In 2017 the Arizona Game and Fish Department estimated that there were only 252 Mount Graham red squirrels left. They only inhabited a few hundred acres in the 10,000-foot Pinaleño Mountains, not equipped to survive the heat of the surrounding deserts. Then, a lightning strike started a 48,000-acre fire in that section of the Coronado National Forest, incinerating all but 35 of the Mount Graham squirrels in existence. Federal and state wildlife officials thought the species faced likely extinction.
It is a more common story than you might think. The Journal Science published a study in 2020 called “Fire and biodiversity in the Anthropocene,” analyzing the danger of wildfires to threatened and endangered species. Across nine taxonomic groups, the study found that “at least 1,071 species are categorized as threatened by an increase in fire frequency or intensity…” That included 16 percent of all endangered mammals, nearly 20 percent of listed birds, and almost a third of non-flowering plants such as evergreen trees.
Recent wildfires in California reportedly pushed dozens of species to the brink of extinction, utterly devastating miles of habitat that will take decades to recover. Less widely reported was how many endangered birds and animals were burned in those fires (nobody really wants to see that on TV), but as the study euphemistically concluded, “wildlife often cannot adapt quickly enough to escape rapid changes in fire patterns.”
In Colorado we know the extreme fire seasons of 2002 and 2020 destroyed much of the habitat for the Mexican spotted owl, and the Hayman Fire alone destroyed over half the known habitat of a rare yellow butterfly called the Pawnee montane skipper. In California the same is now said of the mountain yellow-legged frog and the Amargosa vole, both of which are now nearing extinction. Burning most of them alive certainly didn’t help.
****************
One bit of good news: contrary to the dire predictions, there are more than 200 Mount Graham red squirrels again, apparently more adaptable than the “experts” expected.
Our synthesis shows that interactions with anthropogenic drivers such as global climate change, land use, and biotic invasions are transforming fire activity and its impacts on biodiversity. More than 4400 terrestrial and freshwater species from a wide range of taxa and habitats face threats associated with modified fire regimes. Many species are threatened by an increase in fire frequency or intensity, but exclusion of fire in ecosystems that need it can also be harmful. The prominent role of human activity in shaping global ecosystems is the hallmark of the Anthropocene and sets the context in which models and actions must be developed. Advances in predictive modeling deliver new opportunities to couple fire and biodiversity data and to link them with forecasts of multiple drivers including drought, invasive plants, and urban growth. Making these connections also provides an opportunity for new actions that could revolutionize how society manages fire. Emerging actions include reintroduction of mammals that reduce fuels, green fire breaks comprising low-flammability plants, strategically letting wildfires burn under the right conditions, managed evolution of populations aided by new genomics tools, and deployment of rapid response teams to protect biodiversity assets. Indigenous fire stewardship and reinstatement of cultural burning in a modern context will enhance biodiversity and human well-being in many regions of the world. At the same time, international efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions are crucial to reduce the risk of extreme fire events that contribute to declines in biodiversity.
Seems to me that targeted fire suppression to protect species habitat is quite valuable, although it doesn’t seem to be on this list. Also the 35 left and back to 200 story.
Here’s what the USFWS is doing to help the Mt. Graham Red Squirrel (known as MGRS), including various silvicultural manipulations of interest, pheromones, cone collection, fuel treatment projects, as well as supplemental feeding and shooting Abert squirrels to decrease competition. Perhaps it’s less controversial than the PNW owl shooting for various reasons? Birds vs. squirrels have different advocates? Numbers and dollars involved? What do the Arizonans out there think?
8 thoughts on “Wildfires Can Be Bad for Endangered Species And They Shoot Squirrels Don’t They?”
You missed the great Large Binocular Telescope v. Mt. Graham Red Squirrel debacle. Science haters in enviro disguise convinced a court and the USFS that the Red Squirrel on Mt. Graham, which looks just like millions of other Red Squirrels, was a separate species, and that justified killing the huge LBT project. After years of litigation, and millions in legal fees and “studies” the project was built and the squirrels could be found happily cadging tourists at the new picnic area.
That would be an interesting synthesis paper, a round-up of endangered species being surprisingly resilient and those not (e.g. spotted owl). What genetic, behavioral, life history attributes do the resilient species have in common? Or does it depend on the nature of the stressor (say chestnut blight and American chestnut)?
I think the stressor is a big factor. However, the most common thing that comes to mind are species that are highly specialized, and I would lump narrow endemics in with the highly specialized group. Habitat specialists (including narrow endemics) and prey specialists make up the majority of the many listed species I have worked with. When it comes to species threatened by exotic diseases, I have not heard of there being specific factors in common. Maybe it’s something to do with genetics or maybe it’s just bad luck?
There are many T and E species that are reliant on perpetual management activities that involve routinely killing other native and nonnative wildlife (least terns, plovers, and clapper rails come to mind as a few of many examples) to prevent extinction. There are even more listed species reliant on management activities that involve perpetually controlling native and non-native competing vegetation to prevent extinction. There are even many examples of controlling one listed species to benefit a more endangered species.
The idea that barred owl management will cost what the news outlets and others are saying is not realistic. The high cost that keeps being reported is the cost if the plan were fully implemented, but no one involved is under the impression that it will ever come close being fully implemented. The plan was designed to allow for options, but allowing for options resulted in an astronomically high price tag if all the options were fully implemented and no one wanted to limit the ability to fully implement the plan.
The BO plan included defining a large number of focal areas for BO treatment. If the just the most fire-climate resilient areas were chosen to do BO management and maintain a viable population, extinction could be prevented, which would leave the door open to recovery in the future, and the price tag would be much less than the theoretical cost in the plan.
Law and reality are perpetual bed hoppers. Is “nature” a game of equality like high pressure seeking low pressure or vice versa? Like cold air flowing to hot air to reach equal heat at ground level? Gravity? Solar energy?
I read in the Oregon papers that Oregon Dept of Forestry has issued a report that Pacific Corps equipment was NOT the cause of the fire that killed 5 and burned 200,000+ acres of mostly private timberlands. The Beachie Fire in the Opal Creek Willamette Natl Forest sent embers from on high via super heated air from a fuel rich relic of indigenous and unplanned ignition for centuries started myriad “spot fires” that drew further wind, fire and sent embers higher and farther setting fire ahead to draw the fires behind. ODF says it was kept from obtaining data by PacificCorps and USFS, and still is by USFS. Or so reports the Willamette Week newspaper, an alternative weekly reporting on government, food, spirits and human behaviors, with Pulitizer winning editor and writer.
But of no legal value for jury trials already held. Moonlight fire, CA, and SPI & US Dept of Justice deja vu. CalFire report on why fire was not discovered by lookout(s) who used magnum amounts of marijuana to become comatose to quell his fears of the ongoing lightning storm, a fact that was withheld until after SPI entered into a pre-trial agreement that cost them more than a $100Million judgement by US. Could not use new evidence, new facts, in appeal. So ruled 9th circuit judges, and rightly so. Never can. Might be a legal path to sue the withholding agency. Supremacy clause protects the USFS actions, as federal law take precedence over state law. Sierra Pacific was screwed by other government agencies’ covering their butts. Now the timber companies and industrial and residential power rate payers will pay inordinate windfall money to people who need recompense, yes, but not a seat on the NYSE.
You know who the loser is in these deals? ME!!! Power bill was the highest of my life. Use was usual coldest month of year use.
There are a couple of lawsuits going on that 1) claim that the telescopes were not good for the squirrels’ potential critical habitat, and 2) claim that Forest Service special use permits for recreational uses are also a contributing factor. I.e. let’s control the risks to a species that we have control over. https://forestpolicypub.com/2024/03/31/federal-lands-litigation-update-through-march-22-2024/
In a country where recovery of listed species is a priority, a recovery plan would answer the question of whether active management to reduce ongoing threats is a good idea.
Just in case anyone read the rest of article by the “former Colorado DNR Director among other things,” this writing and others have demonstrated that he shouldn’t be considered “one of the most recognized and respected national leaders in natural resources policy.” He’s just got some opinions, and they are not necessarily rooted in facts, like “the anti-forest environmental industry, and the activist judges who follow their lead.” More like propaganda. He continues to refer to the “Cottonwood” decision as “disastrous” “because it has required a rewrite of at least 87 national forest management plans.” That was a 2023 projection by the Forest Service (based on I don’t know what) that has obviously not materialized. Cottonwood was discussed here: https://forestpolicypub.com/2023/06/06/cottonwood-some-observations-from-the-march-23-2023-hearing-and-a-perc-post/
More than half a million acres in southwest Montana have been impacted by conifer expansion. It used to be that fires would come through these landscapes and burn back the trees, but that natural cycle isn’t happening anymore. Now, more trees are encroaching into traditional sagebrush habitat, and that has impacts on our water supply. “You have to almost come and see the country to realize, well, this isn’t really where trees belong or were historically. They would not be here, if it wasn’t for us suppressing wildfire.”
You missed the great Large Binocular Telescope v. Mt. Graham Red Squirrel debacle. Science haters in enviro disguise convinced a court and the USFS that the Red Squirrel on Mt. Graham, which looks just like millions of other Red Squirrels, was a separate species, and that justified killing the huge LBT project. After years of litigation, and millions in legal fees and “studies” the project was built and the squirrels could be found happily cadging tourists at the new picnic area.
That would be an interesting synthesis paper, a round-up of endangered species being surprisingly resilient and those not (e.g. spotted owl). What genetic, behavioral, life history attributes do the resilient species have in common? Or does it depend on the nature of the stressor (say chestnut blight and American chestnut)?
I think the stressor is a big factor. However, the most common thing that comes to mind are species that are highly specialized, and I would lump narrow endemics in with the highly specialized group. Habitat specialists (including narrow endemics) and prey specialists make up the majority of the many listed species I have worked with. When it comes to species threatened by exotic diseases, I have not heard of there being specific factors in common. Maybe it’s something to do with genetics or maybe it’s just bad luck?
There are many T and E species that are reliant on perpetual management activities that involve routinely killing other native and nonnative wildlife (least terns, plovers, and clapper rails come to mind as a few of many examples) to prevent extinction. There are even more listed species reliant on management activities that involve perpetually controlling native and non-native competing vegetation to prevent extinction. There are even many examples of controlling one listed species to benefit a more endangered species.
The idea that barred owl management will cost what the news outlets and others are saying is not realistic. The high cost that keeps being reported is the cost if the plan were fully implemented, but no one involved is under the impression that it will ever come close being fully implemented. The plan was designed to allow for options, but allowing for options resulted in an astronomically high price tag if all the options were fully implemented and no one wanted to limit the ability to fully implement the plan.
The BO plan included defining a large number of focal areas for BO treatment. If the just the most fire-climate resilient areas were chosen to do BO management and maintain a viable population, extinction could be prevented, which would leave the door open to recovery in the future, and the price tag would be much less than the theoretical cost in the plan.
Law and reality are perpetual bed hoppers. Is “nature” a game of equality like high pressure seeking low pressure or vice versa? Like cold air flowing to hot air to reach equal heat at ground level? Gravity? Solar energy?
I read in the Oregon papers that Oregon Dept of Forestry has issued a report that Pacific Corps equipment was NOT the cause of the fire that killed 5 and burned 200,000+ acres of mostly private timberlands. The Beachie Fire in the Opal Creek Willamette Natl Forest sent embers from on high via super heated air from a fuel rich relic of indigenous and unplanned ignition for centuries started myriad “spot fires” that drew further wind, fire and sent embers higher and farther setting fire ahead to draw the fires behind. ODF says it was kept from obtaining data by PacificCorps and USFS, and still is by USFS. Or so reports the Willamette Week newspaper, an alternative weekly reporting on government, food, spirits and human behaviors, with Pulitizer winning editor and writer.
But of no legal value for jury trials already held. Moonlight fire, CA, and SPI & US Dept of Justice deja vu. CalFire report on why fire was not discovered by lookout(s) who used magnum amounts of marijuana to become comatose to quell his fears of the ongoing lightning storm, a fact that was withheld until after SPI entered into a pre-trial agreement that cost them more than a $100Million judgement by US. Could not use new evidence, new facts, in appeal. So ruled 9th circuit judges, and rightly so. Never can. Might be a legal path to sue the withholding agency. Supremacy clause protects the USFS actions, as federal law take precedence over state law. Sierra Pacific was screwed by other government agencies’ covering their butts. Now the timber companies and industrial and residential power rate payers will pay inordinate windfall money to people who need recompense, yes, but not a seat on the NYSE.
You know who the loser is in these deals? ME!!! Power bill was the highest of my life. Use was usual coldest month of year use.
There are a couple of lawsuits going on that 1) claim that the telescopes were not good for the squirrels’ potential critical habitat, and 2) claim that Forest Service special use permits for recreational uses are also a contributing factor. I.e. let’s control the risks to a species that we have control over.
https://forestpolicypub.com/2024/03/31/federal-lands-litigation-update-through-march-22-2024/
In a country where recovery of listed species is a priority, a recovery plan would answer the question of whether active management to reduce ongoing threats is a good idea.
Just in case anyone read the rest of article by the “former Colorado DNR Director among other things,” this writing and others have demonstrated that he shouldn’t be considered “one of the most recognized and respected national leaders in natural resources policy.” He’s just got some opinions, and they are not necessarily rooted in facts, like “the anti-forest environmental industry, and the activist judges who follow their lead.” More like propaganda. He continues to refer to the “Cottonwood” decision as “disastrous” “because it has required a rewrite of at least 87 national forest management plans.” That was a 2023 projection by the Forest Service (based on I don’t know what) that has obviously not materialized. Cottonwood was discussed here: https://forestpolicypub.com/2023/06/06/cottonwood-some-observations-from-the-march-23-2023-hearing-and-a-perc-post/
https://www.mtpr.org/montana-news/2025-03-13/what-is-conifer-expansion-and-how-does-it-affect-the-water-supply