March 13, 1998

John Seidel

Colorado Division of Wildlife

0214 Prince Drive

Carbondale, CO 81623

Dear Mr. Seidel:

Please accept these comments on the Draft Strategy for the Conservation and Reestablishment of Lynx and Wolverine in the Southern Rocky Mountains hereinafter, "Draft Strategy"). These comments are submitted on behalf of Predator Project, a non-profit conservation group based in Bozeman, Montana, whose mission is to save a place for America’s predators. Predator Project has approximately 1,000 members, some of whom live in Colorado, and all of whom are interested in the conservation and long-term survival of native predators in the American West.

We appreciate being sent a copy of the Draft Strategy, and for the opportunity to comment. Overall, we very much support the goal to conserve and reestablish viable populations of lynx and wolverine in Colorado, and we applaud this Draft Strategy as an important first step. There are a number of areas where we believe the Draft Strategy could be even stronger, and further enhance the probability of succeeding at these efforts, which we describe in the following comments. These comments are not organized in order of importance, but instead they are loosely organized into the order the subjects were presented in the Draft Strategy.

Preface (Draft Strategy, Pp. iii-iv)

There appears to be some potential that lynx and wolverine populations in Colorado may disperse into Utah and Wyoming. We urge you to pursue conservation agreements with representatives from those states to insure that any dispersing animals and their habitat will be adequately protected across these state borders.

There are several references in the Draft Strategy to fact that the lynx and wolverine are both listed for protection under the Colorado Endangered Species Act. Just recently the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) has announced that it will propose listing the lynx for protection under the U.S. Endangered Species Act (ESA) by June 30 of this year. While the Draft Strategy represents an important recovery tool, it is important that it is put forth as a complement – not a substitute – for full protection of lynx under the ESA. Protection under the ESA is the best way to ensure habitat protection for lynx, that we believe is fundamental to its prospects for success. The Draft Strategy concurs, for example in its discussion of "Risks to the Species:"

The habitat protection afforded under the U.S. Endangered Species Act (and not provided by the Colorado ESA) is critical to address this primary threat to both species.

Specific language regarding this issue that should be changed is found in the first paragraph of Page iv of the Draft Strategy (in the Executive Summary):

While we agree in principle with the early adoption and implementation of conservation strategies to conserve species, we believe that in Colorado it is clear that we are well past this point with respect to the survival and recovery of lynx and wolverine, and that full protection of these species under the ESA is a prerequisite to their recovery. Elsewhere in the Draft Strategy it is correctly noted that the goal of this process is recovery first, and then downlisting: e.g.

Executive Summary (Draft Strategy, Pp.vii-x)

The opening paragraph of the Executive Summary correctly states that extinction is a natural process, but fails to emphasize that rates of extinction due to humans has tremendously accelerated the natural extinction rate. Extinction rates during this century have not been matched since the loss of the dinosaurs, and never in history has mass extinction been due to the actions of one species. The discussion also fails to emphasize that to conserve species from extinction is required by several federal and state statutes, including the U.S. Endangered Species Act, the National Forest Management Act, and the Colorado Endangered Species Act, to name a few. We agree with the overall sentiment of the paragraph, such as that expressed in the concluding lines – "We have the knowledge to conserve and reestablish these species. We also have the responsibility." – but we believe it could be made stronger to help convince potential opponents of lynx and wolverine recovery.

We support the combining of lynx and wolverine together in the Draft Strategy, particularly if the "economies of scale" (referred to in Paragraph 1, P. viii) will result in more resources going to the recovery of each species. We believe that it is important to go beyond a "single-species approach" toward protecting entire communities of predators, prey, and the entire systems upon which they all depend. Toward this end, we would encourage similar efforts to recover fisher in Colorado be appended to these efforts, at least for those areas where they are believed to have occupied historically. To the extent that habitat protections and other policies included in the Strategy may affect marten, we would encourage consideration of their needs as well. Marten populations appear to be secure in many areas of Colorado, but many of the factors that led to the decline of lynx, wolverine, and perhaps fisher have the potential to be harmful to marten if not addressed soon.

We disagree with the opening claim that "We can only speculate on the history of lynx/wolverine populations in Colorado" (Paragraph 2, P. viii). Fortunately, this statement is followed by a great deal of information and references to the numerous studies of these species. While it is true that there remains much uncertainty about the ecology and conservation of lynx and wolverine, it also true that we have a good idea of where they still survive and where they do not, and good reasons to understand the differences. Too often, the relative lack of information on the forest carnivores (compared to big game species, for example) is used as an excuse to do nothing to protect them and their habitat. We commend the authors of the Draft Strategy for researching the information they did on the risks to the lynx and wolverine and their habitat needs, and including this in the Draft Strategy. We have not yet reviewed this aspect of the Draft Strategy in detail (e.g., Table 1), but we fully intend to, and we will send the Lynx and Wolverine Action Teams (LAT, WAT) supplemental information as we come across it. For example, Predator Project intends to compile scientific information in response to the proposed listing of the lynx by FWS, and we will forward relevant information to Colorado officials as well.

The Draft Strategy contains little consideration of which specific populations of lynx and wolverine in Canada will provide animals for the translocation effort. This requires attention first to try to match habitat in Canada similar to that in Colorado in order to maximize the prospects for success, and second to help ensure that the impacts on Canada’s source populations will be acceptably low. Unfortunately, these two objective may be at odds, according to the letters found in the Draft Strategy Appendix J. Obtaining lynx from areas in British Columbia and Alberta with similar habitats to Colorado may not be feasible, but this should be pursued if possible.

It appears from the blanks in the Draft Strategy that the numbers of lynx and wolverine to be artificially translocated have not yet been decided, though there is mention in the "Conservation Actions" sections for each species that 100 lynx per year @ 2 years, and 50 wolverine per year @ 2 years have been tentatively proposed. We support the importation of adequate numbers of animals to maximize chances of the recovery effort, but we are concerned that these proposed numbers may be too high both from ecological and logistical points of view. Our concern is that in the absence of careful planning and adequate habitat protection, a large number of Canadian animals may be "dumped" into Colorado with the hope that at least a few will survive and persist. We believe that the negative effects of a high mortality of imported animals would be irresponsible to those animals, may create significant impacts on Colorado ecology, and may ultimately do more harm then good by jeopardizing future translocations of animals into Colorado and elsewhere.

We believe that a task force of ecologists – including specialists in lynx, wolverine, and conservation biology of related species – must convene to decide numbers, time frame, and the best method of the translocations. We believe that sufficient numbers of animals should be translocated to reduce the risk of failure should a high number of those animals not survive, but not so many that there will be excessive competition among the translocated animals, and/or between the Canadian and Colorado wildlife. The proposed translocation is much faster than the speed at which immigration and extinction would typically work in nature, and we are concerned about the associated risk of disrupting the predator/prey balance within the translocation sites. At first glance, to import as many 200 lynx and 100 wolverine into areas where significant populations of these animals have been absent for the past century, and where there remains a great deal of uncertainty as to the prey base and amount of secure habitat, appears to be excessive.

Finally, there was some indication in Appendix J that to import this many animals would be logistically difficult, and may be harmful to source populations:

The Draft Strategy proposes that "designated wilderness areas could form the primary conservation area nuclei" for wolverine recovery (P. ix), but we are concerned that those these areas are "convenient" to manage for wolverine (in that they likely would not require many additional restrictions on human use and developments), but that they may not contain adequate prey or carrion, suitable habitat for denning, or other important components to constitute good habitat for wolverine. Wolverine may already be at a disadvantage in Colorado due to the extirpation of large predators (e.g., grizzly bears and wolves) that help to supply carrion in other areas. Regardless of areas of existing human use and developments, the analysis should first identify the areas where chances to recover wolverine are the most favorable, and then identify options to make these areas secure from people if they are not already. If this does not occur, one likely scenario is that regardless of the human use where they are released, wolverines may quickly travel to areas that contain the most desirable habitat for them. If they and their habitat are not protected from human use in these areas, the prospects for their survival may be dim.

We support the proposed monitoring of the translocated animals following their release. We urge the LAT and WAT to secure the needed funds, and have a comprehensive, peer-reviewed strategy in place prior to any translocations to ensure adequate monitoring.

The proposed budget appears to be realistic and sufficiently large to support the many aspects of a successful restoration strategy for the two species. We applaud contributions to date by Colorado DOW, National Park Service, and Vail Associates, and encourage aggressive efforts to secure the remainder.

We understand that the Draft Strategy is not a decision document, and that habitat protection may constitute the most controversial aspect of the proposed restoration of lynx and wolverine in Colorado, yet this does not lessen the importance of habitat protection for the success of the two efforts. Toward this end, mandatory standards, not discretionary "guidelines" (P. x), must be developed soon and implemented before any animals are released. These standards must be constantly revised and strengthened as new information comes to light from the translocated animals and outside studies. If succeeding drafts of the Draft Strategy remain non-decision documents, perhaps the appropriate place for these standards would be in a separate recovery plan document by FWS, and in consultations with that agency and the land management agencies under Section 7 of the ESA. Unfortunately, since the wolverine will not have the same protected status as the lynx in the foreseeable future, a comprehensive decision document to protect wolverine habitat prior to any translocations must be developed and implemented prior to any proposed translocations into Colorado.