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

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

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.

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.”

Feds, environmental groups file arguments on wolf recovery with Molloy

Molloy asked whether the 10(j) rule is even applicable

Parties to the lawsuit challenging the changes made to the 10(j) rule for the experimental, non-essential populations of wolves in Central Idaho and the Greater Yellowstone filed their arguments yesterday. At issue now are not the changes made to the 10(j) rule in 2008 which ease restrictions for killing wolves, but whether or not the 10(j) rule even applies anymore. Judge Molloy questioned the litigants about whether a 10(j) rule was justified because wolves from both the Central Idaho and the Greater Yellowstone populations have essentially become one population with those of Northwest Montana and Northern Idaho north of I-90 which are nonexperimental.

The ESA makes it clear that the 10(j) provisions only apply to populations that are “wholly separate geographically from nonexperimental populations of the same species”.

(j) EXPERIMENTAL POPULATIONS.—(1) For purposes of this subsection, the term “experimental population” means any population (including any offspring arising solely therefrom) authorized by the Secretary for release under paragraph (2), but only when, and at such times as, the population is wholly separate geographically from nonexperimental populations of the same species.

Feds, environmental groups file arguments on wolf recovery with Molloy.
By ROB CHANEY of the Missoulian

Added – Copies of the Briefs ~ be :

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).

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

WWP & Wolf Recovery Foundation: “Wildlife Services” slaughter of wolves in Idaho is Unlawful

Advocates for the West‘s Laurie Rule (best known for her esteemed success in the Payette National Forest on behalf of bighorn sheep) has filed another brief on behalf of Western Watersheds Project & The Wolf Recovery Foundation’s lawsuit against Wildlife Services’ wolf control activities in Idaho (complaint & associated filings).

This lawsuit asks the court to stop Wildlife Services from engaging in wolf “control” efforts until the agency fully analyzes its impact to Idaho wolves and a host of other environmental values that it affects.

Plaintiffs’ Response/Reply In Opposition to Defendants’ Cross Motion and in Support of Plaintiffs’ Motion For Summary Judgment

This brief makes three basic arguments with respect to WWP & The Wolf Recovery Foundation’s claim that Wildlife Services’ wolf control program should be shut down in Idaho for failure to comply with NEPA and the Sawtooth National Recreation Area (SNRA) Act:

• Wildlife Services has never adequately analyzed a range of alternatives to its existing wolf control activities and their effects, in violation of NEPA
• Wildlife Services unlawfully relies on “Categorical Exclusions” (from NEPA) for its Wolf Control Actions
• Wildlife Services failed to consider whether its wolf control actions within or near the SNRA cause “substantial impairment” of SNRA values, including wildlife

Thanks Laurie !!

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

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

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

Man threatens to sue FWP over wolf-ruling coalition

Tired of one-sided wolf management

Jerry Black, a frequent commentator on this site, is challenging Montana Fish Wildlife and Parks for its attempt at building a coalition with hunters, outfitters, and livestock interests for the purposes of overturning Malloy’s wolf decision.

He’s tired of the one-sided state management which benefits only those special interests who want wolf management to have a heavy handed approach. It also looks like the FWP’s meeting violated state’s open meeting laws because it did not invite everyone in a timely manner.

Man threatens to sue FWP over wolf-ruling coalition.
Great Falls Tribune

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

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 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.

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.

Oral Arguments on Wilderness/Wolf litigation heard today

“Wilderness Wolf Watchers” Coalition seeks an Injunction/Temporary Restraining Order preventing the landing of helicopters

Chief District Judge B. Lynn Winmill is set to hear oral arguments on the Frank Church Wilderness/Helicopter Landing litigation this afternoon.  The “Wilderness Wolf Watchers” Coalition seeks an Injunction/Temporary Restraining Order preventing the landing of helicopters in the Frank Church Wilderness before they take place, while the merits of the case are considered.

The Idaho Department of Fish & Game and the US Forest Service each filed briefs against the Wilderness Wolf Watcher coalition’s request :

IDFG Brief
USFS Brief

Among their arguments, the government belittles several advocates’ declarations describing their trips to the Frank this winter and their potential for their wilderness experience to be harmed by the helicopter incursion.

Laurie Rule, Wilderness/Wolf advocates’ esteemed attorney, replied to the governments’ argument with this excellent brief :

Plaintiff’s Reply Brief

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.

WWP & Wolf Recovery Foundation Litigates Big to Protect Wolves in Central Idaho

~ by Jon Marvel

Friends,
On December 31, 2009 Western Watersheds Project and the Wolf Recovery Foundation welcomed the New Year by filing litigation in federal court challenging the federal government’s mismanagement of public lands and wolves in Central Idaho.

Read the Associated Press article :

Groups Sue to End Idaho wilderness copter landings – John Miller, AP 1/06/10

Sawtooth Mountains - Sawtooth National Recreation Area © Lynne Stone

This important litigation aims to protect Idaho wolves by asking a federal court to halt mismanagement in three key ways :

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

Big game animals scarce in once-popular hunting district along Gallatin River

This is the story about hunting district 310 that a lot of SW Montana hunters are upset about-

Big game animals scarce in once-popular hunting district along Gallatin River. By Brett French. Billings Gazette.

Wildlife Services blasts away Basin Butte wolf pack at Stanley, Idaho

Is there an explanation for this in the middle of the scheduled wolf hunt?

Right in the middle of the wolf hunt and in the zone where there is the highest quota, Wildlife Services took to the air this week in their gunships and blasted away the long-standing Basin Butte Pack at Stanley, Idaho. This is one of 26 wolf packs Wildlife Service has labeled as a “chronic depredating” pack, which seems to mean a pack that at one or more times killed some domestic livestock.

It doesn’t mean killed recently, however. All the livestock left the area for the winter in October.

This pack has lived around Stanley, mostly in Stanley Basin for about 5 years now. Even summer and part of the fall thousands of cattle and sheep are trucked into what many regard as Idaho most scenic valley.  Every year or so the pack kills a calf or two.  Amazingly it stays near the town of Stanley, even within city limits. If this was a pack that was going to be taken during the wolf hunt, this would seem to be it.

I think there needs to be some explanation why Idaho Fish and Game’s regional supervisor approved the killing of this pack of 7-10 wolves in the middle of the wolf  hunt 7 months before the cows show up again.

You might want to call Jim Lukens, the Salmon area regional supervisor and ask him. (208) 756-2271. Approval of Wildlife Services wolf kills has been parceled out to the regional supervisors, like Mark Gamlin (who seems to have few to no wolves in his district).

– – – – – –
The real wolf hunt is about to begin?

One possibility is they just got too frustrated watching this pack avoid wolf hunters. I have heard through the grapevine, however, that from now until the wolf population is down to the 500 they view acceptable (for now), Idaho Fish and Game and Wildlife Services is going to reduce the wolf numbers by any means possible. In fact, they admit it. They have spoken on the public record time and time again that they have lots of other “tools in the their toolbox.” The meaning should be clear. It is just the start date they haven’t announced.

NRA wants to join lawsuit on delisting

NRA members tell phantasmagorical story to try to gain standing-

If this really happened, most people would regard it as the highlight their trip, not the basis of a lawsuit. Three blood dripping wolf packs, driven off by snowballs!  They should be denied standing to intervene.

NRA wants to join lawsuit on delisting. By Eve Byron. Helena Independent Record.

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 Mountain Express’ news story on the wolf hunt

The Mountain Express is central Idaho’s major weekly newspaper. It is published in the Wood River Valley, where a fair number of fairly rich people live amongst the larger population. This makes the area a target for “populist conservatives” who think that wealth means liberalism.

At any rate, here is their local look at the hunt. As judge deliberates, wolf hunt begins. Hunting opens in Sawtooths; 11,000 tags sold in Idaho. By Jon Duval. Express Staff Writer

Sandpoint, Idaho protesters decry wolf hunt

Seems to have been a fairly successful demonstration in this far northern Idaho town-

Sandpoint, Idaho protesters decry wolf hunt. Bonner County Daily Bee

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.

News stories on setting the Idaho wolf quota

Links to stories on the Idaho Fish and Game decisions to allow the hunt to kill up to 220 wolves-

Idaho sets a limit of 220 for wolf hunt. If hunters harvest that many, the state’s population of wolves could drop almost 25%. By Rodger Phillips. Idaho Statesman.

This headline is a bit misleading because the pups of the next year will replace all, or some of wolves that are killed. I do think the population will drop some over the course to the next year because there will be illegal mortality on top of 220, and the Commissioners made it clear they want Wildlife Services to kill lots of wolves whenever the wolves kill a lamb or a cow calf.

The depredation of livestock will be an excuse.  I hope they don’t bait wolves (and, therefore, bears) by encouraging livestock operators to lead even more dead carcasses around than they do.

Ready, Aim, Fire Up Controversy. Idaho Approves Wolf Hunt, Stirs Ruckus. Wolf advocates decried the decision. By Amy Linn. New West.

Idaho F&G commissioners approve hunt of 220 wolves. By John Miller. Associated Press Writer

The lawsuit needs to go on because the Idaho political establishment wants to keep this issue white hot and kill most of the wolves in Idaho. A real hunt that keeps a relatively stable wolf population and slowly defuses the issue is not what they want.

Added on Aug. 19. Idaho wolf hunt set to begin. F&G officials take more cautious approach in setting 2009 quota. By Jason Kauffman. Idaho Mountain Express.

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.

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.”

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.

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.

Idaho wolf update Sept. 13– Sept. 26, 2008

As most of you are aware, this is produced by Idaho Fish and Game Dept. There is more actual news in this one, including a new population estimate that shows Idaho’s wolf population up slightly compared to last year’s “end of the year” — official — report.

In this report and others, it is becoming clear the department is concerned about the connectivity of the Idaho wolf population to the Greater Yellowstone, the key to Judge Molloy’s injunction on the delisting. Idaho Fish and Game may be gearing up to let wolves flourish along the Idaho-Montana border, not just between Salmon, Idaho and Missoula, Montana and north, as they have, but although the Continental Divide (Idaho/Montana border) from Salmon to the Park area. In the past the wolves in this area have suffered heavy “control.”

The research component is interesting, and the our organization, the Wolf Recovery Foundation, is putting considerable financial resources into it.

In the report below, the boldface was added by me.

Ralph Maughan

– – – – – – – – –
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 Sept. 13– Sept. 26, 2008.

New: 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 final resolution of the case. This includes all of Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming, the eastern one-third of

Great Lakes Wolves Win in Federal Court ! Keep ESA protection !

Good news for wolves keeps rolling out.

The Great Lakes wolves have won reprieve in federal court, preventing the Bush’s Fish and Wildlife Service’s (FWS) attempt to delist:

Court rules against U.S. in Great Lakes wolf case – AP

It’s official: ‘Feds ask to put wolves back on endangered list’

It’s official, FWS has made the request to pull it’s decision to delist :

Feds ask to put wolves back on endangered list – AP

It’s looking like there will be a whole new public comment period in the future.

Rocky Barker: Will judge Molloy issue a split decision on wolves?

Will judge Molloy issue a split decision on wolves? Barker’s blog is in the Idaho Statesman.

I wouldn’t be surprised if this was the outcome.

Hearing on the big wolf delisting lawsuit is Thursday

Wolf arguments go to judge. By Beb Neary. Associated Press writer

Wyoming weighs in on Wolf Litigation

The state of Wyoming has submitted briefs to Judge Molloy’s court rejecting a broad coalition of conservation and animal rights groups’ request for an injunction of the decision to delist wolves in the Northern Rocky Mountains.

Wyo argues against relisting – Star Tribune

Once more, the state avoids mentioning the precipitous nature of the wolf deaths immediately following delisting, instead citing numbers that maintained wolves under federal measures of protection.

Wyoming apparently believes that it can little more than promise ‘enough’ wolves will be preserved without backing up that promise with the adequate regulatory mechanisms prescribed by federal law should delisting be appropriate.

Rocky Barker: Judge appears to tip his hand in wolf lawsuit

Judge appears to tip his hand in wolf lawsuit. Letters from the West. Idaho Statesman.

Barker speculates that the death of wolf 253 could play a key role in the great delisting lawsuit. In way of correction or perhaps addition, there were many stories about 253 before and after the piece by Louisa Willcox. I think there may even be more to come.

News From Judge Molloy’s Court on Wolf Litigation – 5/7

Two decisions from Judge Molloy today on the litigation brought by the coalition of conservation and animal rights groups against the federal government’s decision to delist the Northern Rocky Mountain Gray Wolf.

The first is Judge Molloy’s decision on a motion made by the federal government requesting an extension of two weeks to respond to wolf advocates’ request for an injunction :

Update 5/8:
Montana judge rejects bid to delay wolf lawsuit
Matthew Brown – AP