The role of the public in the American Pika'S Future

AuthorYoona Cho
PositionJ.D. candidate, May 2011, at American University Washington College of Law
Pages41-41
41 SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT LAW & POLICY
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (“the Service”)
recently announced its decision not to list the Ameri-
can pika under the Endangered Species Act (“ESA”).1
While many view this as a defeat, the story of the American
pika is instructive in that it demonstrates that science alone
cannot drive change and ensure protection for vulnerable spe-
cies. Rather, it has historically been, and will continue to be
public participation and pressure that will bring about the nec-
essary change.
The American pika is a small mammal that lives on the
f‌ields of alpine and subalpine mountain areas. These small
mammals are extremely sensitive to hot temperatures, and cer-
tain to be impacted by climate change.2 In 2007, the Center for
Biological Diversity (“CBD”) f‌iled a petition with the Service
to list the pika under the ESA.3 Then in 2008, the CBD f‌iled
lawsuits against both the California Fish and Game Commission
and the Service for failing to list the pika.4 As a result of these
actions, the Service decided to launch a full review to determine
if pikas warrant protection under the ESA.5
The ESA directs the Secretary to make a determination
solely on the basis of the best scientif‌ic and commercial data
available.6 This language, however, fails to provide a clear stan-
dard. After completing what it called an “exhaustive review of
the scientif‌ic information currently available,” the Service deter-
mined that the pika’s survival is not at risk for the foreseeable
future.7 The Service’s f‌inding, however, contradicts certain sci-
entif‌ic studies which show that the pika is rapidly disappearing
from the United States.8 Give n the frequent variance of scien-
tif‌ic data, the pika’s story serves as a warning to environmental
advocates: public participation and pressure, not science, are the
most important tools for saving the pika and other endangered
species.
Principle 10 of the Rio Declaration declares that environ-
mental issues are best handled with active participation from
concerned citizens.9 Wide acceptance of principle 10 led to the
adoption of the Aarhus Convention,10 which calls for three stan-
dards to be met in decision-making: public participation, access
to information, and access to justice.11 More than empty rheto-
ric, these provisions have since been used to protect vulnerable
species in a number of cases.
The road to protection has been long and complicated for
the polar bear. Science certainly provided the rationale for their
protection, but it was the efforts of a group of interested citi-
zens that led to the long-awaited listing of the bears. The jour-
ney began with a petition f‌iled in 2005 by the CBD, which was
promptly joined by the Natural Resources Defense Council and
THE ROLE OF THE PUBLIC IN THE AMERICAN
PIKAS FUTURE
by Yoona Cho*
* Yoona Cho is a J.D. candidate, May 2011, at American University Washington
College of Law.
Greenpeace.12 These organizations f‌iled a lawsuit against the
Bush administration for ignoring the petition.13 After three years
and much struggle, the Service published a f‌inal rule announc-
ing its intent to list the polar bear as a threatened species under
the ESA.14 The deciding factor was continuous pressure from
the public, not scientif‌ic proof.
Concerned citizens have also prevailed in the courtroom.
When the Secretary of the Interior failed to include mute swans
on the list of birds protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act,
a citizen f‌iled a complaint in District Court.15 She claimed that
this failure was arbitrary and capricious under the Administra-
tive Procedure Act.16 Ultimately, the Court of Appeals found
for the complainant, ruling that the reference to “swans” found
in the treaty indisputably included mute swans.17 Similar efforts
saved a little-known species that lives in the Little Tennessee
River. Environmental groups f‌iled a suit against a construction
company seeking to enjoin the completion of the Telli co dam,
which would have caused the extinction of the snail darter.18
Despite recognizing that this injunction would cause consider-
able economic loss, the Supreme Court ruled to protect the snail
darter’s habitat.19
In addition to these examples of proactive citizen advocates,
provisions in relevant legislation also demonstrate the increas-
ing recognition of the public’s role in protecting the environ-
ment. The National Environmental Policy Act has a provision
that requires the government to provide for public involvement
in completing its environmental impact assessments (“EIA”).20
Provisions requiring public input during the EIA process are not
unique to the United States. The European Union compels simi-
lar action through its directive.21
The story for the American pika continues, and the recent
announcement is only a hurdle. Rarely has society gained
meaningful change through governmental action alone.
Continu ous eff orts by the concerne d publi c armed with the
necessary scientif‌ic data will effectuate policy change. Pub-
lic participation has proven effective for the polar bear, and
hopefully it will do the same for these small mammals in the
mountains.
Endnotes: The Role of the Public in the American Pika's
Future continued on page 56

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT