wolverine
by Ali Berman
Categories: Animals, Causes, Science.

The wolverine, a particularly tough member of the weasel family, might be getting some governmental help soon. After a lawsuit put forth by the Center for Biological Diversity and Defenders of Wildlife, the US Fish and Wildlife Service has made the recommendation that wolverines should be listed as threatened.

The US Fish and Wildlife Service reports that, “An estimated 250 to 300 wolverines now occur in the lower 48 states, where the species has rebounded after broad-scale predator trapping and poisoning programs led to its near extinction in the early 1900s. This was in part due to the states protecting the species from unregulated trapping.”

Sadly, direct human action isn’t the only threat to the species. Like the polar bear, wolverines are expected to be heavily impacted by climate change. Climate modeling has shown that the wolverine’s snowy habitat will greatly diminish due to warmer temperatures.

While the listing would not protect the species from climate change, it would prohibit hunting or trapping of the species. Thankfully, 90% of their habitat in the US is on public land.

This is a proposed change to the status, so nothing is written in stone yet. If you’d like to voice your opinion, the US Fish and Wildlife Service will be taking public comments on the issue for 90 days starting today.

I don’t think we’re alone in hoping that the most famous wolverine of all, Hugh Jackman, takes a moment to advocate for these wonderful little creatures.

Photo Credit: Shutterstock

About Ali Berman

Ali Berman is a writer, teacher and activist. She works as a humane educator for HEART teaching kids about issues affecting people, animals and the environment. Ali is also a fiction writer. Her published work can be found on her website at aliberman.com. In early 2012 Ali co-founded flipmeover, a production company with the mission to use media to raise awareness of social issues.

View all posts by Ali Berman →
  • mememine

    “might be” It’s been 27 years of “might be” never “will” be. How can that be a crisis?

    Deny this: REAL planet lovers are happy a crisis was just a tragic exaggeration.

    You can’t have a “little tiny catastrophic” climate crisis outside of Harry Potter movies so how close to the point of no return from complete unstoppable warming will science take us before they start saying the climate change CRISIS will actually happen as in imminent or impending or inevitable or certain or unavoidable or assured or guaranteed or even just “will happen” instead of their “might” and “could” happen.“Help my house could be on fire maybe.” NOT ONE single IPCC report says it “WILL” happen, only “might” happen and “likely” happen etc. The worst crisis imaginable needs certainty, not “maybe”.
    Climate change was a war crime and some day condemning billions of children to an exaggerated crisis will see justice done.Get ahead of the curve and get up to date:*Obama has not mentioned the crisis in the last two State of the Unions addresses.*In all of the debates Obama hadn’t planned to mention climate change once.*Occupywallstreet does not even mention CO2 in its list of
    demands because of the bank-funded carbon trading stock markets ruled by corporations and trustworthy politicians*Canada killed Y2Kyoto with a freely elected climate change denying
    prime minister and nobody cared, especially the millions of scientists warning us of unstoppable warming (a comet hit).Meanwhile, the entire world of SCIENCE, lazy copy and paste news editors and obedient journalists, had condemned our kids to the greenhouse gas ovens of an exaggerated “crisis” and had allowed bank-funded and corporate-run “CARBON TRADING STOCK MARKETS” to trump 3rd world fresh water relief, starvation rescue and 3rd world education for just over 26 years of insane attempts at climate CONTROL.

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Phillip-Noe/1032872680 Phillip Noe

      Read what NAS, AAAS, AGU, NASA and the other respected scientific institutions have to say about this.
      Science is not about absolutes, it’s about probabilities. For example… It is a scientific fact that risks to your health are higher if you smoke. You MIGHT get very sick and die as a result. Want the odds? It’s about probabilites.
      The best science available tells us that we are deteriorating the earth’s habitability by continuing to release excessive amounts of greenhouse gases. Is it rational to risk future generations AGAINST the odds because you think the science lacks “certainty”? Really?

  • http://www.facebook.com/jimwell34 Jim Blackwell

    don’t believe it, don’t care, if you believe in man made global warming don’t have kids

    • Curly

      You got to be kidding!

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Phillip-Noe/1032872680 Phillip Noe

      Humans are warming the planet so say EVERY respected scientific institution that considered the issue. True story. So there’s no credible debate in the scientific community. The “debate” is among the uninformed. It is propagated by vested interest to steer policy and thereby increase profits.
      But sure, we need to reduce our numbers. The earth’s carrying capacity has been exceeded. We will eventually get to sustainable numbers and societies but I would prefer a journey using the best information available. Traveling blind or willfully ignorant is NOT in out best interest.

  • http://www.facebook.com/junshikkim42 Jun Shik Kim

    Humans are threatened by their own actions.

  • Curly

    Now the EPA will all the authority to do what ever they want (to protect the wolverine). Just think now it can shut down any source of CO2 emissions that want since it is killing of the endangered wolverine, coal fired power plants, refineries, auto what ever they want to save the wolverine .

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Phillip-Noe/1032872680 Phillip Noe

      “shut down any source of CO2 emissions”, what tha??
      Do you know what the EPA’s mission is? CO2 emissions are are a form of pollution that endanger future generations. Would you rather we just continue with business-as-usual regardless the deterioration of our only habitat? It would be irrational AND immoral.
      We need to change the ways we generate and use energy. The decline of many species is a symptom of the problem. There are many others.
      Support candidates that understand the crisis humanity faces and confront those that don’t. Apathy, defeatism, and/or ignorance won’t help.

  • ChasInNJ

    Gimme that global warming (clap-clap)
    Gimme that global warming (clap-clap)
    Repeat as often as desired.