For my main website, I’ve been working for, well, years in getting individual species pages created for all ~980 species that have been found in North America. I only have like 70 left to make, and just added a new one for the Golden-cheeked Warbler. They’re kind of a “holy grail” type bird for some birders, given the fact that they’re considered an endangered species, and are only found in a very tiny breeding range in the oak-juniper woodlands of central Texas. While making the species page, I came across an all-too-typical story from the New York Times.
The Golden-cheeked Warbler is the only species that nests only in Texas. They have a very unique, specific requirement for breeding…they simply must have the long, stringy bark from an Ashe Juniper tree for building their nests. Not just any juniper tree will do, it has to be a relatively old Ashe Juniper for the bark to be usable by Golden-cheeked Warblers. The mixed oak-juniper woodlands where Ashe Juniper is found covers a relatively small area in Texas. The species only has been found to nest in 33 counties in Texas, covering an area that is likely less than 350 square kilometers. Some of it is pretty rugged country, but like pretty much every other location on the planet, it’s an area that’s impacted by a human presence.
During the twentieth century, substantial areas of habitat were cleared in the Golden-cheeked Warbler’s breeding range. Simple residential and urban development was one cause of habitat loss, with residences, businesses, roads, and energy development all carving up parts of their range. Agricultural land use also caused substantial habitat loss, with forests and woodlands being converted to open grazing lands. The direct loss of Ashe Juniper directly affects the species’ ability to nest, but it’s more than the loss of their favorite nesting material tree. Habitat fragmentation and the creation of more “edge” habitat opens up woodlands and forest to a much higher presence of Brown-headed Cowbirds. As with many songbird species, cowbirds lay eggs in the nests of Golden-cheeked Warblers, with the warblers thus ending up raising cowbirds rather than raising their own young.
With such a small range and with declining numbers, the Golden-cheeked Warbler was an obvious candidate for the listing under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). They’ve been listed as endangered for more than 25 years (they were first listed in 1990), thanks to scientific studies that count the prevalence of the birds, and weigh the relative threats to well-being of the species in the future. There’s no doubt the endangered status has benefited Golden-cheeked Warblers. In the U.S. part of its range, several areas are protected and managed for Golden-cheeked Warbler habitat and breeding. Brown-headed Cowbird trapping programs are in place to reduce the impact on Golden-cheeked Warblers. Restrictions on land use and land-use conversion are in place to protect the remaining areas of highly suitable breeding habitat. Threats to the species extend outside of the U.S. as well, with loss of habitat also a problem on the breeding grounds in Central America, yet protective programs are in place there as well.
The protections may have slowed the rate of habitat loss in the United States, but despite that, the species has continued a slow decline. The bustling urban centers of Austin and San Antonio lie adjacent to their primary breeding habitat, as does Fort Hood, one of the largest military installations in the world. Despite the obvious scientific evidence backing the need for protection of this unique species, the New York Times story gives a great summary of the political and economic pressures that are pushing back against conservation efforts for the bird. Real estate and energy developers are powerful lobbyists that are pushing against the endangered status for the birds. As the New York Times story notes, representatives from those groups, people who have a vested economic interest in land use in the region, state that “bad science” was used in designating the species as endangered. As a result, a petition is currently being pushed by these groups to delist the species.
Mind you, none of these representatives of the petition are actually scientists! Oh no, it’s very much like the battle over climate change, where people who know absolutely nothing about the scientific issue itself will speak of “bad science” in a vague, general sense. There are no specifics, no hard-core evidence backing the claim that the species is doing well enough to be delisted. Their claims all have a basis in economics, as removing the species from the ESA makes it much easier to exploit the landscape for real estate and energy development. Another powerful agent that would prefer the species be delisted is the U.S. military. Fort Hood lies in the heart of the breeding range of the Golden-cheeked Warbler, and has a very large area of prime breeding habitat within the installation. The New York Times piece outlines some of the restrictions placed on military training activities on the base due to the ESA listing. A key line from the New York Times piece that pretty much sums up ALL of these kinds of cases where economic powers but heads with endangered species:
Mr. Perry (director of mission support) said Fort Hood nevertheless supported delisting because the installation pays hundreds of thousands of dollars to comply with the act, including funding a biological assessment every five years.
Note there’s absolutely nothing in his statement about the bird itself. There’s absolutely nothing in his statement about conservation concerns. No, the one and only focus is the fact that the installation ends up paying “hundreds of thousands of dollars” to comply with listing of the species.
Money. And political power. The story also notes some of the other big names in Texas politics who have supported the de-listing, including the Bush family. That’s what proponents of keeping the Golden-cheeked Warbler listed are up against.
What does the science say? The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service completed a five-year review of the species, with a report released two years ago that state the species still needed to be listed as endangered due to ongoing threats to its habitat, and threat of extinction. Given that ESA is theoretically driven by scientific assessments such as this, you’d think that would be the end of the argument. You’d think those petitioning for delisting would have little chance of success.
You’d be wrong. ESA has always been a political football, most often when economic interests butt heads with local land-use or other restrictions, but also sometimes simply for the ideological battle of “conservation” vs. “economics”. The Golden-cheeked Warbler’s protected status is just one example of many across the United States where similar battles are being fought. In a world where “science” has somehow become a negative term for many in the U.S. in recent years, it’s just one more case where short-term greed and selfishness are pushing up (and often winning) against conservationists and environmentalists.