By Jack Keller

Have you ever seen a silverspot butterfly? They’re visually stunning. The males are bright orange, females light yellow and brown, and both have striking iridescent spots on their underside.

But chances are, if you haven’t visited a wet mountain meadow at an elevation of 5,200-8,300 feet in southwestern Colorado, eastern Utah and northern New Mexico—during a 45-day span in the late summer—you probably haven’t.

Those are the ideal conditions silverspots need to thrive. Additionally, they feed on a single plant, the bog violet, so silverspots aren’t found if it isn’t present.

All of this highlights the fragility of the silverspot butterfly’s continued existence.

The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (FWS) doesn’t seem to agree: Following a 2013 petition to list the silverspot butterfly under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), FWS issued their final rule in 2024, which listed the silverspot as threatened rather than endangered.

That’s not protective enough because it doesn’t safeguard their habitat, leaving them vulnerable to extinction.

“While we’re glad that the FWS listed the silverspot butterfly under the Endangered Species Act, we cannot just call it a day and stop working,” said Jennifer Best, director of Friends of Animal’s Wildlife Law Program.

That’s why, this summer, Friends of Animals is filing a lawsuit to challenge FWS’s final rule and to get the silverspot listed as endangered.

Threatened vs. endangered

An endangered listing requires prudent habitat protection and could make it difficult for one to meddle with an at-risk species, while a threatened listing doesn’t demand the same. In other words, you could waltz through a threatened listing.

For example, when a species is listed as endangered, there’s a myriad prohibitions that protect it, including “take” of the species (any harassment, capture, killing, import/export etc.). To take an endangered species, a permit is needed.

On the other hand, when a species is listed as threatened, “exceptions” are made, meaning that the species isn’t covered by these same prohibitions as an endangered species. These exceptions weaken their protection. The ESA allows FWS to promulgate whatever rules they deem necessary for conservation of the threatened species, and these provisions are known as the “special rule.”

Special rule, habitat protection

Even in listing them as threatened, FWS still could have prohibited all “incidental take” of silverspots.

The special rule for the silverspot, however, specifies exemptions for take, including agricultural practices such as grazing and haying/mowing—two of the activities most responsible for the degradation of silverspot habitat.

Specifically, the special rule doesn’t prohibit grazing during any part of the year. It only limits grazing during certain times of the year, including the critical summer months.

Despite FWS’s determination that no grazing silverspot habitat during summer and early fall was “preferred,” ranchers are limited to 30% vegetative utilization during these critical months. This isn’t only arbitrary, but it’s also unclear how FWS will enforce this limitation.

The haying/mowing exemptions are similar; there is no exemption for mowing after June 30. FWS also determined that mowing no less than eight inches above the ground was “preferred,” yet mowing down to six inches above the ground is exempted.

If prohibiting such activities that are proven to jeopardize the continued existence of silverspots is preferred, why are they still allowed?

“The Service is trying to strike a balance between recognizing the plight of the silverspot butterfly and not overly inconveniencing landowners,” said Stephen Hernick, managing attorney for FoA’s Wildlife Law Program. “That’s not its job. Its job is to conserve the silverspot.”

Too little, too late

After much foot-dragging, FWS failed to make its determination using the best science available and based its finding in the assertion that the subspecies is “widespread.”

Silverspots are supposedly dispersed over 10 genetically distinct populations and 21 colonies. But FWS presumes this based on sightings from more than 10 years ago.

The truth is, eight of the 21 silverspot colonies haven’t been observed in over 10 years. FWS also found that it is possible that half of the ten silverspots populations no longer exist.

Their continued existence and viability are much more tenuous than FWS admits. This is largely due to fragmentation. The two closest silverspot populations are the Taos and San Miguel/Mora populations, which are 24.5 miles apart, although most are somewhere between 40-80 miles apart.

Silverspots generally don’t travel more than five miles—if a silverspot habitat is destroyed, it’s unlikely that they’ll be able to find alternative habitat if it’s further than that, underscoring the need for stricter habitat protections.

Genetic exchanges between neighboring populations are also vital in preserving the silverspot’s existence. An isolated colony with sufficient habitat may be resilient enough to persist over the long-term without such exchanges; but most have limited amounts of habitat.

Negative impacts caused by development, livestock grazing and hydrologic alteration occur extensively across a significant portion of the silverspot’s habitat, and it’s unlikely that FWS’s final rule will do much to curb this. Most colonies occur on private land, and FWS doesn’t have any existing conservation agreements for the silverspot with private landowners.

And they have to contend with the climate crisis. Silverspots require ample snow to sustain the wet meadows in which the bog violet thrives, and annual snowpack has been rapidly declining in recent years. A study published in the journal Nature found that snowpack in the American West has declined somewhere between 15-30% since the mid-20th century.

Time is running out for silverspots. That’s why we’re going to the wall to ensure that these butterflies get the strong ESA protections they need.