Wildlife and People

Of Mice and Caribou (and Men and Wolves)

Genetic Diversity Is Fool’s Gold and a Foolish Goal

Much ado has been made lately regarding “genetic diversity” in wildlife species. But genetic diversity is, for the most part, a pseudo-scientific concept. Like “cultural diversity” in human societies, genetic diversity is a subjective judgment, not a measurement. It cannot be calibrated and more importantly, genetic diversity has nothing to do with saving species from extinction.

The Endangered Species Act (1973) was promulgated on the assumption that many and various species of plants and animals in the world are going extinct, and the Federal Government had to step in to do something about it. A plethora of dire reports warned of mass extinctions, a loss of “bio-diversity”, and the pending collapse of ecosystems worldwide due to extirpation of the entire “Noah’s Ark” of critters.

Those dire reports continue to this very day (despite 30+ years of worldwide efforts to avert the decimation of Creation). Just one example [here] from a Google search with 6 million hits:

At the present time there are about 5,000 species of animals and more than 25,000 species of plants facing extinction. Some of these are already poised on the brink of completely disappearing and may well be beyond all hope of salvation now whatever attempts might be made to save them. With the human race multiplying at the rate of one million more people every six days; the destruction of tropical rain forests at the frightening rate of 50 acres per minute; and the probable loss of approximately 800 square miles of wild habitat each day to human needs - it is hardly surprising that there are so many endangered species of animals and plants.

The howling about Mass Extinctions was and is deafening, but there is very little actual truth behind the cacophony. As of 2006, of the nearly 2,000 species of plants and animals listed under the ESA, only 9 have gone extinct and some of those were arguably extinct prior to listing. That is, after 30+ years of Mass Extinction dire warnings, it turns out that less than half of one percent of the MOST endangered species have disappeared.

That is hardly a crisis. In fact, extinction is a natural process and has been happening for hundreds of millions of years, as has been evolution and new speciation.

The ESA has spawned a massive bureaucracy however, and given rise to dozens of new species of government functionaries, regulations, taxes, takings, exactions, and entirely new branch of law, and courts, lawyers, judges, and advocates, as well as inflicting economic hardships nationally and worldwide. And contrary to the best intentions, “implementation” of the ESA has damaged ecosystems and extirpated species via “scientific” research.

Yes, sports fans. Researchers have been killing off entire species. Nest robbing, mist netting, bleeding creatures, and outright “collection” of entire populations has and continues to occur.

Museum warehouses, such as those owned by the Smithsonian, are filled with vats, jars, shelves, and drawers of dead animals, pinned, embalmed, or formaldehyded, of now extinct species. Buffalo Bill may have shot a lot of bison for their hides, but at least those robes were used for something. The deathly Smithsonian warehouses are morgues of uselessness. There is no cataloging or curating of the millions of “specimens”.

Those sordid tales are too many to relate in this essay. Our purpose herein is to examine the perversion of the ESA. There has been no Mass Extinction, a troubling defect of prediction which has pushed all the new species of functionaries, bureaucrats, lawyers, etc. to justify their own existence somehow. The solution has been to invent new animal species that never existed before, and to perpetuate the dire reports of extinction based on novel (and imaginary) new critters.

A Plethora of New “Species”

Q: When is a species not a species?

A: When it’s a sub-species.

Since regular, recognized species are not actually going extinct, the apparatchiks (agents of the apparatus) who make their livings playing the ESA game have invented a whole new world of partial subsets of species to get all exercised about (and to keep the gravy flowing).

These include: subspecies, evolutionarily significant units (ESU’s), evolutionary units, management units, metapopulations, distinct population segments (DPS’s), experimental populations, subpopulations, ecotypes, stocks, substocks, herds, pools, and gaggles (well, maybe not gaggles, but who knows when that will happen?). As Dr. Matthew Cronin points out in A Proposal to Eliminate Redundant Terminology for Intra-Species Groups [here]:

Recently, there has been a proliferation of terms used to describe groups of animals below the species level. For example, Wells and Richmond (1995) identified more than 30 terms used to describe groups generally referring to populations. They also discussed the problems with scientific communication associated with such extensive and redundant terminology.

The main problem is that the the designations are subjective. There are no definitive biological distinctions that can be scientifically tested or proved. “Species” itself defies definition. From Cronin (Ibid):

Biological species are groups of interbreeding natural populations that are reproductively isolated from other such groups (Mayr 1963). Other species concepts are potentially useful (e.g., phylogenetic species, genetic species, Avise 1994, 2000, NRC 1995, Baker et al. 2003), but they are beyond the scope of this discussion. Identification of species with any of these concepts is not always definitive because of uncertainties about reproductive compatibility in natural populations, morphologically similar sibling species, and unknown phylogenetic relationships. However for most wildlife management applications, identification of species is not a problem compared to identification of intra-species groups. …

Subspecies are almost entirely subjective, which is handy for the purveyors of doom and gloom. By subdividing species into little packets, each existing in its own little universe, the number of “endangered” groupings multiply.

For instance, six species of Pacific salmon (Oncorhynchus sp.) have been reclassified as 52 “evolutionarily significant units” with each one treated, under the ESA, as an entire “species” worthy of regulatory “protection” [here]. It does not matter that the six species are by themselves in no way endangered. Pacific salmon have been around for millions of years and weathered Ice Ages, oceanic oscillations, flood basalt eruptions, continental drift and collisions, etc. Salmon have shown the ability to switch spawning streams when necessary, such as when the Toutle River was flooded with sediments from Mt. Saint Helens eruptions. Salmon are adaptable; they have to be or they would have gone extinct ages ago. But that fact tends to undermine the giant salmon bureaucracy that has sprouted like a bad weed and threatens to choke the life out of the economy.

Breeding Like Rodents

Or take the common meadow jumping mouse. From the SOS Forests essay of Nov., 2007 [here]:

The Meadow Jumping Mouse (Zapus hudsonius) is a cute little rodent distinguished by a long tapering tail, large hind feet, small front feet, and a propensity to hop erratically through the grass when disturbed. Sometimes called a kangaroo mouse, Zapus hudsonius is native and common to North America and Asia, frequenting hayfields and wheat farms as well as native grasslands. Billions of the little critters live in perfect harmony with graziers and agriculturalists across two continents.

… Meadow jumping mice may be found throughout northern North America. They are found from the Atlantic Coast to the Great Plains in the United States, northward throughout the northeastern and northcentral states to the arctic tree-line of Alaska and Canada, and as far south as Georgia, Alabama, Arizona, and New Mexico. They have the widest known distribution of mice in the subfamily Zapodinae.

It might then come as some surprise to you sports fans to learn that the meadow jumping mouse has been listed as a Threatened Species under the Endangered Species Act. Not every meadow jumping mouse was listed, just the Preble’s Mouse (Zapus hudsonius preblei). The Preble’s MJM are a sub-species, allegedly.

There has been a lot of taxonomy done on Zapus. Here are just a few of the species and sub-species alleged to exist today:

Z. trinotatus orarius · Z. burti · Z. hudsonicus · Z. hudsonicus acadicus · Z. hudsonius (Jumping Mouse) · Z. hudsonius acadicus · Z. hudsonius alascensis (Alaska Jumping Mouse) · Z. hudsonius alscensis · Z. hudsonius americanus · Z. hudsonius campestris · Z. hudsonius canadensis · Z. hudsonius hardyi · Z. hudsonius hodsonius · Z. hudsonius hudsonicus · Z. hudsonius hudsonius · Z. hudsonius hudsonsius · Z. hudsonius intermedius · Z. hudsonius ladas · Z. hudsonius luteus (Meadow Jumping Mouse) · Z. hudsonius pallidus · Z. hudsonius preblei (Preble’s Meadow Jumping Mouse) · Z. hudsonius tenellus · Z. insignis · Z. orarius · Z. princeps (Pacific Jumping Mouse) · Z. princeps chrysogenys · Z. princeps cinereus · Z. princeps curtatus · Z. princeps idahoensis · Z. princeps kootenayensis · Z. princeps kootenayonsis · Z. princeps kootnayensis · Z. princeps luteus · Z. princeps major · Z. princeps minor · Z. princeps oreganus · Z. princeps oregonus (Big Jumping Mouse) · Z. princeps pacificus · Z. princeps palatinus · Z. princeps princeps (Western Jumping Mouse)

Is there really any difference between these subspecies? Subjectively, I suppose so. It’s all in the eye of the beholder, and when the beholder is a government functionary whose job depends on harum-scarum extinction tales, that beholder is wont to see a new species under every rock, or in each and every field as the case might be.

But scientifically, no. There does not seem to be any significant differences, even genetically. The science of genetics has come a long way since Gregor Mendel grew peas. We now can parse DNA in fractionating spectroscopes. But even with modern technology, we cannot detect any substantial, definitive, genetic differences in jumping mice.

Dr. Matthew Cronin, PhD., is Research Associate Professor of Animal Genetics, School of Natural Resources and Agricultural Sciences, University of Alaska Fairbanks (and a member of the Alaska Board of Forestry). He authored another article posted at the W.I.S.E. Colloquium: Wildlife Sciences entitled The Preble’s meadow jumping mouse: subjective subspecies, advocacy and management [here]. Some quotes:

Designation of subspecies status is inherently subjective and this should be openly admitted by both sides of the debate. …

Briefly, the Preble’s mouse was designated a subspecies with limited descriptive morphological data. There are no diagnostic characters that unequivocally distinguish it from conspecifics. It does not have monophyletic mitochondrial DNA. It may be geographically isolated from, and have different allele frequencies than, con-specific populations. Sample sizes and locations studied are probably small relative to population numbers. The allele frequency differences are for DNA loci that are usually considered selectively neutral. There are no data documenting local adaptation, but it is possible. Given the lack of quantitative criteria for naming subspecies the Preble’s mouse could be considered a legitimate subspecies, or not a legitimate subspecies. My concerns center on the lack of appreciation of the subjectivity of subspecies and on misunderstanding of the nature of advocacy and management in the context of the Preble’s mouse.

“Limited descriptive morphological data” means somebody said Preble’s mice look different than other meadow jumping mice, in their subjective opinion. That’s all it takes to invoke the Endangered Species Act and set in motion property takings, bans on agriculture, economic hardships, and a fleet of agencies, functionaries, lawyers, pseudo-scientific advocates, legislatures, and all the accouterments of the ESA Apparatus.

It does not matter what the DNA mapping shows, not in the case of meadow jumping mice. Genetics is a tool, or more properly a weapon, to be used to further political agendas. And woe be to the targeted farmer whose property unfortunately lies in path of the ESA juggernaut.

An Aside On the Human Species

While the common practice of subdividing species into morphological (and quasi-genetic) subgroups is all the rage in wildlife biology, there is a taboo against applying the concept to Homo sapiens. We are one species and interbreed with shocking impunity. There are no recognized subspecies of Man.

There are recognized Races of Man, however. “Race” is a concept in disfavor among biologists. Paul Erlich, quoted by Cronin in A Proposal to Eliminate Redundant Terminology for Intra-Species Groups, wrote:

As is the case with other species, geographic variation in human beings does not allow Homo sapiens to be divided into natural evolutionary units. That basic point… has subsequently been demonstrated in a variety of organisms… and use of the subspecies (or race) concept has essentially disappeared from the mainstream evolutionary literature.

The General Public has not quite caught up with the latest in biology, though. Race is a very popular way to subdivide humanity. And just like subspecies subjectivity, the concept of race in Homo sapiens has no definitive science behind it.

Example — my elementary social studies text of 50 years ago taught that there are five races: Caucasoid, Mongoloid, Negroid, Amerind, and Australian Aborigine. That subsetting was handy for color-coding: white, yellow, brown, red, and black. Nowadays there are a few others mixed in, such as Melanesian (Pacific Islander), whom I suppose are ocher or ecru.

That list is extremely truncated compared to the lists cooked up by German Nazi demographers, who recognized over 140 Races of Man, including Eastern Lapp, Western Lapp, Irish Celtic, Pomeranian, and of course, Teutonic.

As ridiculous as those schemes are, due to thousands of years of unremitting interbreeding (among other factors), and the latter “science” ultimately resulting in the most horrific inhumanity ever perpetrated by humanity, the propensity of the General Public to cling to horrifically ridiculous and unscientific concepts continues unabated. We are, as a species, quite stupid and savage, despite our claim to superior intelligence.

Caribou Games

Erlich’s denial notwithstanding, the use of the subspecies concept is alive and well in mainstream wildlife biology literature, and especially in the Apparatus of the Endangered Species Act. Caribou, for instance, are a species of critter that have been subdivided into subspecies and further into herds.

The remarkably intelligent Dr. Cronin (an exception to the above mentioned general rule) performed a genetic study of 11 herds of 3 caribou subspecies (also posted at the W.I.S.E. Colloquium: Wildlife Sciences) entitled Variation In Mitochondrial DNA and Microsatellite DNA in Caribou (Rangifer Tarandus) in North America [here].

He found that the alleles have migrated along with the herds. Genetically speaking, caribou mess around. The hanky panky has even resulted in DNA markers from European reindeer showing up in “pure” North American Rangifer. Caribou have libidos and lack the (alleged) morals of Victorian society. Whoda thunk it?

The (previously) common thinking regarding caribou is that they are “true to their herd,” herds being defined by calving grounds. However, Cronin’s genetic study demonstrated (scientifically) that caribou are not faithful to subspecies or herd.

Indeed, the concept of a caribou “herd” is a bogus one. That does not stop the ESA folks from invoking it, though.

The compelling testimony of Canadian outfitter John Andre tells the sorry story of corrupt (worse than junk) wildlife biology regarding the Bathurst Caribou herd. His PowerPoint presentation, Caribou Numbers in the NWT — The Outfitter’s Battle, is excerpted and linked [here].

The Bathurst Herd was originally defined by the calving ground, where the caribou were counted in irregular years by Canadian wildlife biologists, (government functionaries). But the caribou in the Bathhurst Herd had not gotten the memo and swapped around calving grounds. Other herds moved in, too, and there was little fidelity to any herd’s drop spot.

In 1986 the Bathurst Herd was estimated to be 476,000 animals. In 2006 the count was 128,000. Horrors of horrors, the caribou were going extinct! But as Andre points out, according to traditional Aboriginal knowledge, there is only one great herd of caribou. Much of the Bathhurst caribou simply had moved elsewhere to calve. Moreover, the herds had intermixed and separated again, so that there was no way to tell which animals were originally in what herd.

Caribou numbers had apparently not declined, and if they had (impossible to tell from the data), it was due to wolf predation.

That did not stop Greenpeace and other advocates from shutting down caribou hunts, due to the pending extinction, which was not real but an artifact of bad data. And the Canadian wildlife agencies went along with Greenpeace, not because they believed in their own data but because it was all part of an extortion scheme aimed at oil shale companies.

Deep pockets are there to be robbed, and phony wildlife biology is the weapon of choice. Outfitters like Andre were merely collateral damage. Caribou hunters harvest a very tiny percentage of the Great Herd, far less than wolves, for instance:

Wolves are the number one cause of calf mortality in the caribou herds. ENR biologist Ann Gunn stated that 60-80 percent of calf mortality (of calves born alive) was due to wolf predation. There is plenty of wolf science out there, along with wolf population estimates, but none of it is that great. I think most scientists could agree that wolves eat 25-35 caribou a year, some say as many as the biomass equivalent of 60. Wolf population estimates in the NWT run from 1500 to 10,000. Taking a low number, say 2000, this gives us a wolf predation range of between 50,000 and 70,000. This does not, of course, count caribou killed and not eaten, a phenomenon that is well documented. Looking at the higher range, wolves could be taking upwards of 250,000 a year. The truth is, scientists just don’t know. What we do have is significant anecdotal evidence of wolf predation and its affect on caribou herds. In the 1980s, the State of Alaska stopped aerial gunning for wolves. By the 1990s, caribou and moose populations had plummeted. Similarly, wolf controls in British Columbia were ended, and the Mountain Caribou population crashed. Here in the Northwest Territories, there was a significant wolf harvest in 1980, and from that point to 2006, the caribou flourished. If the government caribou population trends start to show loss of calf recruitment, then increased wolf harvesting should be, in our opinion, the primary management tool used to reverse that trend. With overall hunter harvest of 5700, according to the ENR, and wolf harvest between 50,000 and 250,000, the most beneficial management action for the caribou is fairly obvious.

Wolf Genetics

Of interest recently is “genetic diversity” in wolves, but as with jumping mice and caribou, the “science” part of the question has been completely ignored.

Wolf populations in the Northern Rockies are growing anywhere from 25 to 50 percent per year. There already are thousands of wolves in Wyoming, Montana, and Idaho, and breeding pairs have spread to Washington and Oregon. They are decimating deer and elk herds and attacking sheep, cattle, horses, pets and other domestic animals.

They are introduced Canadian wolves, too, not native. The federal government dumped them there. Now they are multiplying like dogs. They are manifestly not endangered, but are endangering other life forms. They are terrorizing rural residents. Wolves carry rabies and a variety of other diseases. They kill for sport on killing sprees, not for food, evidenced by the fact that wolves take a bite or two from their dead (or almost dead) prey and move on.

Due to the overabundance of Canadian wolves in the US Rocky Mountains, the US Fish and Wildlife Service sought to delist them, that is, to remove the RM wolves from the Endangered Species List.

The usual apparatchiks sued, not because the wolves were endangered, as they manifestly are not, but because the ESA Apparatus was challenged, along with the gravy train. Although pressed by the states involved, the USFWS biologists also saw their house of cards quivering and submitted a weak and equivocal defense.

Thankfully, from the point of view of the apparatchiks, and tragically, from the point of view of everybody else, last June U.S. District Judge Donald Molloy granted a preliminary injunction, throwing out the delisting of gray wolves in the Northern Rockies and putting them back on the Endangered Species list.

Judge Molloy stated in his opinion, discussed [here]:

As recently as 2002, the Service determined genetic exchange between wolves in the Greater Yellowstone, northwestern Montana, and central Idaho core recovery areas was necessary to maintain a viable northern Rocky Mountain wolf population in the face of environmental variability and stochastic events. The Fish & Wildlife Service nevertheless delisted the wolf without any evidence of genetic exchange between wolves in the Greater Yellowstone core recovery area and the other two core recovery areas.

And thus genetics were thrust into the wolf debate. There was (and is) no scientific basis for the Judge’s perceived desire for “genetic exchange” between wolf “populations”. The wolves are not in danger of becoming extinct, and there is no evidence that the artificial subgroups (populations) are genetically isolated. Indeed, they are all heirs to the same genes, that of hundreds of thousands of Canadian wolves in Canada, which are also not endangered.

Wolves are not rare. The species is not endangered. Nobody, not even the apparatchiks, make that claim. The species is well-established around the world and has been expanding in recent decades. Only by subjectively (and politically) demarking subspecies (based on zero genetic evidence) can any grouping of wolves be said to be “threatened.” And even then there is no evidence, since Rocky Mountain wolf numbers are growing in leaps and bounds.

Moreover, “genetic exchange” is not necessarily a good thing for wolves. The reason is that wolves tend to mess around (even worse than caribou; they are dogs after all). Wolves breed like dogs, and with dogs, coyotes, and everything else dog-like. Genetic purity can only be maintained within limited populations. When wolves are allowed to roam all over, their genotype gets polluted with non-wolf genes.

They sire wolf-dogs, like in New Mexico, or wolf-otes, like in Minnesota.

Yes, sports fans. On the rare occasions when actual genetic analyses have been done, it turns out that many wolves are not pure wolves at all. The animals are hybrids. Inter-specific breeding happens, and the pups are something altogether different.

Needless to say, genetic analysis of wolves is not done often. The findings tend to undermine the Apparatus. The ESA was not written to protect hybrids. For that matter, it was not written to protect arbitrary and imaginary subspecies, either, although the legal arm of the ESA Apparatus has managed to infuse the law with subspecies, evolutionarily significant units (ESU’s), evolutionary units, management units, metapopulations, distinct population segments (DPS’s), experimental populations, subpopulations, ecotypes, stocks, substocks, herds, pools, gaggles, etc. But not hybrids.

Hence Judge Molloy’s “requirement” is actually counter-productive (vis a vis protecting the species) as well as ungrounded in anything resembling science.

That has not deterred the USFWS, which can only be described as science-lite. In December the USFWS issued an order reinstating RM wolves on the Endangered Species List [here]. And true to form, they declared some subgroupings of wolves endangered, some threatened, and some as “nonessential experimental populations.” The species is not endangered, but subgroupings, if defined small enough, can be misconceived as endangered, although there is no evidence of that, and in fact all the evidence indicates that even the smallest of wolf subgroupings are doing fine, reproduction-wise.

The USFWS also provided in their order that wolves (outside the nonessential experimental populations) may be “captured for examination and genetic testing by the Service or Service designated agency.” They also provided:

If the animal is determined not to be a wild gray wolf or if the Service or agencies designated by the Service determine the animal shows physical or behavioral evidence of hybridization with other canids, such as domestic dogs or coyotes, or of being an animal raised in captivity, it will be returned to captivity or killed.

Aha! Finally a breakthrough. It seems that frequent harassment by blogs such as this one regarding the scientific bogosity of wolf genetics to date is finally creeping into the USFWS consciousness. Judge Molloy’s decision was roundly criticized here and in the background of wildlife biology emails for exactly his ignorance regarding wolf “genetic exchange.” Should wolves exchange genes with non-wolves, and they do and will, then the offspring will be dispatched. Furthermore, should a citizen shoot a wolf, and analysis of the carcass proves that the animal was something other than pure wolf, no charges will be filed under the ESA, or at least, an iron-clad defense will be established.

It is interesting to note that whenever US wolves outside the Rocky Mountains have been genetically analyzed, findings of genetic impurity are the rule, not the exception. They are wolf-dogs and wolf-otes, as we noted above. Judge Molloy’s decision, heralded by ESA apparatchiks, has created an ominous backfire choke point for the ESA gravy train.

The Death of DPS

Last September Federal Judge Paul L. Friedman ruled (in a case about Great Lake wolves) that distinct population segments (DPS’s) are meaningless things [here]. To be sure, the eco-babble phrase “distinct population segment” occurs in the legal verbiage of the ESA. But Friedman called the ESA DPS verbiage “ambiguous” and implied that it has not been and cannot be interpreted:

The DPS Policy does not qualify as a construction to which this Court can defer because the DPS Policy does not directly address the interpretive issue before the Court. The purpose of the DPS Policy is to clarify the meaning of the term “distinct population segment” and to set forth criteria for deciding whether a sub-population should be designated as a DPS. It does not address the propriety of simultaneously designating and delisting a DPS within a broader listing, and the Court finds both parties’ arguments to the contrary strained and unpersuasive.

The DPS Policy is designed around one of those arbitrary and subjective species subgroupings that have been the meat and potatoes of the ESA Apparatus. Friedman’s decision was based on legal wording, not on genetics. Indeed, Great Lakes wolf DNA has been shown to be tainted with coyote genes. The ruling called DPS designation into question regarding delisting only.

However, if the DPS Policy cannot be used to simultaneously designate and delist, it also cannot be used to simultaneously designate and list. That juris-logical knife cuts both ways.

Judge Friedman’s ruling has not been tested in other cases, but it will be. If it stands, and if it is expanded into actual questions of genetic purity and or genetic diversity, then the ESA Apparatus will falter in hundreds of subspecies designations. The Preble’s mouse is a prime example. The basis for listing a subspecies of mouse that is not really a subspecies is weak, scientifically as well as legally.

It is interesting to note that the USFWS order relisting Rocky Mountain wolves did away with the the old DPS designations. There is now just one population of wolves from Minnesota to Oregon (excluding the “nonessential experimental population” that covers most of Idaho, most of Montana, and all of Wyoming). Based on Molloy’s ruling those wolves are again listed as “endangered.” But they are not, in actual fact.

Can the USFWS Get Any Dumber?

Furthermore, no genetic testing is foreseen in the designated nonessential experimental population. That means the genetics of wolves in most of Idaho, most of Montana, and all of Wyoming are to remain a big mystery, The USFWS deliberately does not want to know whether those wolves are really wolves, or whether their pups are really wolves, or anything regarding their genetic drift. It will thus be difficult to tell whether they are exchanging genes (and with what), as ordered by Judge Molloy.

USFWS science-lite has morphed into science-blind in most of Idaho, most of Montana, and all of Wyoming, thanks to Judge Molloy. Hear no evil, see no evil, do no genetic tests for evil.

The Apparatus is fighting back. They will bury their heads in the sand, and leave them there, until some force jerks them out and the light is shined in their eyes.