Learn more now on The Darter and the … Other Darter, a Wide Open extra.
Nick Mott: Over the last few months, there have been some big scientific revelations about a tiny fish. You might remember back in episode 2 of this show, this new species called the snail darter got discovered in the Little Tennessee River back in the early 1970s. It ended up stalling a big dam project for years, and became the first Endangered Species Act case to make it all the way to the Supreme Court.
Carolyn Ritchey: This little fish, we all rallied behind that little thing thinking, oh, please let it be something that's gonna turn into something that's gonna be something big. It was all we had left to hang on to because they were gonna have this dam come hell or high water.
A few months ago, nearly 50 years after this legal battle over the fish, Zyg Plater, the attorney trying to stop the dam in that case, gets this call from a New York Times reporter.
Zyg Plater: The Times reporter called me and said, well, this is the story, he says that there is no such thing as a snail darter. Technically, we have shown that there is no such thing as a snail darter. It doesn't exist, I think was his phrase.
Nick Mott: Welcome to The Wide Open, I’m Nick Mott. Today, an extra: When new science changes old ideas, how do we cope?
When Zyg got that call a few months back, what had happened is this: A study came out, led by scientists from Yale University, focusing on the snail darter, of all things. It looked at all these genetic markers on the fish. It turned out, the snail darter was almost genetically identical to another species about 600 miles away. That species was called a stargazing darter.
The snail darter, the authors argued, didn’t exist. The headlines were catchy. The New York Times said, “This Tiny Fish’s Mistaken Identity Halted a Dam’s Construction". Other outlets claimed it “was never endangered after all.”
What’s really wild to me, is that this little fish continues to make such a big splash, even almost 50 years after the legal battles it inspired. I mean,the dam was built decades ago because Congress had exempted it from the Endangered Species Act. The snail darter was delisted because it had recovered. Somebody could look at all this and think, very reasonably: 'Well, 50 years has passed. Our understanding of species and ecosystems and genetics has come a long way. Of course the science has changed a bit.'
But the news hoopla ensued anyway. Zyg Plater, the attorney behind the snail darter case, was not thrilled with the coverage.
Zyg Plater: Tom declared in the Times that Dave Etnier’s description of this species was a prime example — I'm not getting the quote — 'the first and most famous example of a scientist cooking the books to stop a project he doesn't like.'
Nick Mott: The actual quote was: “I feel it was the first and probably the most famous example of what I would call the ‘conservation species concept,’ where people are going to decide a species should be distinct because it will have a downstream conservation implication.”
What that scientist, a Yale ichthyologist named Tom Near, suggested is that the snail darter’s discovery and listing was entirely political, not scientific. The species was identified because it could save the dam, not because of its true uniqueness. Zyg takes offense to that.
Zyg Plater: When a Yale professor makes this kind of media blast, it is likely to feed the frustrations I have from 50 years ago. The unanimous verdict of the most stringent economic study in the history of the United States of a public works project found unanimously that the project never should have started and its remaining 5% was not justified by the project's entire public benefits. I mean, it was a perfect example of how good ecology makes good economics, and how bad ecology was bad economics.
Nick Mott: Zyg says, this idea that the snail darter never deserved protections in the first place is dangerous.
Zyg Plater: It immediately fulfills the standard cliché of environmental regulation undercutting human progress. And it's the opposite.
Nick Mott: Zyg and I talked in February, about a month after Donald Trump took office. Changes to the Endangered Species Act were already in the works. And some of them were informed by this new study about this 50-year-old legal battle.
This new snail darter study has come up multiple times in Congressional testimony.
This is Republican Representative Doug LaMalfa from California on the House floor.
Doug LaMalfa: Interesting, when we talk about the weaponization of the ESA, a just-released study revealed that the snail darter isn’t an actual distinct species, but is actually another population of one called the stargazing darter.
Nick Mott: Republican Senator from Arkansas Tom Cotton went off on the darter in Interior Secretary Doug Burgum’s confirmation hearing.
Tom Cotton: I think it’s a scandal of the first order. I’m surprised it hasn’t gotten more attention as of late. The entire thrust of the story is that a zoologist basically made up this species of snail darter all for the point of halting construction of the Tellico Dam on the Little Tennessee River.
Nick Mott: He said it’s one illustration of something bigger:
Tom Cotton: Activists creating species, calling them endangered to stop the construction of a dam or a power generation plant or a housing development.
Nick Mott: Republican Senator from Kentucky Rand Paul unleashed a similar sentiment in a committee hearing.
Rand Paul: Did you see the story recently about the snail darter?
Nick Mott: He went over the basics of the story, misconstruing a few key details.
Rand Paul: The more they looked, the more they found. The snail darter is everywhere! We have a dirt darter in Kentucky, must be a relative of the snail darter.
Nick Mott: And he used the case of the snail darter’s mistaken identity to delegitimize other species affecting development in his state.
Rand Paul: And one more, we have a pocketbook mussel. It’s been listed on the Endangered Species Act. Have you ever seen mussels? They are everywhere. Any pond, lake, creek, got mussels everywhere.
Nick Mott: His point?
Rand Paul: It’s a scam!
Nick Mott: As Congresspeople testify about the weaponization of the Endangered Species Act, the current administration is actively trying to file down the ESA’s teeth. President Trump has proposed a rule that would strip protections for the habitats on which protected species depend. The Administration has called to reconvene the so-called God Squad, or Endangered Species Committee, on the regular. That group can exempt projects from the ESA on the basis of economics. The Administration’s plans aren’t entirely clear, but it looks like they want to use the God Squad to expedite timber and oil projects across the country. In the 50-year history of the ESA, that committee has only met over three species. In those meetings, the snail darter alone prevailed over industry.
At the same time, the Administration has slashed staff at the Fish and Wildlife Service and NOAA, the organizations in charge of administering the ESA, and they're likely to see huge budget cuts too. There are also endangered species amendments proposed in Congress, which private property and ag groups are excited about, but conservation organizations say would gut the ESA.
To Zyg, the snail darter — both its history and this current paper arguing that it was never a species at all — feeds into this broader narrative that the ESA is broken, that it prioritizes tiny fish over human livelihood.
To Zyg, the argument about whether the snail darter ever deserved protections feels kinda personal. Like it’s invalidating the last half century of his life. Zyg’s a lawyer, not a biologist, but he argued the snail darter case all the way up to the Supreme Court.
Zyg Plater: I deeply care about the land and water and air and the fact that this case does a service to human and planetary well-being by saying, look, things are connected to one another. Sensitive little species when they are harmed, like a canary in the coal mine, are indicating, humans better pay attention to this. And for a time they did. And then their short term politics flipped the truth, flipped the facts. They created this upside down caricature that could be used to attack everything I care about.
Nick Mott: The fish, he thinks, is so much more than a silly little minnow. He’s spent countless hours poring over the science, and he was good friends with the scientist who discovered the fish.
Zyg Plater: Scientists who study redwoods love the redwoods. Right? And if they have evidence that shows the redwoods are being harmed by something or other, that doesn't undercut the science that they're applying.
Nick Mott: He’s saying passion, caring — all that doesn’t undercut the science itself. A study, whether about a tree or a fish, can be balanced even if the researcher cares deeply for the species in question.
Even now, Zyg does think there are physiological differences between the snail darter and the stargazing darter not considered in the study that could make the snail darter a distinct species. But he’s not a scientist, so he takes a legal perspective here. It’s not only full-on species that get Endangered Species Act protections. And a scientific study that shows the darter isn’t a distinct species is legally beside the point.
There are three categories that can get listed, he told me: Yes, a species. But also a subspecies. And a "distinct population segment" — basically a small and significant group of critters or plants or bugs that are geographically separated from any other population of the same thing.
Zyg Plater: It is altogether possible and altogether likely, given the science, that it's a subspecies, fully protected. And if it's not a subspecies, it's very clearly a "distinct population segment" because it's 700 miles from the goddamn other fish. And that's also protected.
Nick Mott: Zyg’s not alone in this crusade. Other groups, including the Center for Biological Diversity, have advocated for the snail darter since the study came out.
The available science in 1976, long before computers or genetic research for conservation even existed, made clear the snail darter was a valid species worthy of protection. Science, by definition, is updated as new information is tested,” the Center said in a statement. They went on: “Even if snail darters were merely a population of the stargazing darter, the original 1973 Endangered Species Act would still have been able to protect them as a matter of law,” the group’s executive director, Kieran Suckling said.
Zyg Plater: It's a funny story. 'It was all a mistake.' On one hand this is dealing with a very small fish. ... But on the other hand, this little fish is going to be part of the argument against environmental science. It is not, I think, hyperbolic to say that this issue is worth talking about because it is likely to be weaponized against a lot of public interest in a society that is under attack.
Nick Mott: Then, Zyg paused. He likes to talk, and sometimes his mouth gets away from his brain and he goes on autopilot. He realized he’d been going on for a while. He thought about what he’d said, and he asked me this:
Zyg Plater: Is that bullshit?
Nick Mott: I’ll leave it for you to decide.
The Wide Open is produced by Montana Public Radio and the Montana Media Lab. Thanks to Corin Cates-Carney for the edits, Izaak Opatz and Dylan Rodrigue for the music, and Zyg Plater for the conversation.
I’m Nick Mott. Thanks for listening.
