This mouse, which makes its home along pristine streamsides in the foothills of Colorado and southern Wyoming, has been embroiled in so much controversy it could write its own screenplay.  First, there was the political appointee, Julie MacDonald, who tampered with a whole slew of endangered species decisions over the years including slashing the amount of critical habitat assigned for the Preble mouse’s recovery.  Then there was the genetic study touted by the state of Wyoming, which claimed the Preble's mouse wasn't really a Preble's mouse, but a common jumping mouse found across the plain states of the US.  Followed by a second genetic study that concluded the opposite- that yes, the Preble's mouse is a unique subspecies.  An independent scientific panel was brought in to assess the situation only to discover that the first genetic study was based on contaminated samples - sloppy science at best.  Case closed. No reason to remove protections from this threatened mouse.

But wait, there’s more.  Last year, another Bush appointee, the Solicitor for the Department of Interior – hailing from the state of Colorado, issued a memo that would allow piecemeal protections for endangered species.  The new policy, which is not subject to public review or congressional oversight, effectively changes how 35 years worth of endangered species protections would apply.  And soon after, the Fish and Wildlife Service uses this policy to lift endangered species protections for Preble’s meadow jumping mice in Wyoming, while keeping them listed in Colorado.  If they couldn’t find a way to achieve their ultimate goal of removing full protections from this mouse, they settled for the next best thing in what appears to be a political favor to the state of Wyoming.

But this isn't just about the mouse. This new policy has the potential to undo protections for every species now on the endangered species list and limit protections for imperiled wildlife in the future. That is why today NRDC has joined with partner organizations to challenge the policy and its application to the Preble's meadow jumping mouse. Unless this policy is reversed, the mouse's long tale of habitat loss and diminished protections will be just the beginning of the story for the rest of our endangered wildlife.

He wrote a letter to the Bush administration asking them to keep protecting the wolves and got almost 170 signatures from kids, teachers and parents at his school.  Keenly seeing beyond the rhetoric, Ben implores in his letter, “Please don’t let the fairy tales about wolves being mean make you think they are our enemies.”

I’m preparing to send a letter back to Ben thanking him for his efforts.  And I’m glad that I can tell him that for now a federal judge has reinstated protections for the Rocky Mountain wolves. 

But Ben’s letter raises another sharp point.  Our children these days are not afraid of wolves – they’re afraid there may not be wolves and other majestic wildlife around when they grow up.  And that story is enough to scare anybody.

It may be too obvious to point out that the mice don’t know which state they are in.  Now they can switch from being protected to not being protected all in a day’s work just by crossing an invisible (but highly political) line.  More importantly, if a species is facing endangerment or extinction in one area, but fairing ok in another area wouldn’t you want to protect both areas to ensure the continued survival of the species?  The populations that are doing well may be all that’s left if the other populations go extinct.  And by not protecting the ones that are doing well, you are only further endangering their survival and therefore the future of the entire species.  

For example, one of the biggest threats to the Preble’s mouse is real estate development along the Front Range of the Rocky Mountains from just south of Denver north into Wyoming.  With today’s decision there is nothing to stop developers from moving their plans north into Preble’s habitat in Wyoming and then there would be nothing to protect the mice in Wyoming from facing the same threats they have been facing in Colorado. 

The use of state lines to delineate protection for these mice just highlights the political nature of this decision.  The state of Wyoming has been angling to delist the mouse for years including supporting a genetic study that was based on contaminated samples.  For now, they’ve gotten their wish.  But this kind of decision-making opens the door to arbitrarily assign piecemeal protections to any endangered species according to the Service’s whims.

In fact, this decision is so flawed and illogical – as one scientist put it – it chases its own tail.  Ironically, the Preble’s meadow jumping mouse is known for using its tail - much like a rudder - to change its direction in mid jump.  We plan to challenge this decision in the hopes that we can steer endangered species protection for this mouse - and other endangered wildlife - back on course.

In response, some are characterizing our actions as another needless lawsuit by unreasonable environmentalists.  Citing the US Fish and Wildlife Service’s recovery goals of 300 wolves, the states claim that the wolves are more than recovered with numbers around 1500.  What they don’t acknowledge is that those goals were set over twenty years ago when we knew much less about the biological requirements of many species including wolves.  

It turns out that the current numbers are much closer to what is necessary for a recovered population.  Scientific advancements in the last two decades tell us that we need to maintain an interconnected population of 2000-5000 wolves.  We are almost there, but the state plans would turn things back. 

Another recent scientific finding is that the wolves in Yellowstone have been genetically isolated from all other wolves in the region since the time of their reintroduction thirteen years ago.  While the wolves have otherwise thrived in their new environment - returning ecological balance to one of our country’s most iconic national parks – they cannot survive in the long run without an established connection to large numbers of other wolves in the region.

Researchers have found that if the Yellowstone wolves remain isolated, their population could suffer from genetic defects such as physical deformities and population decline in as little as 60 years.  This means that my son, a toddler now, could see the wolves in Yellowstone headed once again to extinction in his lifetime – and that’s if we keep the numbers where they are right now at 1500. 

The state plans, which are based on the US Fish and Wildlife Service’s 20 year old recovery goals of 300 wolves, would allow these numbers to be significantly decreased thereby magnifying the isolation of wolves and speeding up the time to the population’s demise.  We’d like to see these plans changed to ensure a truly recovered, self-sustaining population of wolves.  I, personally, want my son to be able to witness the beauty and wonder of the natural world when he grows up rather than inheriting the burden of our mistakes for his generation to face.  Call me unreasonable.