NRDC: Mission to Protect
Q&A with Andrew Wetzler, co-director of NRDC’s land and wildlife program and an expert on the Endangered Species Act.
Congress recently asserted that it has the right to make decisions about listing endangered species -- in this instance, wolves -- rather than leaving the matter to scientific experts.
It’s not easy to defend against that kind of attack. High-profile species such as wolves tend to be controversial, and unknown species tend to have few champions. But there is hope. Recently, the House of Representatives rejected a proposal that would have prevented the federal government from spending any money to place new species on the endangered species list. Both Democrats and Republicans voted to kill the measure.
Given that there are thousands of species at risk, how do you determine which ones are priorities?
NRDC tries to focus on those species that leverage the greatest environmental gains, either because they are incredibly important to the healthy functioning of the ecosystems in which they are found, or because they are an indicator of overall environmental health -- like the canary in the coal mine. Sometimes we also focus on a species that may allow us to help shape laws and policies that affect all wildlife.
Given the importance of scientific data in making a listing decision, what happens when you know the risk is real but the data are incomplete?
One of the best things about the Endangered Species Act is that it makes very clear that listing decisions are to be made solely on the basis of the best available science. The act goes out of its way to be clear that economic considerations are not to be used. The use of the word available is also important. The act doesn’t demand perfection -- just that we make the best decision we can based on the information currently available, even if that information is incomplete.
How big a role have recent advances in genetics played in listing decisions?
Genetics has quickly become one of the most important and influential tools we have. Usually questions of genetics come up in the context of whether a particular population truly qualifies as a species, a subspecies, or a "distinct population" -- the three categories that can be protected under the act. We’re very lucky to have a geneticist and evolutionary biologist on staff, Sylvia Fallon, to help us sort through those issues (see "NRDC: Science and Politics," OnEarth, Fall 2011).