeding four years. FWS officials attributed this issue to limited funding. The inspector general from the Interior department strongly criticized the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, accusing them potentially leading to species extinction (Holden1990).
The destructive impact of human activities has profound implications for various aspects such as biology, ecology, economics, and ethics. It is crucial to recognize that the prosperity of humanity relies on a flourishing biosphere. Although there is increasing awareness regarding the significance and efficacy of measures like the Endangered Species Act in protecting biodiversity, these efforts have not successfully halted or alleviated the intensifying global extinction crisis. The gravity of this problem becomes apparent as numerous species confront the imminent risk of daily extinction.
Despite being considered a global example, the ESA has its shortcomings both in substance and symbolism. The past few years have shown both biological and political trends that highlight the problems with this powerful tool to address the extinction crisis. The promised implementation has not lived up to expectations. The process of protecting species under the ESA is lengthy and complex. Once recognized as needing protection and listed, conservation programs must undergo design, approval, and implementation. Currently, there are around four thousand species in the United States awaiting the basic protections offered by the ESA, with several hundred potentially already extinct, including many plant species. Apart from the listing process, there are numerous steps, activities, and processes involved in ESA implementation. Unfortunately, the rate at which species are going extinct is outpacing the development of effective policy responses to prevent it.
The black footed ferret serves as an illustrative case that exposes issues within the conservation process and shortcomings of traditional methods. The ferret restoration program faced various challenges, further contributing to its infamous reputation among the general public as well as the scientific and conservation communities.
To enhance the policy-making process for biodiversity conservation, it is crucial to openly, honestly, and realistically address the problem. We need to transform our understanding of species preservation into more productive and efficient conservation advancements. In essence, we must revamp the procedure for recovering endangered species.
Literature cited
- 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.
