By J. STEPHEN O'HARA JR., Special to the Daily News

September 5, 2004

Last week a federal judge in Washington issued a major rebuke to federal wildlife agencies charged with protecting the endangered Florida panther. The agencies were wrong, the judge found, in giving their blessing to a proposed 5,200-acre rock mining project on panther habitat outside Fort Myers.

The ruling said the agencies treated the project as if it would occur in isolation, ignoring the fact that many other development projects just like it are, together, carving a gigantic hole in the big cat's habitat. The agencies chose to inflict yet another cut on the panther, without addressing the fundamental problem — its death by a thousand cuts.

The court decision is a major, precedent-setting victory for panther protection in Florida. But there is nothing revolutionary about its logic.

Both common sense and conservation science demand that federal agencies — the Fish and Wildlife Service and the Army Corps of Engineers — look at the big picture when deciding how to manage pieces of an endangered species' habitat.

The sad truth, however, is that FWS and the corps, whose decisions are supposed to be guided by science and objective facts, have a long record of ignoring or distorting the facts and bowing to pressure from developers, politicians and other interests — all at the expense of the Florida panther.

By law, FWS must tell the corps to deny a permit to a developer, or require significant project changes, if that project jeopardizes the panther's existence. But in recent years FWS has never made a jeopardy finding and the corps has never acted independently to protect the species. In the past four years alone, the two agencies have authorized over 20 large-scale projects in panther habitat, destroying thousands of acres.

Fish and Wildlife Service biologist Andy Eller has come forth as a whistleblower against the agency and his insights paint a troubling picture.

According to Eller, FWS officials have pressured their biologists to write opinions favorable to developers, irrespective of what is in the best interest of panthers.

Compounding FWS's refusal to use its authority to protect endangered species has been its adoption of bad science in estimating the panther's habitat needs.

For years, its panther-recovery program was largely based on information provided by scientist David Maehr, whose data and methods were suspicious. Maehr's work, which consistently and drastically underestimated the amount of habitat required by the panther, was subsequently discredited by an independent panel of scientists convened by FWS.

To this day, FWS refuses to acknowledge — and, in fact, actively suppresses — information about the full extent of the panther's habitat requirements. FWS refuses to make public a map by a team of biologists it commissioned three years ago to chart panther territory — a map indicating that the panther needs a relatively large area for survival and recovery.

Meanwhile, FWS has allowed development to occur within places flagged on that map for protection.

The pattern is consistent and alarming — whenever developers' desire to move into Florida's rural lands has butted against the science on panthers' needs, FWS has put the developers first.

Protecting the Florida panther, of course, is not ultimately about upholding the notion of sound science. The science is just a tool. The fundamental question is whether it is a priority to ensure that this majestic cat, which numbers only about 100 in the wild, will still be here for future generations.

Just as it makes no sense for the Fish and Wildlife Service to wear blinders when looking at the effects of habitat destruction on the panther, it makes no sense for Floridians to examine the panther's plight without seeing the big picture: Florida faces tough choices ahead. One of America's prime areas for development happens to sit on the habitat of America's most endangered large mammal. Conflicts are inevitable.

By the same token, a lasting solution will require the cooperation and consent of diverse interests — conservationists, developers, farmers and ranchers, state and local officials and others. For that to happen, the federal agencies in charge of panther protection must be seen by all as acting without bias and in good faith.

They must use science and sound management to protect the Florida panther, as is their charge under the Endangered Species Act.

If the agencies fail to be vigilant in their duty to protect the species, the Florida panther will continue to face — as it has for decades — a death of a thousand cuts.

J. Stephen O'Hara, an attorney, is a member of the board of the National Wildlife Federation and former chair of the Florida Wildlife Federation. The National Wildlife Federation, Florida Wildlife Federation and Florida Panther Society were co-plaintiffs in the federal panther case in Lee County.

Website provided by ImageGrafix - Computer and Network Systems - Site Hosting Solutions
© Copyright  2003 ImageGrafix. All Rights Reserved.