Dear editor:

I am a retired USDA Forest Service wildlife biologist. I spent a majority of my career  adhering to and supporting the tenets of the Endangered Species Act (1973), the National Environmental Policy Act (1969) and the National Forest Management Act (1976). ALL these laws were established to evaluate actions to species and the environment and guide the maintenance, protection and enhancement of the environment and the species that inhabit federal land.

Under the Endangered Species Act, there are currently over 1,900 species listed as threatened or endangered in the Untied States. Were it not for the mandates of ESA, we would not have the privilege to continue to see bald eagles in our very neighborhood, grizzly bears around Yellowstone National Park or witness the recovery efforts of Wyoming’s own black-footed ferret. 

When a species is added to the list under ESA, the life history and habitat requirements of that species are evaluated, guarded and preserved. When habitat is maintained for a listed species the benefits of doing so are utilized by many other species.

Many species have been added to the threatened or endangered list since ESA was enacted in 1973. WHY do you think that is? I submit that us humans are having a continuous and greater impact on habitat and the species that depend upon it.

Consider the decline of the sage grouse in all western states, including Wyoming. WHY? In spite of all the management plans, best management practices and other methods tried to keep the population of sage grouse stable, let alone increasing, the 40% decline over the last 20 plus years continues. It seems obvious to me that we are not doing all that is necessary to improve the habitat and prevent further decline of sage grouse over the long term. Now adding to declining habitat and populations, the latest threat to sage grouse could very well be bird flu. Bird flu is a disease largely unknown a few years ago with no method of control or eradication in the wild. What cummulative effect will the disease have long term on an already reduced and vulnerable population of sage grouse. Will it be the tipping point that causes the species to wink out? The Endangered Species Act was put in place to prevent the extinction of species and “regrow” the population and maintain the habitat of a listed species. The ESA should not be “mucked with,” but rather fully funded so it can do the work it was designed to do. 

Federal land and all the species that use it and depend on it, including us humans, belong to all of us residents of the United States, not just those of us who live in Wyoming. Birds and mammals don’t recognize “man delineated” boundaries, state lines or other. What happens in Wyoming ecosystems doesn’t necessarily stay in Wyoming. Chronic wasting disease carried to Montana ungulates by Wyoming ungulates is an example. Aquatic  invasive species move between waterways and states. The effects of pesticides that are used in Wyoming agricultural practices and elsewhere don’t remain in our state. Monarch butterflies and migratory birds travel to and from many states, regions, countries and continents. If a migratory species fails to thrive, reproduce and dies in Wyoming because of pesticides, there are far reaching implications to the population overall.  

Wyoming is not isolated. Wyoming’s state and federal legislators should carefully consider the effects of their votes on all us constituents in Wyoming but also the effects of their vote on the region, the USA and even globally as in the case of climate change.  

Marynell Oechsner

Powell