Huffing and Puffing: The wolf’s strange journey on and off the endangered species list

A good blog on the delisting, relisting, and delisting of the wolf in the Northern  Rockies-

Huffing and Puffing. By Kevin Taylor. The Pacific Northwest Inlander.

Among other things, I like the discussion of the snail darter from back in the 1970s when Congress decided to build a real white elephant of a dam and doom this tiny fish.* Congress has interfered with the ESA before. People should remember that.

_______________________

* The snail darter inhabited only the area to be flooded by the Tellico Dam. If it was built, the darter was extinct (or so it was thought . . . more were found later elsewhere). This was the first time the cabinet level Endangered Species Committee or “God squad” was used. The God Squad, however, looked at the matter and decided the Tellico Dam was such a piece of rancid congressional pork that the country would be better off economically, not even to mention the snail darter, if the dam was never completed. This after the dam was 90% done!! Congress loved its pork though, and over-road the Committee and the ESA, and finished the damn dam, violating residents property rights in the process, in the opinion of many whose land was put permanently underwater.

Northern Rocky Mountain Wolf Delisting Rider Unconstitutional

This is a space where we’ll post the various documents that wolf advocates will be filing in federal district court of their challenge of the recent wolf delisting rider that was attached to the 2011 budget bill.

Different parties raced to file, with Alliance for the Wild Rockies, Friends of the Clearwater, and WildEarth Guardians in one camp, the Center for Biological Diversity in another having already filed.  Western Watersheds Project has opted to file its own separate case as well.

It is likely that the cases will be consolidated in the Montana District Court.

We’ll post the filings as they become available.

Alliance for the Wild Rockies, Friends of the Clearwater, WildEarth Guardians 

Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief

Center for Biological Diversity

Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief

Interior to Publish Northern Rocky Mountain Wolf Delisting Rule

Salazar announces wolves delisted in Rockies and hunting can begin – Idaho Statesman

Wolves will be delisted in the Northern Rockies except Wyoming on Thursday, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar said.

The rule would reinstate the 2009 decision by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to delist the gray wolf in Idaho and Montana, eastern Washington, eastern Oregon and northern Utah.

Download NR Wolf Delisting Reissuance

Western Watersheds Project expects to file litigation in U.S. District court challenging the delisting rider.

What the congressional wolf delisting means in Oregon

Oregon wolves will remain protected on the state’s endangered species act-

What the federal delisting for wolves means for Oregon’s packs, ranchers. By Richard Cockle, The Oregonian.

A Hole in the Endangered Species Act. NYT editorial

NYT condemns Salazar and his acquiescence to delisting the wolf by legislative rider-

A Hole in the Endangered Species Act. New York Times.

Wuerthner: Wolf Restoration is a Challenge to West’s Old Guard

Anti-Wolfer’s Success In An End-Run Delisting of Wolves MUST Ultimately Backfire

George Wuerthner wrote this now apt essay over a year ago, published in New West last September, suggesting that should anti-wolf interests succeed in delisting wolves and fail to exercise restraint in killing wolves that it would ultimately backfire.

Wolf Restoration is a Challenge to West’s Old Guard – George Wuerthner – NewWest.net

Demographically the country is changing to a more diverse racial, religious and age structure.  The majority of Americans who do not hunt only accept hunting if they believe the hunter is killing an animal to eat it. Public support for hunting declines rapidly if hunters kill animals for trophy mounts. When it comes to shooting an animal just to kill it as would be the case for hunters shooting wolves—and/or worse as a matter of vindication as in predator control, public support turns to public opposition.

Similarly, without the ESA ‘hook’ extending legal protection for wolves, some of the last, best remaining legal angles to protect wolves will be in preventing conflict with livestock on public lands that is ultimately responsible for government trapping and slaughter of entire packs of wolves.

Increased public scrutiny over public lands ranching at the land-use level – demanding that ranchers implement preventative measures as a condition of permit to use public lands to graze cattle and sheep is one tangible avenue wolf-advocates might pursue to accomplish wolf protections.

One thing is for sure – if wolves are to persist on the landscape in the ecologically relevant numbers that advocates have been promoting for years, outrage over the wanton slaughter of wolves must be felt by those responsible.

Obama signs budget bill into law.

Wolves will be removed from the Endangered Species List in Idaho, Montana, and parts of Oregon, Washington, and Utah within 60 days.

Wolves to come off endangered list within 60 days
Associated Press

Senate and House pass budget bill with wolf delisting rider.

President Obama will sign the bill into law and wolves will no longer enjoy the protection of the Endangered Species Act.

The House and Senate passed a budget bill which included the rider to delist wolves in Idaho, Montana and parts of Oregon, Washington, and Utah but leaves the status of wolves in Wyoming unchanged.  The rider, attached by Senator Jon Tester (D-Montana) and Representative Mike Simpson (R-Idaho), mandates that the Secretary of Interior republish the 2009 delisting rule in the Federal Register within 60 days of passage of the bill and restricts the rule from being challenged in court.

President Obama is expected to sign the bill.

The removal of a species from the Endangered Species Act by Congress is an unprecedented move and is likely to be followed by more such moves in the future.  Congress has basically said that if a species becomes too inconvenient to industry then it shouldn’t be allowed protection and management of the species doesn’t have to subject to the best available science.

What comes next is anyone’s guess but surely there will be a great number of wolves killed in Idaho and Montana in areas where their respective game agencies have blamed wolves for declined elk populations. Those killings could begin immediately after the rule is published in the Federal Register and if they occur soon then they will undoubtably end up killing packs of wolves who are near their den sites.  Idaho has committed to maintain only 10-15 breeding pairs or 100-150 wolves in total and they recently passed a wolf disaster declaration which defines a wolf disaster as having any more than 100.  Even though that legislation is now moot because it only applied while wolves were not protected under the ESA, it is a signal of things to come from the legislature next year.

One thing should become abundantly clear.  The livestock industry, with the help of Democrats, did this. If anyone thinks that Democrats represent the interests of wildlife advocates or that the livestock industry presents anything other than a threat to wildlife then they are fooling themselves.  Now that you recognize this what do you do?  Do you hold them accountable?  Do you escape from your codependent behavior that so many of us used to avoid conflict with our families and understand that it is effective politically?  Really, this happened because the anti-wolf crowd was able to rile up people into a fervor using hyperbole and fear that was noticed by politicians who are only worried about their reelection.  That’s how politics works.  The squeaky wheel gets the grease.

At least one group is already blaming the non-settling groups for taking away “leverage to rally senators against Tester and Reid” even though the judge specifically pointed out that he did not have the discretion to “allow what Congress forbids”.  Of course I wasn’t pleased with the settlement deal and I don’t think that it would have provided any more protection than what wolves face today but I also don’t think that it is useful to blame anyone other than the people who orchestrated this gutting of the Endangered Species Act.  We could have that conversation but what purpose does it serve other than to feed one’s ego?

The real focus should be on making sure that wolves remain on the landscape and serve a meaningful role in the ecosystem and not just a token population that exists at artificially low levels.  I suggest that there are a few main targets to make sure this happens.  First, defund the Wildlife Services predator control program, they need to be grounded so that they can’t kill wolves from the air.  Second, conservationists need to recognize that the livestock industry is who orchestrated this and that they will be more scrutinized now that they have done this.  More focus should be placed on public lands ranching that depends so much on the good graces and taxes of the public. And Third, the politicians who take the votes of wildlife advocates need to held to account.  Western Democrats worked hand in hand with Republicans and the livestock industry to get this done.  They need to know that they will face primary challengers who are willing to scuttle their entire candidacy just to make the point.

Does the metaphorical Hayduke live?  I’m not so sure anymore.  Can he be resurrected?  I hope so.  As conservationists we have to give them hell.

Attention being given to wolf delisting language in budget bill by the press.

There has been a flurry of press and opinion about the wolf delisting rider attached to the budget bill and the ongoing negotiations in Wyoming to change their wolf management plan in the last several days.

Some of the reporting is good and some misses important elements of the controversy but the issue has become very well publicized.  By all reports I’ve received, members of the House and Senate have received a huge number of calls about the issue but, unless the bill is defeated, there is likely no way to remove the language from it.

Below the fold is a long compilation of just the articles which have appeared in the press in the last two days.

Wolf Delisting Language Contained in 2011 Fiscal Year Budget Bill

New language protects Wyoming ruling over the State’s management plan.

Just when you think it couldn’t get any worse, new language was added to the rider which delists wolves in the Northern Rockies at the insistence of Wyoming’s delegation.  The new language intends to make it easier for Wyoming’s plan to pass muster or make it so that a plan that is being negotiated will pass muster with the USFWS.  There are reports that Governor Mead has been holding meetings behind closed doors among only groups who have little respect for wolves.  The deal being considered would slightly decrease the free-for-all kill zone and provide for “dispersion routes” so that wolves could possibly disperse to Colorado or Utah.

Cody Coyote commented on the Wyoming negotiations here.  The pulled article he mentions was here.

This is the language contained in the Final FY 2011 Budget Bill.

SEC. 1713. Before the end of the 60-day period beginning on the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the Interior shall reissue the final rule published on April 2, 2009 (74 Fed. Reg. 15123 et seq.) without regard to any other provision of statute or regulation that applies to issuance of such rule. Such reissuance (including this section) shall not be subject to judicial review and shall not abrogate or otherwise have any effect on the order and judgment issued by the United States District Court for the District of Wyoming in Case Numbers 09–CV–118J and 09–CV–138J on November 18, 2010.

What does this all mean? Well, first, this language requires the Secretary of Interior to reissue the 2009 delisting rule which leaves out Wyoming but delists wolves in Idaho, Montana, eastern Oregon, eastern Washington, and northern Utah. This cannot be challenged in court. And, as I pointed out above, it also protects the decision that the judge in Wyoming made which requires the USFWS to re-examine Wyoming’s wolf management plan.

If it passes this could happen at any time during the following 60 days.

Molloy denies wolf settlement

Says that the agreement is illegal

Today Montana District Court Judge Donald Molloy denied the settlement agreement put forth by 10 of the 14 environmental groups who sued to keep wolves protected under the Endangered Species Act.  The settling parties had asked the judge to set aside his previous ruling which found that the USFWS 2009 delisting rule was illegal because it split the distinct population segment (DPS) of wolves in the Northern Rockies and left them listed in Wyoming.  The Endangered Species Act does not allow the USFWS to partially delist a DPS.

“[The] District Court is still constrained by the “rule of law.” No matter how useful a course of conduct might be to achieve a certain end, no matter how beneficial or noble the end, the limit of power granted to the District Court must abide by the responsibilities that flow from past political decisions made by the Congress. The law cannot be ignored to accommodate a partial settlement. The rule of law does not afford the District Court the power to decide a legal issue but then at the behest of some of the litigants to reverse course and permit what the Congress has forbidden because some of those interested have sensibly, or for other reasons, decided to lay a dispute to rest.”

Order Denying Indicative Relief Motion

Budget bill pending before Congress would remove wolves from endangered list

Well, they’ve done it. They’ve reached an agreement to keep language in the upcoming budget bill which would delist wolves everywhere in the Northern Rockies except Wyoming. (Added to clarify what has happened)

While this process doesn’t immediately delist wolves, it cannot be challenged. It is unclear exactly what the language says but presumably wolves in the Northern Rockies will be delisted in all but Wyoming as previous wording has indicated. Previous language mandates the US Fish and Wildlife Service to republish the rule which delisted wolves in 2009. It does not preclude a petition to relist wolves if their populations become endangered again. The delisting rule still holds the states of Idaho and Montana to their management plans but it seems that, with the most recent “wolf disaster declaration” that they don’t intend to allow more than 100 wolves to persist in the state.

Also, the recent settlement agreement, as some have previously indicated, will likely provide political cover to the USFWS to accept Wyoming’s management plan with little or no changes. It seems that wolves are facing dark days ahead.

Here is the previous language, “SEC. 1709. Before the end of the 60-day period beginning on the date of enactment of this division, the Secretary of the Interior shall reissue the final rule published on April 2, 2009 (74 Fed. Reg. 15123 et seq.) without regard to any other provision of statute or regulation that applies to issuance of such rule. Such re-issuance (including this section) shall not be subject to judicial review.

Budget bill pending before Congress would remove wolves from endangered list.
Matthew Brown – Associated Press

To clarify, the language has not been passed yet.  It was not included in the short term budget agreement which funds the government for the next several days but, rather, will be included in the long term budget bill which is being written and will be posted for review for three days as House rules require.

Lawmakers try to lift wolf protection despite deal

Fail

I wish I could suggest this was a surprise:

Lawmakers try to lift wolf protection despite deal – Associated Press

Key lawmakers in the political skirmish over gray wolves in the West say they will continue their efforts to lift federal protections for the predators, despite a proposed settlement between environmentalists and the government.

When I watched the political process unfold in Idaho, I learned something:

A few conservationists’ attempted to appease the flagrant anti-wolf sentiment of the heavy-handed IDFG management plan by agreeing to sign off on everything in exchange for a sliver of a “wolf watching area” in the Wood River Valley.  One crumb was asked, where hunting would be off-limits.  Decision-makers scoffed and rejected the idea.

How did compensation work at increasing tolerance for wolves ?  It hasn’t.

Rational decision-making processes haven’t worked with anti-wolfers.  Political appeasement hasn’t worked.  In fact, it seems to be counterproductive, accomplishing little more than a demonstration of weakness – emboldening the anti-wolf effort.

Added 4/1/11 ~ a more lengthy rendition of the AP story :
Lawmakers to keep pressing wolf bills despite settlement between wolf advocates and government

~ be

Wolf settlement hearing today.

The hearing on the “wolf settlement” begins in just a few minutes.  I won’t guess what the outcome will be but I think the case against the settlement is pretty strong. It also appears that the backlash against the settling parties has been strong among wolf supporters with many stating that they have removed their support.

What’s worse, letting the legislature gut the ESA or doing it yourself?

Wolf settlement puts ball in judge’s court.
By EVE BYRON – Helena Independent Record

Arguments Filed Asking Judge Molloy to Consider Wolf Settlement

Earlier we learned why Western Watersheds Project stands firm. Does not join wolf settlement. Now initial briefs have been filed before the Court, with the Settling Parties filing a motion for an indicative ruling, essentially asking the judge whether he would partially stay the August 2010 order vacating and setting aside the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s 2009 Delisting Rule in the states of Idaho and Montana only.

I have attached links to several of the briefs, including Western Watersheds Project’s brief opposing the settlement, below the fold:

Introduction

Pursuant to the Court’s March 21, 2011 Order, Dkt. 193, Western Watersheds Project hereby objects to and opposes the Motion for Indicative Ruling filed jointly by several plaintiffs and defendants (collectively the “Settling Parties”) who attempt to settle the present case and a related case (No. cv-08-14-M-DWM). Dkt. 187.

The Settling Parties seek to strip Western Watersheds Project (“WWP”) and other non-settling plaintiffs of the legal ruling already rendered in their favor by this Court, without intervening or overriding legal authority, without all parties agreeing to the proposed settlement, and without ensuring adequate protection for wolves. The Court already held it improper for the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (“Service”) to base its Northern Rocky Mountain (“NRM”) wolves delisting decision on politics. Defenders of Wildlife v. Salazar, 729 F. Supp. 2d 1207, 1228 (D. Mont. 2010)(“Even if the Service’s solution is pragmatic, or even practical, it is at its heart a political solution that does not comply with the ESA.”) Yet the Settling Parties now seek the Court’s blessing for the politically motivated decision to be reinstated, and they provide no basis for the ruling they seek and settlement they propose, other than altered political postures.

Western Watersheds Project stands firm. Does not join wolf settlement.

The groups that settled have not gained the assurance of anything-

Today’s announcement that a number of plaintiffs in the wolf delisting case are seeking a settlement with the Department of Interior they hope Judge Molloy will approve does represent a difference in strategy how to proceed in the current political environment.

Three groups, the Alliance for the Wild Rockies, Western Watersheds and Friends of the Clearwater are standing firm.

Western Watershed’s Executive Director, Jon Marvel, today told me the reasons for the group’s firm stance.

Western Watersheds stresses that this settlement is only with the Department of Interior.  No one, including Senator Jon Tester of Montana, has indicated that in response to the settlement they will withdraw or modify any legislation they have introduced to delist the wolves by law, nor do Secretary of Interior Salazar or President Obama make any promise or even say they oppose such legislation, much less veto it if it passes.

There is nothing in return from this settlement except the promise to keep the scant number of wolves in Utah, Oregon and Washington on the endangered species list.

Western Watersheds believes that having won the case in the first place, the groups should not then ask that the judge approve the violation of the law and his own decision (delisting the NRM wolf by state boundaries).

Some groups settle on wolf delisting lawsuit; others don’t

Groups pursue different strategies for a variety of reasons-

I suppose there might be different statements from some of the groups. I think the differences were based on differing perceptions of what the future holds in terms of legislation and the worthiness of the Administration’s position of protecting the existing population of wolves.

Personally, I think the idea that there needs to be 5000 wolves is wrong as well as politically unpopular. The existing wolf population of about 1600 is robust and genetically healthy, but both could change.

Settlement offer splits wolves’ supporters; law firm withdraws.  By Eve Byron. Helena Independent Record.

Rift splits groups fighting to keep wolves on species list

We Won ! … Let’s Settle ?!?

“Among politicians and businessmen, *Pragmatism* is the current term for “To hell with our children.””
~ Edward Abbey

You win some, you lose some … but when a coalition of wolf advocates were successful in demonstrating that federal efforts to delist wolves were not based on science, i.e. unlawful, and won an injunction in federal court putting Northern Rocky Mountain wolves back on the Endangered Species List, the effort wasn’t over – not by a long shot.

Threat of political intervention, legislative delisting, hangs over this question thick – and it’s this pressure, or more appropriately wolf advocates’ response to it, that is being tested now.

Earthjustice has stepped down from representing wolf-advocates as Defenders of Wildlife, Natural Resources Defense Council, Sierra Club, Center for Biological Diversity, Jackson Hole Conservation Alliance, Oregon Wild, Cascadia Wildlands, Wildlands Network and Hells Canyon Preservation Council look to find cover from their own shadow :

Rift splits groups fighting to keep wolves on species list – Great Falls Tribune

The Alliance, Western Watersheds Project and Friends of the Clearwater refused to settle, Garrity told the Tribune Thursday.

“I believe these other groups will ask Judge Molloy for stay of his ruling which put wolves back on the Endangered Species List. This would mean that wolves could then be shot on sight and the states could have a hunting season on wolves before the wolf population is fully recovered,” Garrity said. “We are sticking to our original request that wolf management should be based on science and the law, not politics.”

Budget bills rejected in the Senate.

Wolves still protected under the Endangered Species Act

Both of the budget bills which contained language which would have delisted wolves were defeated in the Senate this afternoon. It appears that another short term continuing resolution will be brought up to fund the government once the current CR expires on March 18th.

Senate rejects rival GOP, Democratic budgets.
By ANDREW TAYLOR – The Associated Press

Tester amends federal budget bill to declare wolves recovered in Montana, Idaho

7-month spending bill likely to reach the floor of the Senate tomorrow

Need help finding your congressional representative?
US Senators The Honorable _____________ United States Senate Washington, DC 20515 Write your Senator	US Representatives The Honorable _____________ United States House of Representatives Washington, DC 20510 Write your Representative
Or call Capitol Switchboard 202-224-3121, Toll free 1-800-839-5276

Tester amends federal budget bill to declare wolves recovered in Montana, Idaho.
By ROB CHANEY of the Missoulian

Budgetary reprieve for wolves short-lived

Senator Tester gets delisting added to Senate version of the budget-

Tester amends federal budget bill to declare wolves recovered in Montana, Idaho. By Rob Chaney. Missoulian.

The recent CR (Continuing Resolution) that passed Congress avoiding a government shutdown for two weeks provided short term relief on wolf delisting by Congress, but it is just a short term measure while the Senate and the House argue over the budget.

As he said he would, Montana’s U.S. Senator Jon Tester got language added to the Senate’s final budget bill.  It seems to match the language on the House side that was inserted by Mike Simpson of Idaho. It delists the” wolf in Idaho and Montana, but not Wyoming. It prevents legal challenges to the delisting.

Here is the language, “SEC. 1709. Before the end of the 60-day period beginning on the date of enactment of this division, the Secretary of the Interior shall reissue the final rule published on April 2, 2009 (74 Fed. Reg. 15123 et seq.) without regard to any other provision of statute or regulation that applies to issuance of such rule. Such re-issuance (including this section) shall not be subject to judicial review.

Provision of this on both chambers of Congress pretty much guarantees the wolf will be delisted in Idaho and Montana. In Idaho, Governor Otter seems determined to have a wolf killing spree as soon as he and the GOP Tea Partiers are  done gutting the state’s education system, busting unions, and cutting Medicaid for those who are sick and poor.

You can contact U.S. Senators about this, asking that it be removed. We are still an uncertain distance from a budget because to the extreme differences between Republicans and Democrats on many parts of the budget. I expect sniping, possible government shutdowns, and unstable budgets to continue for quite a while.

 

Where do wolves stand?

Also, a discussion about wolf delisting

Here is an article that reasonably sums up where wolves are in the political landscape. Contrary to what I’ve read in other articles, it appears that Carter Niemeyer supports delisting only conditionally. He will likely be marginalized for it.

Niemeyer said that while he agrees wolves should be off the endangered species list, Simpson’s path to get there is inadvisable. “It sets a terrible precedent to delist them outside the normal delisting procedures,” he said. He worries that if the ESA is bypassed, slow and cumbersome as it may be, the results could open a Pandora’s box.

“Reasonable people need to prevail right now, otherwise we’re going to get a political fix that is going to be unacceptable.”

As debate rages, Wood River Valley sees less of predators.
By Ariel Hansen – Magic Valley Times-News

This mirrors my sentiment but I would add that I don’t think that the states or the USFWS have been negotiating in good faith. The states, particularly Idaho and Wyoming, and increasingly Montana, have a toxic view towards wolves. With the new draft legislation it appears that they don’t want to even consider managing wolves using science and rational thought. The legislatures seem to perpetuate every anti-wolf myth and made up tale that the anti side can come up with. The USFWS, despite contrary assertions by the extreme anti-wolf crowd, hasn’t budged from it’s stance that a sustainable wolf population only requires 10-15 breeding pairs per state even though those estimates were made at a time when understanding of wolves and population ecology was in its infancy. Now the science indicates that a much higher population is required.

Larry Craig lobbies on wolf legislation

Hired by “Sportsmen” for Fish and Wildlife

Could Larry Craig be a closet wolf lover? This one doesn't seem to be pleased by his advances 😉

Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife, a group who is turning out to be more for livestock than for wildlife, has hired former Senator Larry Craig to lobby for legislation which would remove protections from all wolves nationwide.  This would leave the doors open for states like Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming to eradicate as many wolves as they please.

It amazes me that this manly man hunting group would hire a coward who is too scared to admit that he is gay.  It highlights the hypocrisy of these groups who use hyperbole and fear against wolves and any other predator that they fear.

Maybe a little hyperbole and satire is in order 😉

Clarification and a note about the danger of satire:  Larry Craig feeds the homophobia present in this society by hiding his sexual preference. While homophobia is no laughing matter, it should be noted that Larry proudly fought against the rights of people to love who they choose to love.  I find that particularly disgusting and in particular need of satire of the ruthless variety.

-Ken

Larry Craig lobbies on wolf legislation.
By John Miller – Associated Press

Wolf delisting provision gets attached to Republican version of the continuing budget resolution by Representative Mike Simpson (R-ID)

Delists wolves in Northern Rockies but leaves out Wyoming.

The GOP in the House of Representatives is starting to work on their version of a continuing budget resolution that would be needed to fund the government until a formal budget is passed to fund government agencies.  Another way to fund the government could come in the form of an omnibus spending bill until a formal budget is passed.  The Republicans have indicated that they do not support shutting down the government so funding must be appropriated by March 4th when the current continuing budget resolution expires.

The Senate will have its own version and there will likely be a big fight over any funding of the government. There are significant changes that could take place to any of these bills.

The wording of the language is as follows:

SEC. 1713. Before the end of the 60-day period beginning on the date of enactment of this division, the Secretary of the Interior shall reissue the final rule published on April 2, 2009 (74 Fed. Reg. 15123 et seq.) without regard to any other provision of statute or regulation that applies to issuance of such rule. Such reissuance (including this section) shall not be subject to judicial review.

If language like this passes wolves in Idaho, Montana, and parts of Oregon, Washington, and Utah would lose Endangered Species Act protections while those in Wyoming would retain protection.

GOP budget bill lifts wolf protections.
By MATTHEW BROWN – Associated Press

Orrin Hatch Reintroduces Wolf Legislation

Bill already has opposition in the Senate

Yesterday, Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT) reintroduced a bill (S.249) described as “[a] bill to amend the Endangered Species Act of 1973 to provide that Act shall not apply to any gray wolf (Canis lupus).” This, in effect, could lead to the eradication of wolves anyplace in the U.S. especially in areas such as the Northern Rockies and those Mexican Gray Wolves in Arizona and New Mexico.

The legislation has opposition which means that it is unlikely to pass the Democratically controlled Senate. Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA), Chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, and Senator Ben Cardin (D-MD), Chairman of the Water and Wildlife Subcommittee, made the following statement on the legislation:

“The Endangered Species Act is one of the nation’s landmark environmental laws and has protected iconic species like the bald eagle. The Act, which unanimously passed the Senate and was signed into law by President Nixon, relies on the best available science to make decisions about how to protect the nation’s threatened and endangered species.

Legislation introduced today that completely and irreversibly removes the Gray Wolf from the list of threatened and endangered species sets a dangerous precedent that undermines the Endangered Species Act and threatens the continued existence of the Gray Wolf across this country.

We objected to moving similar legislation on the floor of the Senate in December of last year, and we remain just as opposed today. But we also look forward to working with our colleagues on an approach that follows the science, addresses the concerns of local communities, and upholds the integrity of the Endangered Species Act.”

Sen. Orrin Hatch Reintroduces Legislation to Empower Utah and Other Western States to Manage Wolf Populations
By: Kramer Phillips – The State Column

Text of Judge Molloy’s latest wolf decision

Molloy says an “experimental” (10)j wolf population most likely does not exist-

Here is the actual text of the judge’s latest wolf decision.  I think he is also saying a valid 10j population has not existed for some time, although he did not resurrect the argument that the original 10j reintroduction was not proper.  Molloy’s order on experimental wolves

I think he may have cut the Gordian Knot. It is unclear still to me what the effects of this will be — who actually won. Strictly speaking, the government won (I mean on paper).

Idaho senators fail in bid to remove federal protection for wolves.

The wolf bills are probably dead

I’ve rewritten this post as it appears that there is still a chance for a bill to move in the Senate.

The bill that would have removed wolves from the Endangered Species Act has failed and the bill which would have removed protections for wolves in Idaho and Montana introduced by Max Baucus of Montana was not successfully attached to the appropriations bill.

With so much else going on in Washington DC it appears that none of the bills to remove protections from wolves will be successful this congress but there is still a slight chance that the Baucus/Tester bill could move during the lame duck session of congress.

There is another dynamic here to take into consideration, the Baucus/Tester bill, which would require that Idaho and Montana maintain a number of wolves higher than the minimum of 10-15 packs, is opposed by many sportsman’s groups including the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation because it gives wolves even some protection. If this bill is passed it would be considered by some as a win for Tester who is likely to face a very tough reelection battle in 2012. With that, it seems likely that Republicans will try to block it since their whole strategy of late has been to block anything that might benefit Democrats.

That being said, the Baucus/Tester Bill would still set a very bad precedent for the Endangered Species Act. It would set a precedent that would allow delisting of any species if it somehow becomes inconvenient for the powers that be or those who kick and scream the most.

Idaho senators fail in bid to remove federal protection for wolves.
Dan Popkey – Idaho Statesman

State of the species
Anti-wolf bills unlikely to pass before year’s end
By KATHERINE WUTZ – Idaho Mountain Express

Utah bill to delist wolves fails in Senate.
By Laura Lundquist – Magic Valley Times-News

LA Times OpEd: Rocky Mountain low

The LA Times weighs in on western politicians’ effort to deslist Northern Rocky Mountain Wolves by way of legislation:

Rocky Mountain Low – LA Times Opinion Editorial

The actions of three states and a handful of congressmen seem likely to undermine the return of the gray wolves of the northern Rockies. Even worse, they would set an appalling precedent for undermining the species act.

Idaho governor says wolf delisting push stalled last Monday on population goal, other details

It shows that Otter never intended to follow IDFG’s management plan.

Otter once again shows us that the state never intended to manage wolves with an eye toward science. He always intended to manage for the minimum number identified in the legislative plan and that the IDFG plan was meaningless just as we have always maintained.

I haven’t seen the proposed legislation anywhere else except here. It was being passed around via email by those who opposed having any protections for wolves and supported bills like the one introduced by Orin Hatch of Utah which removes all wolves, even Mexican wolves, from the ESA. Groups such as the once moderate Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation were opposed to the Baucus/Tester bill because it provided even a modicum of protection.

As Brian Ertz has pointed out on another thread, it’s not that the Endangered Species Act doesn’t provide for a clear path to delist wolves, it is that the states don’t want to provide that regulatory framework to ensure that wolves won’t become endangered again once delisting occurs.

I really can’t imagine that this behavior will help them to resolve this issue if attempts to change the ESA or delist wolves through legislation are unsuccessful. They have certainly lifted the veil. This will all be seen by the judges during the appeal process and it surely demonstrates that they are unwilling to provide any level of protection to wolves once they become delisted. They seem to be playing a high stakes game of chicken and I don’t expect that wolf advocates are going to blink here.

Again though, wolf advocates are being blamed for this impasse and called extremists for insisting that wolves be managed using careful science rather than politics. It seems to me that those who want to bypass science and use only politics are the extremists.

Who is moving the goal posts now?

Idaho governor says wolf delisting push stalled last Monday on population goal, other details
Associated Press.

Wolf Politics and the Endangered Species ‘End Run’

This article is highly significant now, although it appears an end run might pass the Senate tonight-

Wolf Politics and the Endangered Species ‘End Run’. by Virginia Morell on 9 December 2010, 5:16 PM. ScienceInsider.

Idaho Fish and Game Commission suspends 2008-2012 Wolf Management Plan

Directs Department to prepare a new plan consistent with 2002 Legislative Plan.

The IDFG Commission voted unanimously to suspend the 2008-2012 wolf management plan, which maintains a wolf population of 518 wolves in the state of Idaho, and directed the Department to prepare “an appropriate wolf species management plan, consistent with the 2002 Idaho Wolf Conservation and Management Plan approved by the Idaho Legislature and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.”

In other words, this means that the IDFG has abandoned all pretense of biological or scientific management of wolves in favor of a politically driven plan which only commits to maintain 10 packs minimum but would institute remedial management measures if the population falls below 15 packs.

IDFG Wolf Motion to suspend 2008 plan

Here is the language of the motion which was unanimously passed:

(1) Continue the pursuit of control actions under 10j for the protection of ungulate herds while wolves remain listed under the Endangered Species Act;

(2) Suspend immediately the 2008-2012 Idaho Wolf Population Management Plan; and

(3) Postpone consideration, until delisting resumes, as to the specifics of day-to-day state wolf management and upon delisting of gray wolves in Idaho; the Commission will direct the Department to prepare an appropriate wolf species management plan, consistent with the 2002 Idaho Wolf Conservation and Management Plan approved by the Idaho Legislature and the u.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Youtube video of the meeting and more comment to come. Watch this space.

Montana says wolf deal is dead

Schweitzer says talks have broken down, probably for good!

According to the story, Idaho and Wyoming would not go along with a deal for a wolf hunt and delisting in Idaho and Montana because they wanted a legislative fix in addition.

Montana governor says wolf deal dead. AP in the Bozeman Chronicle.

Wolf management hot topic in D.C.

Controversy sparks various efforts to suppress wildlife management to favor extremists-

In addition to the effort by Montana Senators Jon Tester and Max Bacus to legalize Montana and Idaho’s wolf management plans by changing the law, a group of 8 far right Republicans has introduced legislation to give wolf management to the states.

Ersatz rancher U.S. Representative of Montana Rep. Denny Rehberg seems to be leader of this group of 8 Republicans. The report is in the Helena Independent Record by Eve Byron.  The Republicans are Cynthia Lummis of Wyoming; Dean Heller of Nevada; Rob Bishop of Utah; Mike Simpson of Idaho;* Trent Franks of Arizona; Wally Herger of California and Jason Chaffetz of Utah.

According to the I.R.,

Rehberg said. “After holding hearings in Montana and reading thousands of comments, it’s clear that folks in Western states like Montana are sick and tired of powerful environmental interest groups funded out of places like San Francisco and New York telling us how to manage our lands, resources and wildlife.”

These people love to say anything they disagree with comes from New York or San Francisco. That’s pretty irritating coming from a rich phony blowhard like Rehberg. How come the 3 webmasters of this blog all hail from Idaho or Montana? And why does it turn out that a lot of extreme anti-wolfers come from places like Chicago?

Hopefully this legislation will fail in the gridlock-as-usual in Washington.

– – – –
*Mike Simpson is my congressman here in Eastern Idaho. He hasn’t been an extremist, but he got a scare in the primary when 3 teabaggers challenged him.  He was renominated by more than 50% of the vote, however.

Wolf bills are probably dead

Will they emerge in the next Congress?

Due to the gridlock in Congress, the bills to sidestep the endangered species act seem to be dead in the current lame duck session of Congress.

Wolf bills unlikely to advance this Congress. By Matthew Brown. Associated Press

On the surface it would seem like the reactionary* new Congress will be fertile ground for attacks on the ESA, but a government shutdown, attacks on social security and medicare, might cause so much conflict that lesser things will not move.

– – – – – – –

*Today’s poplar political rhetoric is impoverished. The word “radical” is freely applied to all kinds of views a person or groups don’t agree with. However, long historical use is for extreme left wing measures to be called “radical,” while extreme right wing attempts to move backwards beyond conservative are called “reactionary.”

Judge sides with Wyoming in wolf case

U.S. District Judge Alan Johnson Rules that USFWS was not justified in rejecting Wyoming’s woefully inadequate wolf management plan.

Recall that Judge Molloy ruled in 2008 that the USFWS arbitrarily accepted Wyoming’s wolf management plan without justification after initially rejecting it. Specifically Molloy said that the USFWS “acted arbitrarily and capriciously when it approved Wyoming’s 2007 plan despite the State’s failure to commit to managing for 15 breeding pairs and the plan’s malleable trophy game area”.

Updated: Judge sides with Wyoming in wolf case.
By JEREMY PELZER Casper Star-Tribune capital bureau

Idaho Fish and Game will immediately work to transfer wolf management to federal government

New news story has an important change-

Unlike the original story today on Otter’s decision, the story late tonight (Oct. 18) says “Idaho Fish and Game conservation officers will continue to collect information about illegal wolf kills, as they would for any endangered species and transfer it to federal law enforcement officials.” [emphasis mine]

Idaho Fish and Game will immediately work to transfer wolf management to federal government. By Roger Phillips. Idaho Statesman.

– – – –

Opinion from the Idaho Statesman. Our View: Wyoming has earned Gov. Butch Otter’s ire, not the feds.  My view is you won’t win votes bashing Wyoming. That’s what the governor figures.

Otter takes Idaho out of wolf management

State will not manage wolves nor control poaching-

Idaho won’t manage wolves under ESA – John Miller, AP

“After talks with the federal government collapsed, Gov. C.L. ‘Butch’ Otter ordered Idaho wildlife managers Monday to relinquish their duty to arrest poachers or to even investigate when wolves are killed illegally.”

From his first day in office, Butch Otter has made wolves his signature issue even as the state of Idaho has drifted and floundered. Otter single-handedly destroyed the grudging acceptance wolf conservation groups were granting the Idaho and Montana wolf management plans.  His threats to kill the first wolf in an Idaho wolf hunt, and bring their numbers down to the bare minimum . . . maybe kill them all . . . are real root of the current antagonism and anger that permeates the region.

When people point fingers about conservationists bringing lawsuits, they don’t need to look much beyond Butch Otter, who made it clear from start he would not listen to them, didn’t care, and wanted trouble.

Now it is up to the federal government to cave to Otter, manage the wolves, or redesignate someone like the Nez Perce Tribe to manage wolves in Idaho. The Tribe did an excellent job, and most of Idaho and Montana’s original wolf mangers were trained with the Tribe and moved into state roles when the states took over. The Tribe is not jumping at the chance to take up wolf management again. Rocky Barker:  Nez Perce Tribe prefers to dodge Idaho wolf job. Idaho Statesman.

Because Idaho is no longer going to arrest poachers and it is currently the hunting season, a slaughter of wolves might be in order unless the federal government quickly brings in law enforcement. Because Idaho is no longer managing wolves, Wildlife Services, which is a federal agency though they rarely act like it, should no longer be killing wolves.

We have to wonder if Idaho Fish and Game will now let the radio frequencies of wolves fall into the hands of the poachers.

We think that gubernatorial politics also figures in this. Otter is facing a stiff Challenger from Keith Allred, a Democrat who is getting support from many Republicans who sense an extremism as well as lack of an economic plan in Otter’s administration. We note the Otter had to bring in Mitt Romney to campaign for him, most likely because Otter is weak with the LDS (Mormon) voters of Eastern Idaho. We don’t seem to see much more than a pro forma Otter campaign in Eastern Idaho. Otter’s opponent Keith Allred, is not a wolf supporter, but is not campaigning as a hothead.

This is a classic political stunt for a politician with a poor record fighting a tough campaign — pick a fight, especially one with a lot of emotion, but one which won’t cost the state money.

– – – – –

Otter’s News Release

(BOISE) – Governor C.L. “Butch” Otter notified Interior Secretary Ken Salazar today that Idaho no longer will act as the federal government’s “designated agent,” managing wolves imposed on the state under the Endangered Species Act.

Instead, the Governor directed the Idaho Fish and Game Commission to immediately refocus its efforts on protecting Idaho’s deer, elk and moose, and said the Idaho Department of Fish and Game will be submitting applications to the Interior Department for additional flexibility in addressing wolf depredation issues “so we can exercise our sovereign right to protect our wildlife.”

“This directive preserves an individual’s right to kill a wolf in self defense or in the defense of another person. It does not jeopardize the existing flexibility landowners and permittees have to protect their livestock and pets from wolves,” Governor Otter wrote in a letter to Salazar. “Additionally, this approach does not ask Idahoans who continue suffering wolves – especially sportsmen – to subsidize any part of this federal program or bear the risk or burden of inadequate federal funding in the future.”

In his letter, the Governor reiterated that the State of Idaho has consistently proven itself to be a responsible steward of all wildlife – “including your wolves.”

“We also showed that we could successfully manage a hunting season for wolves as we do for other species,” he said. “The State managed wolves as part of the ecosystem, in concert with other species and needs, which was ironically decried by environmentalists who seemingly want wolves to benefit at the expense of other wild and domestic species.”

“I am still committed to finding a path forward for delisting. My goal remains restoring State management under our approved plan as quickly as possible, if for no other reason than to fulfill the promise of our State law that all wildlife within our borders will be managed by the State. To that end, I am encouraged by the efforts of representatives from the three legislatures (Idaho, Montana and Wyoming) to see if there is a path forward for delisting and state management,” Governor Otter wrote to Salazar. “Although we could not agree during the course of our negotiations, I share your commitment to delist the species and restore state management as quickly as possible. It is truly frustrating that we cannot accomplish that shared goal today.”

Read the letter

New Study: As of 2004 NR wolves genetically diverse, healthy

1995-2004 study shows beneficial results of reintroducing wolves in terms of their genetics-

Well, this is good news, and just what we would expect.  If wolves had been allowed to recolonize on their own, they would not be at all like this. This is why I supported reintroduction instead of regulation heavy natural recolonization under full ESA protection.

Study finds wolves genetically diverse, dispersing. By Corey Hatch. Jackson Hole News and Guide

I see some attempt trying to spin this paper into evidence for delisting, but no one ever said that the wolf population as of 2004 was not genetically diverse. The question is about the effect of the state management plans over time, not the wolf population prior to state management.

Who’s not willing to compromise on wolves?

Is compromising with the lawless in the best interest of wolves, wildlife, or the ESA?

By Ken Cole, Ralph Maughan, and Brian Ertz.

Ever since wolves were relisted as an Endangered Species by Judge Molloy of Montana there has been a persistent drone of editorial opinion, political grandstanding, and accusations made about and against wolf/Endangered Species Act (ESA) advocates.

Backlash.

Just recently, a piece was written that claimed wolf advocates “blew it” by fighting too long and too hard to protect the integrity of the ESA via fighting to keep protections for wolves. It went on to say that wolf advocates should have made an offer to settle rather than fight for the integrity of the ESA and now they are responsible for giving their opponents ammunition to threaten the integrity of the ESA.

The fact of the matter is that wolf advocate plaintiffs have been in settlement discussions with defendants, sadly enough, even after the court victory re-instating protections for wolves. It’s been wolf-opponents such as representatives of the state of Idaho that have declined to participate, refusing to even send anyone to these discussions. So who’s being too strident and why?

Furthermore, any settlement agreement must be reviewed by the public which means that it is an action that could be litigated by any number of groups for various reasons.

Feds, States and others file appeal on wolf ruling

Federal Government appeals the wolf ruling-

I missed this one but it is important. Everyone knew that the states and many other groups would appeal Judge Molloy’s ruling on wolves but no one was sure whether the Federal Government would appeal the ruling too. Now that question has been answered.

State and others file appeal on wolf ruling.
By Eve Byron – Helena Independent Record

Baucus, Tester introduce bill to return wolf management to Montana [and Idaho]

Rancher senators move to amend Endangered Species Act-

Although most of the grass roots activity against wolves has come from elk and deer hunters, it has always been the ranchers at the core of wolf hatred.  The reason is that the large ranchers have always believed it is their right to govern the rest of us. The were very insulted when something like wolf reintroduction happened over their objections . . . makes them think they are losing their grip.

We certainly see it in Montana. Max Baucus has always been a prime example of man born to ranch privilege and power. Jon Tester is a rancher/farmer.  The state’s lone Republican, House member Denny Rehberg is a rancher, and so is his Democratic opponent in the upcoming election.

This issue has always been about the privilege and power of a tiny elite in the West. That’s what wolves are so controversial in the Northern Rockies, but not in Minnesota, Wisconsin or Michigan where social and economic justice has always been more important.

I don’t know if this legislation will move or not, but I do know what it is not about. It’s not about wildlife or wolves.  It’s clear now Congress won’t take this up before the elections.  They want to go campaign.
Temporary Spending Bill Passed: Congress Punts On Budget, Controversial Issues. Huffington Post.

Baucus, Tester introduce bill to return wolf management to Montana. By Rob Chaney. Missoulian. Note that the bill doesn’t do anything regarding wolves in Wyoming. It is kind of a “damn you Wyoming” bill.

The state of Idaho is managing wolves without any authority

The 2006 Memorandum of Agreement has EXPIRED.

The State of Idaho and Wildlife Services have been operating outside of the law since relisting has occurred. It appears that the State of Idaho has no management authority over wolves now that they have been re-listed under the ESA. This is evidenced by the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between the Secretary of Interior and the State of Idaho dated January 5, 2006 which hands over lead management authority over wolves to the State of Idaho. This agreement has expired. In addition, wolves have been relisted, and there is no valid section 10j MOA existing, at least which has been made public, which grants the State of Idaho management authority over wolves.

Update late 9/28. By Ralph Maughan. Today I called Ed Bangs about this. We had a brief conversation. He said that yes the MOA had expired, but the whole thing had been taken care of. He asked me to call Brian Kelly of USFWS in Boise for the “whole spiel.”  Brian Ertz called Kelly’s office a number of times, but Kelly did not answer, nor call back. So we are yet to gain any information.

Update 9/29.  By Ken Cole

I spoke to Brian Kelly, the new state State Supervisor Of Idaho USFWS Office, today about the issue at hand and he confirmed that there is no MOA but that the 2005 10(j) rule covers them and designates Idaho management authority. From the language I found on page 1291 of the 2005 10(j) rule I don’t see anything which does this. Essentially this says that an MOA with the Secretary of the DOI allows the state to manage wolves but the MOA has expired.

http://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/species/mammals/wolf/2005_10j/10jFR01052005.pdf

Response 3–3: The completion of an MOA with the Secretary of the DOI which is consistent with this rule allows a State or Tribe to take the lead in wolf management, to become ‘‘designated agent(s),’’ and to implement all parts of its approved wolf management plan that are consistent with this rule. This includes issuing written authorization for take, and making all decisions regarding implementation of the State or Tribal plan consistent with this rule. Under the MOA process, the Service will annually review the States’ and Tribes’ implementation of their plans to ensure compliance with this rule and to ensure the wolf population remains above recovery levels. States and Tribes also can become ‘‘designated agent(s)’’ and implement all or selected portions of this rule by entering into a cooperative agreement with the Service.

Furthermore, Section 6 of the ESA indicates that the DOI may enter in to a cooperative agreement with the states but management authority rests with, in this case, the USFWS otherwise.

Simply having an approved management plan is not adequate to grant a state lead management authority, an MOA is required.

From the ID Wolf 10j MOA FINAL_10506:

V. PERIOD OF PERFORMANCE

This agreement is effective through March 2010, unless terminated or wolves are delisted. This agreement may be terminated by either party after 90 days written notice in accordance with the 10(j) rule.

From our reading of the Endangered Species Act, it appears that such an agreement is required before the states can participate in management of an experimental, non-essential endangered species and, without such an agreement, the State of Idaho has no authority to manage wolves now that they are back on the Endangered Species list as section 10(j) animals.

Since relisting has occurred, there have been at least 4 instances whereby the IDFG has issued control orders, without apparent management authority, which have resulted in the death of at least 6 wolves.  There may have been many more because it is hard to get these numbers since the IDFG does not release information about its wolf management very often and hasn’t done so since June of this year.

Recently Governor Otter announced that he would hand back authority to manage wolves back to the USFWS if there wasn’t a new agreement by October 7 of this year. But, is it his to hand back?

Is the State of Idaho and the US Fish and Wildlife Service aware of this? Well, during the last meeting of the IDFG commissioners the subject of the expired MOA came up.  This shows that they are well aware of this lack of authority but there seems to be no attempt at clarifying any interim agreement while a new MOA is being negotiated. In the meantime the IDFG seems to be shooting from the hip and issuing control orders without legal authority.

It should be of concern when the government acts arbitrarily and it should be of concern to reasonable people who believe in the rule of law.

Montana state officials defend wolf appeal

Delisting could take years

Even if the states win an appeal of Malloy’s wolf decision it may take years before the other issues in the case are resolved. The legislatures of the respective states have only committed to maintaing a population of 300 wolves total. Regardless of the commitment of the game agencies the legislatures could, and likely would, tell them they must manage for the minimum number of wolves.

State officials defend appeal.
Great Falls Tribune

FWP takes heat over appeal on wolf ruling
Helena Independent Record

Feds to make new attempt delisting Midwest wolves

Possible hitch is discovery that eastern timber wolf is a different species than Great Lakes wolves-

It would certainly be good politics if the wolf could be delisted here because the state wolf management plans and public opinion is so much more favorable than in Idaho, Montana and Wyoming. Good work and good folks should be rewarded, IMO.

There is a problem in that the gray wolf of the Great Lakes, canis lupis had been found to be clearly different from canis lupis lycaon (the eastern timber wolf) which is now being classified as not just a sub-species, but a separate species of wolf — canis lycaon — but I think keeping the Great Lakes wolves listed is very bad politics and an inefficient way of conserving lycaon, the latter being an almost entirely a resident of eastern Canada. We need to help our friends in Canada.

Feds make new attempt at delisting Midwest wolves. “The federal government is ready to try again to take wolves off the endangered species list in Minnesota, Wisconsin and Michigan’s Upper Peninsula.”
By: John Myers, Duluth News Tribune.

It should be noted that canis lycaon has been interbreeding with coyotes for many years now to produce the large northeastern “coyote,” on which Dr. Jon Way is an expert (Way posts in this forum).

Otter’s Staff Backtracks on Wolf Deadline

Not so quick on handing over wolf management to Feds

It seems that Butch has changed his mind or, rather, his staff has changed it for him. In a quick turnaround Otter’s staff says he wasn’t drawing a line in the sand. He was just frustrated.

I can’t imagine the phone calls his office received after his press release came out saying that he would hand over wolf management to the USFWS if they didn’t give the state more flexibility to kill wolves. The implications seemed pretty clear if that were to happen.

No wolf standoff in Idaho .
Idaho Statesman

USFWS thinking on wolves after the recent court decision

My personal opinion is that moderate groups could sit down and work out a new wolf delisting plan. Of course, this would require the state governments to change their wolf management plans if they want to participate in wolf management. Unfortunately, state politicians are probably not among moderates, especially with an election coming up.

Questions and Answers from USFWS

Bootlicking and wiggling out of enforcement

I attended the IDFG Commissioner’s “special meeting” on Monday in Idaho Falls where the commissioners discussed how to proceed now that wolves are again protected by the Endangered Species Act.

After the Commission decided to adopt new rules on placement of traps, which requires trappers to keep traps at least 5 feet away from the center line of established trails and at least 300 feet away from established campgrounds, the subject of wolf management was next.

Robyn Thorson, the regional director for the USFWS, was first up and gave the most incredible bootlicking performance I’ve ever seen. She began by profusely apologizing to the Commission for the failure of their rule to delist wolves to live up to the law and then went on to give emphatic support for Idaho’s management plan and the way that Idaho Fish and Game has been managing wolves. She expressed that the USFWS was “deeply disappointed” that they lost in court.

The commissioners wanted to know if there was any way to ease the burden the present 10(j) rule which requires the use of science to show that wolves are having “unacceptable impacts” on ungulate populations and are a major reason that ungulate populations are not meeting the objectives set by the department. The IDFG wants to more easily kill wolves and extrapolate the existing science that they have conducted to zones adjacent to the Lolo Zones that they are concerned about. They also want to know if they have to conduct new science on other zones.

Thorson reminded them that the current 10(j) rule is once again under litigation and that the forthcoming decision on that case would determine the sideboards with which further decisions are made. She said she couldn’t really comment on whether the burden of science could be eased but said that they “would look at everything with the intent of trying to find a path”.

The commissioners then asked the USFWS to participate in the appeal of Molloy’s decision. She responded that the USFWS had made no decision about whether to appeal the decision.

Wayne Wright expressed disappointment that Idaho had not been involved in the decision about the DPS decision when the reintroduction plan was developed. Thorson stated that they would “not let that happen again” and that they wouldn’t do it without collaboration and open comment. She said that, since they have someone in Boise who works specifically on wolves, they could provide the “listening and sharing of information part” and that she hopes “to remedy any past laws in process”.

Randy Budge asked whether the USFWS felt that wolves were in any jeopardy with Idaho and Montana managing wolves in their respective states and the USFWS managing wolves in Wyoming. Thorson responded that the USFWS did not concur with the ruling of the judge and felt that the delisting rule adequately protected wolves. She also suggested that the quickest way for the Service to delist wolves in the Northern Rockies was for Wyoming to change their management plan so that it met their requirements. She didn’t know why Wyoming doesn’t want to come up with a plan but that they don’t and that’s the way it is.

There is much more and you can watch video from the meeting below:

A Whackadoodle Response to the Wolf Decision

Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation issues a press release.

I don’t post links to anti-wolf websites or give much credence to their clams but the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation has, as with their previous news release on wolves, issued another hyperbolic press release in response to Judge Malloy’s decision to relist wolves as an endangered species.

The Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation used to be more realistic about the effects of wolves but with their new leadership they have lost credibility by making statements like these in reference to wolves:

• “skyrocketing wolf populations”
• “greatest wildlife management disaster in America since the wanton destruction of bison herds”
• “federal statutes and judges actually endorse the annihilation of big game herds, livestock, rural and sporting lifestyles—and possibly even compromise human safety”

Victory ! Wolves Relisted in the Northern Rockies !

Victory !  Wolves Relisted in the Northern Rockies !

Judge Molloy rules in wolf advocates’ favor !

Federal judge puts gray wolves back on endangered species list – AP

Read the Order

– – – – – –
Update:  Here is  the story in the Washington Post.
This story is pretty matter of fact {well facts on the wolf issue are good 😉 } What is interesting, however, is at the very end — the federal lawsuit by Wyoming to require the USFWS to accept their “flawed” wolf plan. There is speculation that Molloy’s vacation of the rule might make this suit (the one before federal judge Johnson) moot — might. Ralph Maughan

– – – – – –

Wolf Delisting Court Hearing: Sense and Nonsense

Louisa Willcox of NRDC writes about the Delisting Hearing

Louisa Wilcox, of NRDC, has written a great piece about the hearing and how the arguments by the government were disjointed and more about the politics than the law. She raises some good points and gives more information about the judge’s questions of the government’s conflicting arguments.

“Is it rational for the states to manage wolves when their plans are not legally binding or enforceable? When their primary defense is a “trust us” argument? Was not the failure of the states to recover wolves a major reason that wolves got listed in the first place? Given the states’ track record, what rational person would be satisfied with a “trust us” defense?”

Articles about today’s Wolf Delisting Hearing

Judge wonders why Wyoming was left out of the delisting decision.

It looks like Molloy’s decision will center greatly on the decision of the USFWS to leave out Wyoming. About that decision:

“I understand the practical argument, I understand the political argument. Those two things are very, very clear. But what I don’t understand is the legal argument. That’s not very clear,” the judge said.

Molloy: Why protect wolves in Wyoming, but not Montana and Idaho?.
By ROB CHANEY of the Missoulian

Judge hears arguments in federal wolf case
By MATT VOLZ (AP)

Wolf delisting hearing stalled after attorney faints in courtroom

85 protesters show up at courthouse-

Wolf delisting hearing stalled after attorney faints in courtroom. KBZK.com

Crowds expected Tuesday as wolves return to court in Missoula

Tomorrow is the big day before Judge Molloy-

“”People simplify things,”[Ed] Bangs said. “They’ll say 300 wolves is not enough for recovery, but that’s not the recovery goal. That’s bogus. Or they’ll say the Service promised there’d never be more than 300 wolves. That’s not true either.” Rest of the story in the Missoulian.

Wyoming Governor complains about ‘venue shopping’

Would rather have a distraction away from real issues affecting the landscape

The Wyoming Governor continues his complaining about wolves and the litigation surrounding them by claiming that the groups suing over delisting are “venue shopping”. He wants to be the one to decide where a case is heard because he likes the judges where he lives. Frankly, he probably would rather have the Feds managing wolves in Wyoming anyway so they have someone else to blame things on and have a distraction for the wholesale destruction of their landscape by energy developers. Wyoming simply doesn’t want the responsibility of wolf management.

As Ralph accurately states:

“Regarding WY Gov. Freudenthal’s bitching about favorable judicial forums, he seeks a favorable court when he sues. Everyone does.

Regardless, the wolf case should have been handled in Montana, not Wyoming. The federal headquarters of the wolf project is in Helena, MT.

He’s a hypocrite.

Jenny Harbine from EarthJustice puts it well too:

“To hear him tell it, you would think wolves only exist in Wyoming, and that Wyoming should have the first crack at deciding the fate of any resource in the entire region,” Jenny Harbine said. “But the truth of the matter is that wolves exist in Montana, Idaho and Wyoming, and Wyoming hasn’t cornered the market on judicial resolution of the conservation issues.”

Gov raps ‘venue shopping’.
By CHAD BALDWIN – Casper Star Tribune

Mangy Druid wolf shot south of Butte, MT

Druid 690F shot by rancher south of Butte-

She was sick and beaten up by attacks from other wolves. She was trying for some livestock.

Butte, of course, is quite a distance from Yellowstone Park.

Yellowstone Park wolf killed near Butte. By Nick Gevock. Montana Standard

Wolf recovery target has changed, feds acknowledge

Bangs says recovery population goal for wolves in the Northern Rockies was changed-

Anti-wolf folks argue that a population goal deal (or promise) was violated by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service when it did not delist wolves in the Idaho, Montana and Wyoming as soon as the states had 300 wolves in total.  Project leader, Ed Bangs, however, said agency changed the goal to keep up with the best available science.

The 1987 goal (years before the wolf reintroduction actually took place) was 30 breeding pairs of wolves spread out over the three states. After reintroduction this was changed to 15 breeding pairs in each of the states and a population of at least 150 wolves in each state.  Bangs said that science showed the 1987 goal was too lean. He said understood that as soon as he took the job he now holds.

Judge sets date to hear wolf-lawsuit arguments

Oral arguments set for June 15

Judge sets date to hear wolf-lawsuit arguments.
EVE BYRON Independent Record

Montana, Idaho and Wyoming Wolf Policies Foreshadow Extinction

The federal authorization for each state to reduce wolves to 100-150 animals puts northern Rockies wolves on a spiral toward extinction.

Interesting opinion piece about the inadequacies of the States’ wolf management plans.

Montana, Idaho and Wyoming Wolf Policies Foreshadow Extinction
By Michael J. Robinson, Guest Writer for New West

Idaho House Concurrent Resolution 43 . . . reduce wolves to 150

How many times did we say Idaho Fish and Game’s 500 wolves plan was meaningless in the face of the legislature?

House Concurrent Resolution 43, now before the Idaho Legislature says that “existing conditions relating to wolves define an emergency condition for all rural Idahoans and, in the face of this emergency, the Legislature encourages the Governor of the state of Idaho to declare that a state of emergency exists in Idaho and to authorize and require the Idaho Department of Fish and Game to use any means to reduce wolf numbers to those designated for recovery of the species [150, 100?] [emphasis added]

Text of Resolution.

A concurrent resolution does not have the force of law, but it clearly shows the ldaho Legislature can wash away Fish and Game’s commitment to maintaining a minimum of 500 wolves in an instant.

I don’t know who they intend the resolution for, but it, with its laughable emergency, should be hand delivered to Judge Molloy.

I can’t help be but irritated that the Fish and Game Department and Commission keeps saying, “no, we promise to maintain 500 wolves, which is more than the minimum.” How many times did we go through right here on this forum ? This also shows why they so want to radio collar wolves in the Frank Church Wilderness — for the token population.

Thanks to Barb Rupers for posting this resolution in the comments.

PBS program on wolves, bears, bison and the ESA

This is a good national television treatment of the issue-

Salle put this link on the “have run across any good stories” page, but it should be a full post.

Hunting Wolves, Saving Wolves. PBS

Salle. I know you tried to call me about this, but I was out in the hills most of the day. Ralph

Additional info on wolves, etc. from PBS. I have to wonder about some of it like “On a calm night, howls can be heard from as far as 120 miles away.” They must have meant twelve miles.

Wolf population growth in ID/MT/WY halted in 2009

Increased mortality has stopped the wolf population growth says USFWS-

Tally shows wolves holding steady in region after Montana, Idaho hunting seasons. By Matthew Brown. AP

The 3 state wolf population growth has stopped. Wyoming’s population, where there was no wolf hunt, grew slightly. Montana’s population dropped slightly. Idaho figures are not in, but said to be comparable to last year. Although the article above attributes the halt to the hunt, it should be noted that wolf population growth had been dropping on its own for several years.

The article says “The number of breeding packs increased slightly, from 95 to 111.” [emphasis added]. This could be because increased mortality, especially with hunting might be expected to result in more pack, but smaller packs. However, the delisting plan requires each state to count its breeding pairs, not breed packs. They are not the same. A breeding pack is a group of wolves with some pups at the end of the year. The definition of a breeding pair is different. It has to be two or more wolves with 2 pups at the end of the year and the individual wolves that produced the pups have to also be alive too at the end of the year.

Here is an opposing view from the NRDC. Big Problem: Wolf Population Declining [see note] in Northern Rockies. By Matt Skoglund. Opposing Views. Note that this headline is wrong because NRDC doesn’t say in the article that the wolf population is declining. Skoglund had originally entitled it “The Northern Rockies Wolf Population Has Stopped Growing.” It was changed when Opposing Views picked it up.

Wolf lawsuit briefs keep coming into Judge Molloy’s office

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has now filed their brief-

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, conservation groups file briefs in wolf lawsuit. By Rob Chaney. Missoulian

Conservation groups filed their brief (set of or arguments) on Dec. 31. There are other briefs that have been filed as ” friend of the court” (amicus curiae) briefs. These are third party arguments — groups that are neither plaintiff nor defendant.

Jamie Rappaport Clark: Wolf delisting imperils the ESA and wolves

Clark was the director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service from 1997 to 2001-

“If the president’s pledge to restore scientific integrity to the Endangered Species Act, and to improve the law, is to be fulfilled, action must be taken immediately. The interior secretary should withdraw the flawed legal opinion on which his delisting relied, restore federal protection to gray wolves in the Northern Rockies and engage all stakeholders in developing a plan to ensure that one of our nation’s greatest conservation successes, the restoration of gray wolves to Yellowstone and the Northern Rockies, will not be lost.” Clarke in Washington Post opinion beginning the new decade.

FWP files brief against relisting wolves

Montana does not want wolves to be relisted

Montana Fish Wildlife and Parks has filed its brief in the wolf delisting lawsuit arguing that wolves should not be relisted under the Endangered Species Act.

Two stories:
FWP files brief against relisting wolves
Billings Gazette

State FWP to Molloy: Wolves are recovered, should be delisted
Missoulian

New York Times doesn’t like Idaho’s extension of the wolf hunt

Media help arrives from a big gun-

A lot of people said Idaho Fish and Game Commission really screwed up when they extended the wolf hunt. Rumor is that Ed Bangs got bald tearing his hair out after learning about Idaho’s gift to anti-delisting groups.

“. .. when protections were lifted earlier this year in Idaho and Montana the states immediately approved wolf hunting seasons. But what seemed to be an ordinary big-game hunt, with licenses and duly apportioned quotas (75 in Montana, 220 in Idaho), now looks like the opening of a new front in the age-old war on wolves.” Read the rest of the NYT editorial.

Wolf advocates submit brief in wolf delisting case

Plaintiffs (wolf advocates) file Memorandum in Support of Summary Judgment to overturn the Federal Government’s Delisting of Northern Rocky Mountain Wolves

For those interested in reading the legal filing submitted yesterday (10/26/09) :

Plaintiff’s Memorandum In Support of Motion For Summary Judgment

Wolf Advocates Seek to Expedite Request for Summary Judgement

Wolf Advocates filed this motion in Montana District Court today :

Plaintiffs’ Motion for Expedited Merits Briefing

Update. Newspaper story on this: Wolf advocates won’t appeal court decision allowing hunts in Idaho, Montana. By Rob Chaney. The Missoulian

Idaho Wolf Hunt/”Custom & Culture” photo

This may be the beginning of a “Custom & Culture” series of photo-essays here on Ralph Maughan’s Wildlife News

Josephine's Pizza and RV between North Fork and Gibbonsville, Idaho, 9/1/09 © Western Watersheds Project 2009

Salazar’s legacy: historical first state-sanctioned hunt of Northern Rockies gray wolves

Salazar is part of the West’s landed nobility-

Salazar’s legacy: historical first state-sanctioned hunt of Northern Rockies gray wolves. Seattle Environmental Policy Examiner. By Jean Williams

“The state’s [that is, Idaho] object is to reduce the current wolf population by half.  This is a species that was removed prematurely from ESA protection, under authority by Interior Secretary, Ken Salazar.  The Secretary is considered by many conservations, to have a personal bias, due to the fact that he is also a landowner, rancher, and member of the Cattlemen’s association.”

Wolf hunts are on as judge eyes request to stop

Judge ponders rather than rule. Idaho wolf hunt begins Sept. 1; Montana Sept 15-

Idaho’s first wolf hunt will begin as scheduled tomorrow. Judge Molloy heard the arguments and said he’d decide as quickly as he could, but he did not issue an injunction.

Wolf hunts are on as judge eyes request to stop. By Matthew Brown. AP in the Idaho Statesman.

Big hearing on plea for injunction of Idaho and Montana wolf hunts is this morning in Missoula courtroom

Judge Molloy could allow hunts to procede or stop them despite the on-going sale of tags-

I’ve also wondered if some middle ground ruling is possible, given the intense emotion on both sides of the issue. I’d like to see a new delisting rule crafted. The content of the current rules bothers me more than the wolf hunt because as always the real threat to the long term viability of the wolf recovery are the cattle and sheep industries and their captive federal agency, Wildlife Services, that goes around killing wildlife some influential people think are problems.

Story in the Missoulian. By John Miller, AP.

If the hunt is canceled Idaho wolf tags sold (over 10,000) will have to be refunded. There will probably be some illegal or vigilante action this time. Hopefully folks will obey the law. It’s doubtful, however, that enough wolves would be killed illegally to make any biological difference to the states’ wolf population.

Montana Gov: State would fight injunction on wolves

This is hardly news. I won’t bother to put a link, but has anyone thought of this . . .?

What if Judge Molloy allows the hunt, but puts the wolf back on the endangered species list?

This doesn’t have to be an all or nothing kind of decision. The judge could allow the hunt to begin under careful scutiny of the Court and grant the injunction the minute any “funny stuff” starts. The plaintiffs make a number of claims in the lawsuit. It is not just an anti-hunt suit. JB recently posted a list of the total list of the claims the plaintiffs are making in their brief.

As I have written many times, I fear the the cattle and sheep association/Wildlife Services wolf killing machine more than a well regulated wolf hunt. The wolves will probably replenish themselves in a year, but they won’t come back from the Idaho Fish and Game Commission’s stated intent to use minor livestock depredations as an excuse to kill dozens of wolf packs.  Hunting won’t harm genetic diversity, it might make the wolves more wary, it might even spread them to other states — awesome!!  High tech Wildlife Service killers, however, won’t allow any wolves to remain in a pack.

Conservation Groups Challenge Wolf Hunting

A coalition of 13 wolf advocate groups have submitted a motion to Judge Molloy’s court asking for a preliminary injunction to stop the Idaho and Montana wolf hunts.

Memorandum in Support of Motion For Preliminary Injunction (41 pages)

The above memorandum in support of the Preliminary Injunction request is a phenomanal effort – those interested in this important piece of conservation history are encouraged to read it.

The Press Release Follows:

Missoula, MT— Conservation groups today asked a federal district court to block fall wolf hunts in Idaho and Montana. The request came in an ongoing lawsuit seeking to restore federal Endangered Species Act protections to wolves in the northern Rocky Mountains until wolf numbers are stronger, the states develop an adequate legal safety net, and connectivity between recovery areas is assured.

Wolf delisting faces new court challenge

Greater Yellowstone Coalition reverses previous position on wolf delisting and files its own suit separate from those filed by the Wolf Coalition and the State of Wyoming.

The suit was filed in Montana. This is the third suit filed over delisting. The first was filed by the Wolf Coalition, which is made up of several environmental groups. The second by the State of Wyoming and livestock groups.

Wolf delisting faces new court challenge
Jackson Hole Daily.

Wolf Delisting Lawsuit Filed Today

Suit Filed to Challenge Removal of Endangered Species Act Protection From Northern Rockies Wolves

For Immediate Release, June 2, 2009

MISSOULA, Mont.— Conservation groups today filed suit to challenge the removal of Endangered Species Act protections for gray wolves in Idaho and Montana. On April 2, 2009, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service dropped the wolves from the Endangered Species list, finalizing an effort launched by the Bush administration to deprive the wolves of legal and habitat protections, thus allowing state management and hunting. The challenged delisting decision is the second time in a year the federal government has removed protections for wolves in the northern Rocky Mountains. Conservation groups, represented by Earthjustice, successfully sued to get the protections reinstated in July 2008.

Delisting wolves means they will be subject to state-sponsored wolf “control” efforts and hunting unless stopped by legal action. Idaho and Montana plan to allow hundreds of wolves to be shot.

The decision to lift wolf protections comes as Yellowstone National Park wolves declined by 27 percent in the past year – one of the largest declines reported since wolves were reintroduced to Yellowstone in 1995. The northern Rockies wolf population also has not achieved a level of connectivity between the greater Yellowstone, central Idaho, and northwest Montana areas that is essential to wolves’ long-term survival. In delisting wolves, the Fish and Wildlife Service authorized Idaho and Montana to reduce their wolf populations from a current population of roughly 1,500 wolves to only 200-300 wolves in the two states.

Wolves will remain under federal control in Wyoming because a federal court previously ruled that Wyoming’s hostile wolf-management scheme leaves wolves in “serious jeopardy.” The Fish and Wildlife Service in the recent past held that a state-by-state approach to delisting wolves was not permitted under the Endangered Species Act, including in its earlier decision to not delist wolves without Wyoming’s inclusion. In the challenged delisting decision, the federal government flip-flopped from its earlier position.

Who’s Afraid of the Big, Bad Wolf?

Ignorance again rides high in the saddle as politicians in Idaho vilify the wolf-

Who’s Afraid of the Big, Bad Wolf? Stephen Augustine. The River Journal.

Wolf delisting might give Wyoming livestock operators fewer options

Because WY is not part of the delisting, ranchers might lose their legal ability to shoot wolves attacking their livestock-

What an irony!

Wolf delisting might hinder Wyo. ranchers. Herdsmen can’t protect livestock, lawyers say. By Cory Hatch. Jackson Hole News and Guide.

Wolves were delisted today, May 4

Wolves in Northern Rockies and Great Lakes officially delisted May 4, 2009-

Will delisting be better the second time around?

Today for the second time in the Northern Rockies, wolves were delisted with all management decisions handed over to the states of Idaho and Montana, but not Wyoming where delisting  will not take place under Wyoming makes changes in its proposed wolf management.

Wolves were also delisted in Minnesota, Michigan and Wisconsin.

Lawsuits, in the form of 60-day notices (of intent to sue) were filed 30 days ago. As a result an injunction on the delisting could be in order 30 days from now. This happened before, somewhat over a year ago, when Montana’s federal district judge quickly enjoined the delisting. This prompted the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to withdraw their entire delisting rule, but to issue a new one about 2 months after Obama took office. The primary difference between the Bush (Kempthorne) delisting and the Obama (Salazar) delisting is that Wyoming was taken out of delisting for failure to produce an acceptable state wolf conservation plan. Critics of the new delisting say the special status for Wyoming is a fatal defect in the delisting and they will argue so in court.

A number of additional groups, including the State of Wyoming, will file against the delisting rule this time around.

In the next 30 days, some wolf supporters fear a state operated wolf bloodbath, especially in Idaho. Others believe Idaho and Montana will want to show they won’t try to wipe the wolves out, and so they will not manage* — kill — very many in the immediate future.

Story in the Associated Press by Matthew Brown.Wolves off list, but legal battles loom.

– – – – —

* When used in the context of wolves by state game agencies, the word “manage” always means to kill.

IDFG’s plans to manage wolves includes killing 26 packs as well as 80% or 100 wolves in the Lolo

250 to 300 Idaho wolves could be killed if delisting occurs.

On May 2nd wolves will be delisted leaving a window of at least 30 days before the decision could be enjoined by a judge. During this time, assuming an injunction, a number of things could happen at the hands of the Idaho Fish and Game Department and Wildlife Services.

Based on what is in the written record it appears that anywhere from 250 to 300 wolves could be killed in a very short period of time through means other than hunting by individual hunters. Earlier I reported that Wildlife Services was seeking the flexibility to kill 26 packs for “chronic” depredations and now it appears that Idaho Fish and Game is on board with this plan. In the event of delisting, these plans will likely go forward and the result will be the death of 30% to 35% of Idaho’s 846 wolves.

From: http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/cms/about/commission/2009/jan27.pdf

To develop and aggressively utilize all available tools and methods to control wolf-caused depredation of domestic livestock.

• Staff have worked with Wildlife Services to identify 25 wolf pack territories with chronic livestock conflicts (>3 occurrences in 2008)

• Staff will implement aggressive and efficient control measures, including entire pack removal, for wolf packs with chronic histories of livestock depredation

• Staff will work with the Office of Species Conservation to request a Department of Interior Solicitor’s opinion on the 45-day window

Idaho Fish and Game Department commonly states that it will manage wolves in the same way that it manages bears and mountain lions but this seems to be a falsehood. There are no plans underway to reduce the number of Idaho’s 3000 mountain lions or 20,000 bears by a third nor is there the hysteria surrounding those species. The State legislature has not stepped in with crazy legislation regarding bears and mountain lions either, and the director of the Idaho Fish and Game has not attended meetings where illegal activities are promoted to exterminate wolves from the state as happened this weekend.

The Idaho Fish and Game also continues to perpetuate false information. In this video you will see that IDFG claims that the growth rate of the wolf population in Idaho is 20%. This is incorrect. Their own report shows that the rate is actually 16%, which is higher than last year’s 9%, but in line with trends showing that the growth rate is declining. This is a strong indication that wolves have filled the available habitat and natural regulation is taking place as anyone with a biology background would expect.

Wolf controversy spurs a House bill that makes introducing non-native species a felony

Wolf controversy spurs a House bill that makes introducing non-native species a felony. By Day Popkey. Idahostatesman.com

The Idaho House voted 46-24 on Tuesday for House Bill 138, which applies to species threatening the safety of people, livestock, pets or property [and now wildlife too!]. The measure also allows civil lawsuits should such an animal injure or kill a person.

Rep. Lenore Barrett, R-Challis, acknowledged the bill is flawed but said it is a worthwhile effort to protest the damage wolves have done to wildlife and livestock.
“The wolf is a decimating, destroying machine,” she said.

Here is the text of the engrossed bill. I thought it had become more moderate as it went through the House, but instead it became very strange. I don’t think I need to explain why, just read it. House Bill 138 (as amended).  Ralph Maughan

NRDC and 12 other groups to sue on new wolf delisting

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Press contact: Josh Mogerman at 312-651-7909 (office) or 773-853-5384 (mobile)

Conservation Groups Bring Wolf Fight Back Into Court
NRDC and Twelve Groups fight decision to remove Northern Rocky Mountain wolves from Endangered Species List

LIVINGSTON, Mont. (April 1, 2009) -The long fight over wolves in the Northern Rockies continued today when the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) and a coalition of concerned conservation groups announced a legal challenge to the recent US Fish and Wildlife Service decision to remove wolves from the federal Endangered Species list. NRDC has long-advocated for a national wolf plan with recovery goals based on the most current science, which would point to the need for a larger population of animals with the opportunity for natural genetic interchange; benchmarks likely unattainable under the states’ wolf management plans.

“Last time the Service removed legal protections, there was an all out war on wolves in the weeks that followed,” said Louisa Willcox, Director of the NRDC’s office in Livingston, Mont. “We are so incredibly close to fulfilling the conditions necessary to declare the wolves’ comeback as complete, but this move threatens to undo what should be an incredible conservation success story.”

They just published the wolf delisting rule in the Federal Register

Some of us hoped that they had second thoughts.

Here it is in the Federal Register. (Updated link for Northern Rockies Wolves)

Federal Register Link for Great Lakes Wolves

Maughan, others on public TV wolf special in Idaho Thursday eve

Interior Secretary Ken Salazar’s move to delist the wolves in Idaho and Montana will be the topic of  a one-hour special edition of “Dialogue.”

This Thursday evening, I will be appearing alongside an interesting line-up of key players on both sides of the debate., so I hope you’ll tune in and call in your questions about wolf management.

Join the conversation by emailing your questions ahead of time at dialogue@idahoptv.org or calling in during the live show at 1-800-973-9800.

What:	“Dialogue” on Idaho Wolves with Ralph Maughan and others on both sides
When:	Thursday, March 19th at 8:00 p.m. MDT / 7:00 p.m. PDT
Where:	On Idaho Public Television (Click here to check local listings)

Salazar’s Wolf Decision Upsets Administration Allies

Salazar’s failure to consult POTUS gives new Administration a headache (as it should)-

Salazar’s Wolf Decision Upsets Administration Allies
By Juliet Eilperin
Washington Post

It appears that Salazar wasn’t interested in consulting anyone but the Bush Administration personnel and some other agency folks for the “good science” they have already “produced”.
He only consulted governors with less than favorable attitudes on predators, wolves in particular. He had no intention of hearing anything other than what he wanted to hear to make this decision.

Fortunately, not everyone in our halls of governing agree with him. Perhaps due to the fact that they are not ranchers.  He didn’t seem to think that his boss needed to be consulted either, even directly following commitments by Obama himself to uphold the ESA and scientific integrity in speeches within 48 hours of announcing this “Friday night” ruling.

Perhaps the same comments on commitment to scientific integrity made by Obama on stem cell research should be applied to the ESA and wolves.

Salazar affirms decision to delist wolves

Will we now see a quick bloodbath in Idaho?

Some stories from other media are now showing up.

3/6 Feds to proceed with wolf delisting. Wyoming wolves will remain listed under the ESA. By Jason Kauffman. Idaho Mountain Express.

3/6 Salazar OKs wolf removal from endangered list. AP. By Matthew Brown and John Flesher.

3/6 Salazar Approves Wolf Delisting. “The Interior Department has decided not to punish Idaho and Montana for lack of cooperation received from Wyoming.”  By Bill Schneider. New West.
3/7. State [Wyoming] still out on wolves. By Cory Hatch. Jackson Hole Daily.
– – – – – – – – – – – –

NEWS RELEASE

March 6, 2009

Contact: Hugh Vickery, (202) 501-4633
Ed Bangs 406-449-5225, x204
Sharon Rose 303-236-4580
Laura Ragan 612- 713-5157
Georgia Parham 812-334-4261, x203
–

Secretary Salazar Affirms Decision to Delist Gray Wolves in Western Great Lakes, Portion of Northern Rockies

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar today affirmed the decision by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to remove gray wolves from the list of threatened and endangered species in the western Great Lakes and the Northern Rocky Mountain states of Idaho and Montana and parts of Washington, Oregon and Utah. Wolves will remain a protected species in Wyoming.

“The recovery of the gray wolf throughout significant portions of its historic range is one of the great success stories of the Endangered Species Act,” Salazar said. “When it was listed as endangered in 1974, the wolf had almost disappeared from the continental United States. Today, we have more than 5,500 wolves, including more than 1,600 in the Rockies.”

“The successful recovery of this species is a stunning example of how the Act can work to keep imperiled animals from sliding into extinction,” he said. “The recovery of the wolf has not been the work of the federal government alone. It has been a long and active partnership including states, tribes, landowners, academic researchers, sportsmen and other conservation groups, the Canadian government and many other partners.”

Report estimates revenue loss from Idaho wolves

Study uses 1994 data-

Report estimates revenue loss from Idaho wolves

The Associated Press

The report relies heavily on a 1994 environmental impact statement related to the introduction of wolves to Yellowstone National Park, and then extrapolates those numbers.

*Update: Read the Report

– – – – – –

Additional commentary by Ralph Maughan.

This is the most simplistic analysis. Idaho Fish and Game assumes that every elk killed by a wolf is 1/5 fewer elk for hunters (they assume a 20% hunter success rate).

1. Wolf predation can be both additive or compensatory. Idaho Fish and Game is assuming it is all additive. This is known to be false. Compensatory predation is when is wolf kills an animal that would have died regardless before spring calving.

2. It is also well known that in many areas wolves almost stop hunting on their own during human hunting season. The gut piles are much more attractive to them. Moreover, wolves take down the wounded animals. Most of these would die without predation.

3. With outfitters telling how wolves have killed all the elk, beginning in about 1998 when there were not very many wolves in Idaho, with Idaho Fish and Game now joining the poormouthing chorus, is it any wonder elk tag sales are down? The numbers in a state could actually be up, but if the outfitters and the state wildlife agency says, “the hunting in our state has gone to hell,” what do they expect?

Montana wolf weekly for Feb. 6-13

Latest Montana wolf news from Montana Fish, Wildlife, Parks-

There is some interesting news here, mostly regarding research about to be published or recently published.

Ralph Maughan

– – – – – – –
MONTANA WOLF PROGRAM
WEEKLY REPORT

To: Interested Parties
From: MFWP Wolf Program Coordinator, Carolyn Sime

Subject: Wolf Program Activities and Related Information, February 6-13, 2009

Contributors to the Montana Wolf Weekly are Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks (FWP), Universities, USDA Wildlife Services (WS), the National Park Service (NPS; Glacier NP; Yellowstone National Park will be reported in the Wyoming Wolf Weekly), US Forest Service, Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes, and the Blackfeet Nation.

Highlighted activities relate to: monitoring, wolf – livestock interactions, outreach and education, research, law enforcement, and other miscellaneous topics of public interest. The Weekly Report will be available on each Monday, covering the previous week. It and other wolf program information (including the 2007 annual report) can be found at: http://fwp.mt.gov/wildthings/wolf/default.html.

President Obama’s regulatory freeze halts wolf delisting!!

It looks like the freeze of all unpublished Bush regulations stops the current run to delist the wolf-

Obama Rule Halts Wolf Delisting. Center for Biological Diversity. News Release

This is very happy news because we just learned that Idaho has some very nasty plans for the wolves if they are delisted — a quick kill off before a lawsuit can be filed.

Update: now the slower MS media are picking up the story.

• Obama administration puts brakes on wolf delisting. By Jason Kauffman. Idaho Mountain Express.
• Wolf delisting decision placed on hold by Obama Administration. By Rocky Barker. Idaho Statesman.
• Feds drop rule taking away endangered status for wolves. By John Flesher, AP environmental writer.
• Review halts wolf delisting. By Cory Hatch. Jackson Hole News and Guide.

– – – – – – – – – – –

For Immediate Release, January 21, 2009

Contact: Michael Robinson, (575) 313-7017

Obama Rule Halts Wolf Delisting

SILVER CITY, N.M.– President Barack Obama has issued a freeze on publication of federal regulations planned under the previous administration but not yet published in the Federal Register. This action, which will give the new administration a chance to review Bush-era policy decisions, will delay and possibly prevent the premature removal of gray wolves from the endangered species list in Montana, Idaho, Minnesota, Wisconsin and Michigan, and portions of Washington, Oregon, Utah, North Dakota, South Dakota, Iowa, Illinois, Indiana, and Ohio.

According to Michael Robinson of the Center for Biological Diversity, the pause will afford President Obama and Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar the opportunity to rethink the previous administration’s efforts to remove wolves from the endangered species list. “Rather than remove protections from wolves in a piecemeal fashion, in the isolated locations where they have finally begun to recover from past persecution,” Robinson said, ” the Obama administration should develop and implement a national gray-wolf recovery plan that will ensure the survival of these magnificent animals.”

Reaction to the latest try to delist wolves-

Here are links to a number of reactions-

• NRDC. Flawed Flip-Flop on Wolves. Bush Administration changes course again with Endangered Species List re-removal.
• Defenders of Wildife. Bush administration rushes to strip protections from Northern Rockies wolves. Despite previous court decisions, administration again ignores Endangered Species Act requirements.
• Wyoming Chapter of the Sierra Club- News Release pdf
• Oregon Wild- Bush Administration Issues Parting Shot to Gray Wolves. pdf

Story. Gray wolves to lose endangered status. Story in the LA Times by By Jim Tankersley
Story. State left out of wolf move. By Cory Hatch. Jackson Hole Daily.
Update story. Last word on wolves is yet to come. Bush removes protections in most of the Rockies, but the Obama administration could reverse the decision. By Rocky Barker. Idaho Statesman.
Update story. Last year the Greater Yellowstone Coalition (GYC) was widely criticized by other conservation groups for their view on delisting. Here is what they said this time. Green groups will like it more. I got this copy from a TV news story.

Service Removes Western Great Lakes, Portion of Northern Rocky Mountain Gray Wolf Populations from Endangered Species List

A last of the Bush Administration special-

Here’s the link to the USFWS News Release–

OR read it below

Contacts

(Northern Rocky Mtns) Ed Bangs 406-449-5225, x204
Sharon Rose 303-236-4580
(Western Great Lakes)  Laura Ragan 612- 713-5157
Georgia Parham 812-334-4261, x203

Wolves in Wyoming to Remain Protected by Endangered Species Act

Deputy Secretary of the Interior Lynn Scarlett announced today the removal of the western Great Lakes population and portions of the northern Rocky Mountain population of gray wolves from protection under the Endangered Species Act. The success of gray wolf recovery efforts in these areas has contributed to expanding populations of wolves that no longer require the protection of the Act. However, gray wolves found within the borders of Wyoming will continue to be protected by the Act due to a lack of adequate regulatory mechanisms ensuring their protection under state law.

Miscellaneous bunch of groups may sue on wolf delisting this time

Next suit may not just be groups that support protecting wolves-

The Casper Star Tribune has an article today saying that Wyoming government and Wyoming livestock groups might sue to halt the newest attempt to delist the wolf. Of course pro-wolf groups will sue.

It’s interesting that the delisting hasn’t taken place yet. Folks thought USFWS would rush the delisting through lest Cheney have them waterboarded or worse, but here it is Jan. 5. 2009.

Here is the story. Wolf debate lingers into new year. By Chris Merrill. Casper Star Tribune.

Wyoming wolf-management window dressing

Scurrying to make the deadline of the hasty second delisting of wolves,  Wyoming changes the window dressings on its state wolf management plan:

Wyoming wrapping up work on new wolf plan – Billings Gazette

Changes include shortening some reporting requirements for those who kill wolves and further defining “damage to private property” and “chronic wolf depredation.”

The plan also clarifies Wyoming’s goal of maintaining at least 15 breeding pairs of wolves and 150 individual wolves in the northwest corner of the state, including in Yellowstone National Park.

Changes also restrict the state’s ability to alter the boundaries defining where wolves may be shot as predators and where they are protected as trophy game.

The 2nd delisting of wolves may take place this week

Here goes nothing again?

Nothing except a brief opportunity to slaughter wolves again?

Story: Wolves may be delisted — again — this week.  By Chris Merrill. Casper Star-Tribune environment reporter

Comments by the major groups on wolf delisting

Did they do a good job?

The comments seem extremely strong to me. The comment period on the latest run at delisting ended on Nov. 28. This blog is probably the only place you will find these comments on-line all in one place.

– – – – – –

NRDC-comments-wolf-delisting-nov28-2008 Pdf file

Earthjustice for 14 groups-nov26-2008 Pdf file

– – – – – –

Added 12-2. Comments by Idaho in favor of delisting. Pdf file.

WY Game and Fish Commission passes revision of wolf plan

Commission adopts new state rules (only minor changes)-

Commission passes revision of wolf plan. Game and Fish officials hint that lawmakers might need to eliminate unregulated killing area. By Corey Hatch. Jackson Hole News and Guide.

These changes are supposed to help with the feds latest effort to delist the wolf, although hardly anyone thinks they will because the fundamental Wyoming state law is so flawed that it permits little in the way of regulatory change.

For a couples years I’ve thought that Wyoming politicians don’t really care if the wolf is delisted, especailly since they have such friendly federal wolf management. The last minute run at delisting is to appease Idaho and Montana politicians and livestock interests.

Wyoming disbands its wolf team

Jimenez goes back to the feds-

Story: Wyo to disband wolf team. By Chris Merrill. Casper Star-Tribune environment reporter.

I’ve got to wonder if this move indicates the feds don’t really think their latest delisting attempt will work.

Cody, WY comments on new wolf plan

Outcome of meeting on Wyoming’s proposed revisions to their state wolf plan-

Cody comments on new wolf plan. By Ruffin Prevost. Billings Gazette in the Casper Star Tribune

Idaho Bi-weekly wolf report Oct.18 – Nov. 3, 2008

Idaho’s Latest Wolf Bi-weekly-

IDAHO WOLF MANAGEMENT
BI-WEEKLY PROGRESS REPORT

To:  Idaho Fish and Game Staff and Cooperators
From:  IDFG Wolf Program Coordinator, Steve Nadeau
Subject: Status of Gray Wolf Management, Weeks of October 18- Nov 3, 2008.

Delisting: FWS – Northern Rocky Mountain Wolf Status (WY, MT, ID): The U.S. Federal District Court in Missoula, Montana, issued a preliminary injunction on Friday, July 18, 2008, that immediately reinstated temporary Endangered Species Act protections for gray wolves in the northern Rocky Mountain DPS pending

On the the new wolf delisting scheme

Wyoming is the biggest thorn in the delisters side-

As folks pretty much all know, the Bush Administration, mostly likely at the initiative of Secretary Kempthone and cronies, is trying for one last quick stab at delisting the wolf before a new President replaces them.

If folks work hard, they will probably be defeated again; but their era of extremism and backward thinking may not end quite quick enough, so this delisting thing has to get your attention.

Here is the notice from the Federal Register indicating how to send in your comments beginning now. They are all due by Nov. 28.

Notice of reopening of comments on delisting. Federal Register. Don’t be deterred by having to go to regulations.gov to submit your comments.

They claim that if wolf population genetics deteriorates (a major objection from Federal Judge Molloy who shot down their delsiting), now they will shuttle wolves around to Wyoming to improve the genetics.

The have an unsigned MOU (Memorandum of Understanding) on this. Draft MOU. (note that Jeff commented and posted this earlier in a comment).

Because Wyoming needs to make changes, their Department of Game and Fish is trying to engage in some emergency state rulemaking. They just issued this news release.

Game and Fish Releases Draft Revised Wolf Plan for Public Comment. Wyoming Dept. of Game and Fish.

Their emergency rules. Wyoming Dept. of Game and Fish. Hearings are scheduled and soon. This is rush job.

My impression of the emergency rules is that they are not much of a change because the Department can do little without a change in Wyoming’s wolf hostile statute on wolf management. Their state legislature doesn’t meet until January, which would be best time to make Wyoming’s wolf plan acceptable, but the presidential election dictates action now.

Little doubt what Kempthorne wants is to decouple Idaho and Montana, where they manage wolves “so well” from Wyoming — just delist 2 states and let Wyoming wolves limp along indefinitely, maybe with what amounts to a “put and take” translocation of fresh wolves whenever the state kills too many. Kempthorne proposed this to the Secretary of Interior when he was governor of Idaho. Now as the Secretary, this is his last shot.

Do be fooled, however. Idaho has a bad wolf plan and Montana, which had earned some applause,  has been killing wolves this year with a vengeance despite incredibly minor depredations.

– – – –

Brief AP news story. Wyoming proposes changes in its wolf plan. By Bob Moen.

Yellowstone wolf decline thought to be disease-related

Given a situation like this in the most problematic state — Wyoming — what does this say about delisting?

This article covers some of the same ground as my ealier report on the current situation with the Yellowstone Park wolves. In fact we don’t even know that the decline is limited to the Park boundaries. I doubt that it is.

What a great time to try delisting! Typical Bush-Kempthorne inattention to reality.

Wolf decline thought to be disease-related. By Brett French. Billings Gazette.