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.

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

Bill to delist species that haven’t increased in population and impose economic hardship.

A bill has been introduced to the US House of Representatives by Representative Joe Baca of California which would declare a species extinct if it hasn’t increased in population during the 15 years since it was listed and imposes an economic hardship on the communities located in the range of the species.

Below is the text of the language to be added to the ESA if the legislation is successful:

H.R.1042.
THOMAS (Library of Congress)

Section 4(a) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et sq.) is amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:

`(4) Treatment of Certain Species as Extinct- (A) A limited listed species shall be treated as extinct for purposes of this Act upon the expiration of the 15-year period beginning on the date it is determined by the Secretary to be an endangered species, unless the Secretary publishes a finding that–

• `(i) there has been a substantial increase in the population of the species during that period; or

• `(ii) the continued listing of the species does not impose any economic hardship on communities located in the range of the species.

`(B) In this paragraph the term `limited listed species’ means any species that is listed under subsection (c) as an endangered species for which it is not reasonably possible to determine whether the species has been extirpated from the range of the species that existed on the date the species was listed because not all individuals of the species were identified at the time of such listing.’.

Grizzly’s threatened status heard before Ninth Circuit

Grizzly’s threatened status appealed in 9th Circuit court. Washington Post

Update added on March 14: Audio of hearing before the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

I listened to most of this. The government attorney seemed to perform weakly in response to questions, IMO. I didn’t think the National Wildlife Federation did well intervening on behalf of the government. They made a political rather than a legal or scientific argument.  RM

Poll Finds Strong Public Support for ESA… and Wolves

With all of the vitriol surrounding wolves in the Northern Rockies you would think that more and more people are opposed to wolf recovery and the Endangered Species Act. Not so fast according to a recent poll which found that Americans strongly support the Endangered Species Act and wolf recovery.  They also feel that scientists, rather than politicians should manage wildlife.

Endangered Species Act Summary

Poll Finds Strong Public Support for ESA… and Wolves.
Ag Weekly Online: Twin Falls, Idaho

Conservationists seek to expand wolf range across U.S.

Center for Biological Diversity seeks to return wolves to West Coast, New England, Southern Rockies and Great Plains

The Center for Biological Diversity has filed litigation in response to the lack of response to their petition to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to expand protections for wolves across a significant portion of their historical range.

Conservationists seek to expand wolf range across U.S..
Laura Zuckerman – Reuters

Lawsuit Launched to Recover Wolves Across Country
Center for Biological Diversity Press Release.

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.

The Tester/Baucus wolf bill is revealed.

Could be introduced and voted on tonight

Northern Rocky Mountain Gray Wolf Recovery and Sustainability Act of 2010

Title: To remove the Northern Rocky Mountain distinct population segment of the gray wolf from the list of threatened species or the list of endangered species published under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, and for other purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the “Northern Rocky Mountain Gray Wolf Recovery and Sustainability Act of 2010”.

Western governors focus on endangered species

The governors meeting in Las Vegas this week.

Okay, so now governors are arguing that the Endangered Species Act should be gutted because swarms of prairie dogs are digging into golf courses. Need I say more?

“The frustration level is reaching the breaking point in many levels because of this act,” said Utah Gov. Gary R. Herbert. “It’s nonsensical.”

The Republican governor griped about swarms of endangered prairie dogs digging into golf courses. “They have become so domesticated, they are just a pain,” he said.

The slippery slope argument does apply in this case and changing the ESA would set an extremely bad precedent. It should be stopped. Call your congress people and senators, especially those who have a strong record on environmental issues, and tell them to shut this down.

Take Action for Wolves & the ESA Now:

Contact Your U.S. Senator

Contact Your Congressional Representative

Tell them to protect the Endangered Species Act

Contact the White House

Tell President Obama to protect the Endangered Species Act

Western governors focus on endangered species.
Bloomberg

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.

Obama Administration wants to lift protections for wolf and grizzly

When will this Administration represent the people who put them in office?

How many votes do you think this will bring them? And who do they want to do this for? It is turning out that those who are yelling the loudest are poachers and welfare ranchers?  Will they ever vote for him?

U.S. wants to lift protections for wolf and grizzly.
By Laura Zuckerman – Reuters

Governors seek ‘road map’ for N. Rockies wolves

Talk about burying the lead, it appears that Secretary of Interior Ken Salazar would back efforts to gut the Endangered Species Act.

Ken Salazar, Secretary of Interior

Ken Salazar met with the governors of Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming yesterday and, while Wyoming remains intransigent on the wolf issue, he appears to have sent the message that he supports a legislative gutting of the ESA.

“If Interior officials can’t reach an agreement with Wyoming, Schweitzer said Salazar had pledged to back Idaho and Montana in their efforts before Congress.”

Governors seek ‘road map’ for N. Rockies wolves
Associated Press in the Washington Post

Critics say Obama lagging on endangered species

Warranted but precluded (by politics)
Has America’s most popular environmental law become incapable of protecting our most vulnerable fellow species?

With the number of species becoming imperiled increasing as population, consumption, climate change grows, the Obama Administration is providing legal protection to fewer species using the excuse that there are not enough resources. This can only lead to more extinctions of species that are facing bigger and bigger threats. It is time to increase the amount of resources for species protection before these irreparable losses occur.

Nearly two years after taking office, Obama has provided Endangered Species Act protection to 51 plants and animals, an average of 25 a year. By comparison, the Clinton administration protected an average of 65 species per year, and the Bush administration listed about eight species a year.

Critics say Obama lagging on endangered species.
The Associated Press

Tester To Chair Congressional Sportsmen’s Caucus

Western Democrats want to gut the Endangered Species Act

Jon Tester, the Democratic Senator for Montana, is facing a tough re-election battle in 2012 which may hinge on the wolf issue. He is desperate to find a solution which allows the State of Montana to manage wolves and wants to get something passed in the Senate during the lame duck session before the next congress is sworn in.

His proposal, also supported by Montana Democratic Senator Max Baucus who sold out on the health care bill, is to change the Endangered Species Act to allow distinct population segments (DPS) to be split along state lines to allow wolves to be delisted in Idaho and Montana and not Wyoming. While this may sound like an innocuous change to the ESA it could have devastating effects on the integrity of the ESA for other species. To use political boundaries rather than biological boundaries based on defensible science would allow the Interior Department to incrementally list or delist species based on politics rather than science, a goal of ESA opponents for many years. Essentially it would gut the Act and make it even an weaker tool for protecting endangered species.

But Tester said he thinks there is still a chance that the wolf issue could be dealt with this year. He favors some plan that puts management of the wolf back into state management in Montana and Idaho.

“That is one I would like to get done this lame duck session,” Tester said. “I think the state of Montana had a pretty good plan.”

Tester To Chair Congressional Sportsmen’s Caucus – cbs4denver.com.

Otter meeting with Interior secretary, other governors on wolves

Salazar can’t just change the rules without an open, public process under NEPA.

The governors of Wyoming, Idaho, and Montana are meeting with Ken Salazar in Denver on Monday to talk about wolves. It will be interesting to see what comes of this. Really, there are very few options for the Department of Interior short of trying again but until Wyoming’s plan is accepted it is unlikely they would be successful. There may still be efforts to get a legislative change to the Endangered Species Act during the lame duck session but for some reason I find them unlikely to move forward.

Otter meeting with Interior secretary, other governors on wolves.
Idaho Reporter

New report indicates that Yellowstone Bison are the only genetically pure herd managed by the Department of Interior

Yellowstone herd also contains two distinct populations.

Buffalo on Horse Butte © Ken Cole

It has long been postulated that Yellowstone bison are important because they remain the only continuously free roaming herd but their importance has been elevated with the disclosure of a recent report which says that they are also the only genetically pure herd among those managed by the Department of Interior.

Not only this, but the Yellowstone population actually consists of two distinct populations which has extraordinary management implications.  Currently the management plan for Yellowstone bison does not take in to account the two distinct populations leading to the possibility that management actions could have a disproportionate impact on one population over that of the other.  These kinds of impacts can be profound genetically and can lead to loss of genetic diversity over time.  The management activities can also have disproportionate impacts on herds because they can eliminate entire maternal groups, groups of closely related cow/calf groups, which are routinely captured and slaughtered on the northern and western boundaries of Yellowstone Park.

Ivanpah Power Plant – Not Clean Not Green

Michael J. Connor, Ph.D.
California Director
Western Watersheds Project

Ancient Mojave yuccas on the Ivanpah power plant site. (2009) © Michael J. Connor, Ph.D.

Secretary of the Interior Salazar is about to initial a series of major giveaways of public lands in California to industrial-scale solar power producers. These “fast-tracked” power plant projects have had truncated environmental reviews in the current administration’s rush to place huge chunks of public land in the hands of developers to build on them at public expense.

The Ivanpah Solar Power Plant project is a prime example. The project’s proponent, BrightSource Energy, will build an experimental “power tower” solar power plant on over five and a half square miles of high quality desert tortoise habitat in California’s Ivanpah Valley. The 1.7 billion dollar project will be primed with $1.3 billion in public “economic stimulus” funds provided by the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act.

The project is the first of a number of power plants proposed for public lands in the Ivanpah Valley. A photovoltaic plant is planned right next door to the Ivanpah power plant. Just down the valley over the Nevada border is the proposed Silver State power plant. These and other projects will block off the Ivanpah Valley, turn the North Ivanpah Valley into an industrial zone, and will have major consequences for rare and endangered wildlife. Although the ESA-listed desert tortoise population is declining, the Ivanpah power plant will split the North Ivanpah Valley, eliminate desert tortoise habitat, require that resident tortoises be relocated placing them and any resident tortoises at the relocation site in danger, and will severely compromise connectivity and gene flow between important desert tortoise populations. It will also impact foraging for bighorn sheep and other wildlife, a number of rare plants, and an assemblage of barrel cactus unrivaled elsewhere in the Golden State. Native Americans cultural remains including unusual stone structures will be stranded in a sea of mirrors. The agencies don’t know what these structures are, so how can they be important? No matter that the local Chemehuevi Indians don’t share that view.

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 Again Delay Long-overdue Protections for Montana Grayling

For Immediate Release, September 7, 2010

Contacts:

Noah Greenwald, Center for Biological Diversity, (503) 484-7495
Pat Munday, Grayling Restoration Alliance, (406) 496-4461
Jon Marvel, Western Watersheds Project, (208) 788-2290
Tim Preso, Earthjustice, (406) 586-9699

Feds Again Delay Long-overdue Protections for Montana Grayling

Helena, Mont.— In response to a lawsuit brought by conservationists, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service today determined the Montana grayling, a fish in the salmon family, warrants protection under the Endangered Species Act, but that such protection is again precluded by listing of other species considered a higher priority. The grayling was first identified as possibly in need of protection in 1982 and has declined sharply during this almost 30-year wait.

“The Montana grayling’s nearly 30-year wait for protection is a travesty,” said Noah Greenwald, endangered species program director at the Center. “Like the previous administration, the Obama administration is failing to provide prompt protection to wildlife that desperately need it and has failed to substantially reform the long-broken program for protecting species under the Endangered Species Act.”

Otter sets one-month deadline for Idaho’s participation in wolf management

Will Otter’s tantrum backfire?

If there is a faster way of getting the State of Idaho out of wolf management I can’t think of one. It appears likely that Idaho will no longer have management authority over wolves beginning October 7 if all goes well. I can’t think of a worse way to regain management authority in the future if this comes to pass.

Butch’s impatience and political grandstanding could really backfire.

Butch says:

“We will keep working with the Interior Department and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in the coming weeks to craft an agreement outlining the State’s role in wolf management, providing additional flexibility for addressing depredation, and committing enough federal funding to cover wolf management. But if we don’t reach an agreement within a reasonable time – we’ve set October 7th as a deadline – the State will no longer participate as a designated agent for monitoring, providing law enforcement support or investigating wolf deaths in Idaho.”

The USFWS cannot simply rubber stamp something like this without public input, and if it does, there will certainly be challenges in court that stand a high chance of prevailing.

State scrambling to revive wolf hunt

…..and GUT the Endangered Species Act.
The details of the overreach.

Wolf © Ken Cole

The States are asking their congressional delegations to GUT the Endangered Species Act by changing the language of the Act so that it would allow species to be delisted based on state boundaries. In other words, it would allow the USFWS to use arbitrary, political rationalizations to decide when and where species can receive protection or to incrementally list or delist populations using rationalizations that are not based on the “best available science”. The ramifications of this are pretty profound and conservation groups should take notice of this. As the comments of the Montana FWP commissioners shows, they are not talking just about wolves but about all species.

“Changing the Endangered Species Act sounds like a tough, uphill job, but it’s important when you look at other species like grizzlies and sage grouse,” said Commissioner Dan Vermillion. “Montana has done a good job managing wildlife and we need to make sure we are not penalized (because of other states’ actions).”

Brief for 10(j) Lawsuit Filed in Federal Court

The 2008 10(j) rule violates the Endangered Species Act and the National Environmental Policy Act.

Now that wolves have been placed back on the list of endangered species a lawsuit, which was filed before delisting was proposed, is now able to proceed. The groups are challenging the 2008 10(j) rule change which lowered the bar to allow states to kill wolves for causing “unacceptable impacts” to ungulate populations if they can show “only that a wild ungulate population is failing to meet state or tribal management objectives – however defined by the states – and that
wolves are one of the major causes for that failure.” The previous 10(j) rule defined “unacceptable impact” as a “decline in a wild ungulate population or herd, primarily caused by wolf predation, so that the population or herd is not meeting established State or Tribal management goals.” The USFWS felt that the states could not show that to be the case and, without proper review, changed the regulations to give the states more flexibility to kill wolves.

10(j) Brief

The plaintiffs’ brief was filed on August 20, 2010 and there are two basic claims in the litigation.

Wyoming officials not inclined to act on wolves

Delisting depends on Wyoming

Well, if anyone was uncertain about Wyoming’s comfort with Federal management of wolves in Wyoming then they need to look no farther. Wyoming Governor Dave Freudenthal isn’t going to budge on the State’s management plan and it is unlikely that a new governor or legislature will either.

EarthJustice attorney Doug Honnold makes it pretty clear.

“The law says that if a species is endangered in any significant portion, then the species, or the population in this case, needs to be listed. So somehow, Wyoming has to be part of the picture.”

Feds appeal grizzly bear relisting

Historic and current range of the grizzly bear. Linked from Sightline

Rather than pursue a grizzly bear restoration that puts bears’ welfare first, the feds are appealing a district court decision to keep grizzlies protected under the Endangered Species Act, taking that decision to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

From the Endangered Species Act:

The term ‘‘endangered species’’ means any species which is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range……

Surely there are significant tracts of land in Idaho and some other states where grizzly bears could persist but the USFWS has re-interpreted the ESA in a way that only grants protection to species in their current range rather than their historic range. This has not always been the case, and it is why ESA listings and delistings are challenged so often by conservation groups. The new interpretation allows for incremental listing and delisting which is contrary to the ESA. The re-interpretation of the ESA by the USFWS serves only to benefit industry and not the imperiled species it was intended to protect.

Feds appeal grizzly bear relisting – Billings Gazette

Grizzly Managers Spin Whitebark Pine Woes: Just How Important is Whitebark to Yellowstone Bears?

Very important.

Interesting post by NRDC’s Louisa Wilcox about how the science shows how critical whitebark pine nuts are for grizzlies and how the managers talk out of both sides of their mouth.

“In its August 9th legal brief challenging the 2009 ruling by Federal Judge Donald Molloy that required relisting of the Yellowstone grizzly bear under the Endangered Species Act, federal attorneys said, “the grizzly does not depend on whitebark pine for its survival. The grizzly is a very successful omnivore, and that…they will somehow be able to adapt to a decline in whitebark pines.” The legal briefs then go on to dismiss the issue of whitebark pine relationships to grizzly bear vital rates, including mortality risks, as well as the reproductive success of females. This argument, as the district court ruled, and I will discuss later, runs counter to the evidence on the record.

Then, just yesterday, the Interagency Grizzly Bear Study Team sent out a press release saying, “the scarcity of whitebark pine cones this year may be driving bears to find food at lower elevations, where there is more human activity, increasing the chances of bear-human interactions.” (This comes in a year when 22 grizzly bears are known to have died, and many human-bear conflicts have occurred — months before bears will den up.)”

Grizzly Managers Spin Whitebark Pine Woes: Just How Important is Whitebark to Yellowstone Bears?.
Louisa Willcox’s Blog | Switchboard, from NRDC

The overreach on wolves begins

Settlement, legislation, or legal challenges?

I expect an overreach by the people who are angry about the relisting of wolves. There are many who are pinning their hopes on legislative action taken in the House and Senate to remove all protections from wolves under the Endangered Species Act but I think that will likely fail due to the make up of the committees that they have to pass. Who knows though?

There will also be legislation in the Idaho State Legislature intended to “scare the b’jeez out of the environmental loons”. That would look great in court when the judge reviews the next delisting proposal and it probably would give even the USFWS pause in delisting wolves in the Northern Rockies.

The “good ole’ boys” network of ranchers, hunters, and now game agencies is also forming a coalition to overreach too.

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:

Federal biologists say that cutting hatchery production could help protect wild salmon

It is an argument for removing dams as well.

For many years biologists have known that hatchery fish effect the fitness of wild fish through competition and interbreeding. Hatchery fish don’t have the selective pressures that wild fish do so are less fit to survive in the wild. Because of this, when hatchery fish breed with wild fish the progeny are less suited to survive in the wild affecting the overall survival of wild fish.

Hatchery fish are also larger and more aggressive than wild fish and compete with them for food further limiting the success of wild fish. Being more aggressive makes hatchery fish more vulnerable to predators, a trait that you don’t want to transfer to wild fish. Hatchery fish also stray more so they can interbreed with runs which are managed to be exclusively wild such as the Middle Fork of the Salmon River.

In the case of steelhead, hatchery fish virtually flood the habitat with stray fish, a situation that almost ensures that hatchery fish will interbreed with wild fish in places where it is not intended.

I think the report mentioned is more of an argument for removing dams than it is for reducing hatchery production because, due to the impacts of lower numbers of fish in the short term like economic and biological impacts, you can’t reduce hatchery production without increasing the success of wild fish reproduction. The only way to increase wild fish production to such a degree will be to remove dams.

Federal biologists say that cutting hatchery production could help protect wild salmon
By Scott Learn, The Oregonian

GOP governor candidates, Freudenthal say they’ll keep fighting for Wyoming wolf plan

Extremist, wolf hating politicians blame everyone but themselves

Wyoming is angry that they can’t get their way on wolves and now that a judge has reminded them that their plan sucks they’re digging in even further.

Maybe the title of the article should read “GOP governor candidates, Freudenthal say they’ll keep wolves on the Endangered Species List”. Fine with me because otherwise the result will be wholesale killing of wolves throughout the 3 states.

GOP governor candidates, Freudenthal say they’ll keep fighting for Wyoming wolf plan.
By JOAN BARRON – Casper Star Tribune

The wolves are not killing all of the elk or all of the cows and sheep. And, as Ralph continually says here, this is a cultural conflict, not one based on science or rationality. The fight will continue until it becomes one based on science and rationality. Until the hatred of wolves subsides, and those people with political power come up with rational, sound management plans, I’m sure there will be those who argue against delisting. I’ll be one of them as I don’t believe that the state’s management plans are sound or rational or immune to change once wolves are delisted.

In Wyoming, the current plan would leave only wolves in Yellowstone and the surrounding wilderness and would not allow dispersal into other suitable areas or to other states. In effect it would allow for ~150 wolves. That’s not acceptable, rational, or scientifically sound.

In Idaho the IDFG can claim to manage for a certain level of ~518 but the Legislature will undoubtably step in and mandate that they manage for the minimum level of ~109-150. That’s not acceptable, rational, or scientifically sound.

In Montana, the state that many seem to believe has the most sound management plan, only has to maintain 15 breeding pairs after delisting. That’s not acceptable, rational, or scientifically sound.

The states will still be required to maintain genetic connectivity once delisting occurs but at these numbers it won’t happen naturally so they have even considered transporting wolves from one area to another to get around this requirement. That’s not acceptable, rational, or scientifically sound.

I, and other wolf advocates, want acceptable, rational, and scientifically sound management of wolves. The states are not prepared to give them that respect and wolf advocates should not be afraid to say it. Rather than be afraid of our victories and make cautious statements that might offend the so-called “middle” or anti-wolf people, we should be happy that we have been vindicated in court and that the rule of law stands. We have no other venue where the states will listen and we can’t be sorry to use it.

US Fish and Wildlife Service to Review Status of Mexican Wolf to Determine if it is an Endangered Subspecies

Change could result in greater protections for Mexican Gray Wolf

The USFWS has announced that they will review the status of the Mexican Gray Wolf as an endangered subspecies. The reclassification would require the Service to rewrite their recovery plan and designate critical habitat.

Mexican Gray Wolf May Qualify for Endangered Species Protection Separate From Other Gray Wolves.  Recognition Would Boost Wolf Recovery
Center for Biological Diversity – News release

Feds to review status of Mexican gray wolf
By SUSAN MONTOYA BRYAN (AP)

Service to Review Status of Mexican Wolf to Determine if it is an Endangered Subspecies.
Fish and Wildlife Service Newsroom

Whitebark Pine May Gain Federal Protection

Tree, important for grizzly bears, affected by global warming, insects, and fungus

The whitebark pine is a tree that lives at high elevations and was historically unaffected by pine beetles but due to global warming this has changed. Also, blister rust, an introduced fungal infection has taken a large toll on the trees.

The pine nuts of the trees are collected by squirrels and Clarke’s nutcrackers who’s caches are an important food source for grizzly bears. With their decline the bears are being affected too.

Whitebark Pine May Gain Federal Protection
From KTVZ.COM

Palouse earthworm gets second look for protection

The saga continues

After the rediscovery of living specimens, and I’m sure a threat of litigation, the USFWS is taking another look at whether the giant Palouse earthworm deserves protection.

Palouse earthworm gets second look for protection.

Gray wolf shot in AZ; officials probe use of radio tracking

More on the dead Mexican wolves

One possibility that might be considered by the investigators is the possibility that those with government issued telemetry equipment may not be using it to kill the wolves but they may be giving the frequencies to those who are.

Gray wolf shot in AZ; officials probe use of radio tracking.
Tony Davis Arizona Daily Star

Idaho sockeye numbers cause for hope

Another good year for Idaho’s sockeye salmon?

Redfish Lake © Ken Cole

134,000 164,000 sockeye have crossed Bonneville Dam which is more than 3 times the 10-year average. Most of those are heading to lakes in Washington State but a few are returning to lakes in Idaho’s Sawtooth Mountains. During the last two years Idaho saw exceptionally high returns of sockeye in comparison to many of the previous years where only a handful of fish returned.

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?”

Appeals court denies earthworm protection

Court says there is not enough evidence to show that worm is threatened.

The recently rediscovered giant Palouse earthworm won’t be given protection because not enough is known about it.

Appeals court denies earthworm protection.
By NICHOLAS K. GERANIOS – The Associated Press

Endangered Species Act: Noah’s Ark or Titanic?

Do we need an Endangered Ecosystems Act?

Many biologists believe we have instigated the 6th great extinction episode in Earth’s history; some estimate the pace of extinction has soared to 100,000 species a year. Renowned paleoanthropologist, Richard Leakey, believes half of the Earth’s species will vanish within 100 years and warns that this die-off could come sooner if greenhouse gases wreak havoc with the Earth’s climate. Preserving biodiversity is no longer an altruistic enterprise—it’s a matter of human survival.

Endangered Species Act: Noah’s Ark or Titanic?.
The Berkeley Daily Planet

Feds: No major changes for Columbia Basin salmon

Judge Redden said the Bush Plan for salmon wasn’t good enough, Obama thinks it is.

Well, here is another example of how the Obama Administration has followed the lead of the Bush Administration on environmental issues. As we can see from the Gulf Oil Spill those policies are literally a disaster. While salmon returns have been good the last few years and numbers are high for returning Chinook this year, it should be pointed out that the bulk of these fish are hatchery fish and not those protected under the ESA. It should also be noted that the return of jacks, or male Chinook that spend only one year in the ocean as compared to two or three, is about 72% of the 10-year average which is an indication that next year’s run will likely be lower.

Plight of the Pacific lamprey: Is it a keeper?

The fish is in serious trouble due to dams on the Lower Snake and Columbia Rivers

The Pacific Lamprey had seen drastic declines in population over the last few decades and is quickly becoming a rare sight. Last year it was estimated that only 30,000 crossed Bonneville Dam, down from 350 million to 400 million in the 60’s and 70’s.

via Plight of the Pacific lamprey: Is it a keeper?.
Seattle Times Newspaper

Hair rub technique appears to yield cheaper, more accurate data on grizzlies

More grizzlies than thought in the Northern Continental Divide Ecosystem

Grizzly feeding on elk © Ken Cole

The grizzly bear DNA study that Senator John McCain often ridiculed out of ignorance has shown that there are many more grizzly bears in the Northern Continental Divide Ecosystem than previously estimated. The technique is effective enough that individual bears can be recognized and the parentage of the bears can also be determined.

The researchers estimate that there are about 765 grizzlies in the area which is 2 1/2 times higher than previously thought.

Industry groups like this information because they want grizzlies to be taken off the Endangered Species List. They are hoping for eased restrictions on logging, mining and other activities.

Hair rub technique appears to yield cheaper, more accurate data on grizzlies.
Juliet Eilperin – Washington Post

Idaho scientists find fabled worm

The Giant Palouse Earthworm persists.

Giant Palouse earthworm

The significance of this discovery could be pretty great. The earthworm has been the subject of a petition to list it as an endangered species under the Endangered Species Act but it was denied protection because too little was known and there hadn’t been a specimen seen for many years. That all changes now but to what degree is a good question. The worm lives in northern Idaho and eastern Washington in an area known as the Palouse which has become developed for agriculture over the last century.

There was quite a discussion about an article we posted in January. You can read the post here: Great White: Rare worm vs. farmers

Idaho scientists find fabled worm.
NICHOLAS K. GERANIOS – Associated Press

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

Panel recommends spilling, barging of salmon

Mixed strategy recommended by independent panel for 2010

Chinook Salmon © Ken Cole

NOAA Fisheries wanted to barge all of the salmon from the Snake River around the dams and not spill any water over them because of the low water year that is predicted to be 54% of the normal flow. An independent panel said no and suggested that there be spill and barging due to a host of problems as a result of barging.

Some suggest that NOAA Fisheries wanted to avoid spilling so that more power could be generated by the dams.

Meanwhile the chinook salmon are returning in high numbers over Bonneville Dam with 7762 on the 19th and a cumulative total of 47721 spring chinook this year. You can see the numbers at the Fish Passage Center website.

Panel recommends spilling, barging of salmon
BY KEVIN MCCULLEN, HERALD STAFF WRITER

Wyoming wind project offers grouse conservation plan

1000 turbine wind farm proposed in Wyoming “Core” Sage Grouse Habitat

Misplaced Wind Destroys Wildlife Habitat

It seems the Wyoming Governor’s “core” sage grouse habitat mapping doesn’t mean much. Removal of fencing or marking it with reflectors doesn’t get around the fact that there will be gigantic wind turbines in the middle of sage grouse habitat. Sage grouse don’t like such things and will likely quit using the area. But they will still call it “green” and people will buy it.

Wyoming wind project offers grouse conservation plan
By MATT JOYCE – Associated Press

Accounts conflict on how jaguar was trapped

Was Macho B intentionally caught?

The question about whether or not jaguar scat was placed at the trap site or not is the focus of the article. One former employee says she placed the scat at the trap site on the orders of her boss while the employee who was fire recently says she is lying.

Some have suggested to me that the use of a snare may have greatly contributed to Macho B’s death. There are photos of his paw which show it being swollen and that this may have caused much stress as well as caused infection.

Accounts conflict on how jaguar was trapped
Tony Davis Arizona Daily Star

Feds consider adding wolverines to endangered list

Status Review is a result of a lawsuit

Wolverines are very rare in the Lower 48 but there have been a few notable confirmations of them in Colorado where there is one being tracked by a gps collar and another in California which has been photographed with a remote camera for three consecutive years. They also inhabit Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, Oregon, and Washington but are under threat from winter disturbance by snowmobiling, and trapping in Montana.

Feds consider adding wolverines to endangered list
By JUDITH KOHLER Associated Press Writer

Feds: Fishers in Rockies may need protection

They need old growth forests for survival

My wife and I were fortunate enough to see a fisher as we were driving over Lolo Pass a couple of years ago. This is one of the few areas where fishers still have a native population in the Rockies and, according to the press release, they are genetically distinct from other populations. There have been several attempts at re-establishing them to other areas with limited success.

The decision to move forward is a result of a petition rather than a lawsuit.

Feds: Fishers in Rockies may need protection
By MATTHEW BROWN – Associated Press

Fishers in Rocky Mountains, Rare Forest Mammal, Closer to Winning Endangered Species Act Protection
Defenders of Wildlife, Friends of the Clearwater, Center for Biological Diversity press release

Scientists seek proof of N. Cascades grizzlies

Reported sightings in the Cascades of Washington State lead to funding to search for grizzlies.

There have been reported sightings of grizzly bears for many years in the Cascades of Washington but very little has been confirmed. As the article states, grizzly bears don’t usually disperse long distances like wolves do so colonizing new areas takes longer for them. Another reason for slow recovery for grizzlies is that they reproduce at a much slower rate than wolves and they have a fairly high human caused mortality rate.

Grizzlies here, as in other parts of the lower 48 have full protection under the Endangered Species Act.

Scientists seek proof of N. Cascades grizzlies
By K.C. MEHAFFEY
THE WENATCHEE WORLD

Federal Agencies Sign Agreement to Protect Sage-Grouse Habitat

But they continue to ignore the biggest threat to their habitat……….. GRAZING.
$16 million in handouts for this year alone.

Sage grouse tracks © Katie Fite

The NRCS is handing out more money to ranchers for “habitat conservation” or “habitat improvement” projects that maintain grazing on public lands.

There are some projects such as fence removal that will be funded but the proposed seeding projects may require new fencing to keep livestock out for measly the 2 years they recommend and in some circumstances they call for applying herbicides to restrict the growth of sagebrush so that the seedlings can get a foothold.

So many times we’ve seen that these kinds of projects are co-opted by the livestock industry to be of more benefit to them rather than the values the funding was made available for. I doubt this will be any exception since they have made a concerted effort to deny that livestock have any role in sage-grouse habitat destruction.

American Pika Are Thriving in the Sierra Nevada and Southwestern Great Basin

Questions remain unanswered

Pika © Ken Cole

With very few systematic surveys of pikas there is not much to compare the results of this most recent survey to.  The questions that still needs to be answered are what impact is climate change having on the survival of pikas in, especially, the isolated ranges of the pika’s range?  Are the pikas being squeezed out of lower elevation sites to cooler, higher elevation sites?

A trend cannot be determined from just one sample and this information should be considered a baseline.

In places where pikas are systematically surveyed they are disappearing like in the Bodie Hills of California.

American Pika Are Thriving in the Sierra Nevada and Southwestern Great Basin
ScienceDaily

Western Watersheds Project Files Legal Challenge To Denial of Endangered Species Act Protections for Greater Sage-Grouse

For immediate release – March 8, 2010

Contact:	Jon Marvel, Executive Director, Western Watersheds Project – 208-788-2290
	Laird Lucas, Executive Director, Advocates for the West – 208-870-7621

In response to the announcement on Friday March 5 by Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar that the listing of greater sage-grouse and two of its distinct population segments (Mono Basin and Eastern Washington) under the protections of the Endangered Species Act is “warranted but precluded”, Western Watersheds Project has filed litigation in federal District Court in Boise, Idaho challenging the “precluded” portion of the finding.

The litigation charges that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Department of the Interior violated the Administrative Procedure Act and the Endangered Species Act by finding that the listing of greater sage-grouse is “precluded”.

“The Obama administration rightfully concluded that the greater sage-grouse fully qualify for the protections of the Endangered Species Act,” said Jon Marvel, executive director of Western Watersheds Project. “Unfortunately, the administration has violated the law in not listing sage-grouse at the same time.”

Nevada wildlife chief questions sage grouse decision

More worried about protecting industry than wildlife.

Mono Basin Sage Grouse

The Mono Basin sage grouse received a higher priority rating, a 3 on a scale of 1-12, as a candidate species than the larger populations elsewhere which received an 8 rating. Unbelievably the Chief of the Nevada Division of wildlife expressed greater concern about the industries that would be affected. That shows you what that agency’s priorities are.

“Ken Mayer, director of the Nevada Department of Wildlife, said the decision could affect mining, ranching and other activities in a wide area generally around the Mono Basin.”

Sage grouse in this area have declined greatly and have become greatly isolated not only from the larger populations but from each other. Frankly, these grouse should have been listed as threatened, if not endangered, due to their very low population levels and the threats that face them in the future. Notice that there is a proposed mine in the middle of one of the largest population areas.

Nev. wildlife chief questions sage grouse decision
By MARTIN GRIFFITH, Associated Press Writer

Sage Grouse & WWP May Be Headed Back to Court !?

~ Jon Marvel

Friends,

Sage grouse take flight, Bruneau uplands, Idaho photo © Ken Cole, WWP

Today, in response to successful litigation brought by Western Watersheds Project and our attorneys at Advocates For The West, Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar announced Greater Sage Grouse would not be protected by listing the species under the protections of the Endangered Species Act.

The Secretary did acknowledge that listing was warranted but was precluded by other species with a higher priority for protection.

The decision not to list Greater Sage Grouse is in response to a great deal of political pressure from western states and extractive industries including oil. gas and renewable energy development interests as well as traditional uses like livestock grazing and energy transmission facilities.

Video of Sage Grouse

Western Watersheds Project will review the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service support documents for this decision and determine if the agency has complied with the law.

If it is clear that the law has been violated, WWP will then decide if additional litigation would be helpful to protect this disappearing species in the American west.

Interior: Grouse listing warranted but precluded

Interior: Grouse listing warranted but precluded
By MEAD GRUVER (AP)

Sage Grouse Decision Will be Announced Today

Announcement scheduled for 1:30 EST Friday

Sage grouse in flight, Bruneau uplands © Ken Cole 2008

Interior to announce sage grouse finding Friday
By MEAD GRUVER (AP)

Of course those opposed to listing the bird as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act are coming up with worn out one liners in anticipation of the decision.

“The only good place for a sage grouse to be listed is on the menu of a French bistro,” said Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-UT.

Westerners grouse over more proposed land restrictions
By: Barbara Hollingsworth

Big impact on West, if sage grouse is recommended as protected species
By Craig Welch
Seattle Times environment reporter

Current Grouse Distribution

Mexico to place 5 wolves near AZ

REINTRODUCTION PLANNED AS EARLY AS THIS MONTH

This story appeared last week while I was gone and there was a little discussion about it on the open thread but I think it deserves its own thread.

The significance of this story is not so much that wolves are being released into the wild but that it is happening in Mexico close to the border and that if any of these wolves or their progeny enter into the U.S. they will have full protection under the Endangered Species Act and cannot be legally killed even if they are preying on livestock.

This would have significant implications for the floundering Mexican wolf recovery program in Arizona and New Mexico which announced that there are only 42 wolves in the wild, down from the 52 last year. These wolves are considered an experimental, non-essential population.

One of the main hinderances of the current recovery program in Arizona and New Mexico is that there are arbitrary boundaries inside which the wolves must stay. Wolves reintroduced into Mexico would not have these boundaries because they wouldn’t be considered an experimental, non-essential population under the Endangered Species Act.

Mexico to place 5 wolves near AZ
Tim Steller – Arizona Daily Star

Pika decision could have far-reaching effects

Could be the first animal listed as threatened or endangered because of climate change

Pika © Ken Cole

Decision expected tomorrow.

Two previous stories on the pika listing process:

Formal Protection For Pika Due To Climate Change
May 7, 2009

U.S. agrees to consider protections for pikas
February 15, 2009

Pika decision could have far-reaching effects
By MIKE STARK – Associated Press Writer

Update 2/4/10: Federal agency denies protections for tiny pika

Big Victory for Slickspot Peppergrass!

Rare plant will receive protection across its entire range.

WESTERN WATERSHEDS PROJECT NEWS RELEASE

Slickspot Peppergrass (Lepidium papilliferum) © Ken Cole

October 1, 2009

Contact:

Todd Tucci, Advocates for the West (208) 342-7024
Jon Marvel, Western Watersheds Project (208) 788-2290
Katie Fite, Western Watersheds Project (208) 429-1679

SCIENCE FINALLY TRUMPS POLITICS IN PROTECTING RARE DESERT FLOWER

Boise, Idaho – Conservation groups applauded the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Secretary Salazar for living up to their promise to let science – and not politics – determine whether Slickspot peppergrass warrants protection under the Endangered Species Act, when the Service announced its intention to protect Slickspot peppergrass as a threatened species.

Obama Repackages Bush Salmon Plan

Calls Dam Breaching a “Last Resort”

Chinook Salmon © Ken Cole

“The administration’s passing reference to dam breaching as a ‘contingency of last resort’ defers all necessary economic, infrastructure and other studies, making this ‘contingency’ an illusion,” said Samuel N. Penney, the chairman of the Nez Perce American Indian Tribe, which has traditionally fished the Columbia.

New Federal Plan for Fish-Dam Harmony
New York Times

Obama administration backs Columbia salmon and dam plan
Rocky Barker – Idaho Statesman

Court-ordered Settlement Restores Endangered Species Act Protections to Great Lakes Wolves

How will this affect the wolves of the Northern Rockies? RM

Press Release.
Humane Society of the United States
Center for Biological Diversity

Court-ordered Settlement Restores Endangered Species Act Protections to Great Lakes Wolves

– – – – – – –

Update:
Great Lakes wolves returning to endangered list
By JOHN FLESHER
Associated Press

Update, July 1, 2009
Statement by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Service Will Provide Additional Opportunity for Public Comment

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has reached a settlement agreement with plaintiffs in a lawsuit challenging the Service’s 2009 rule removing Endangered Species Act protections for gray wolves in the Western Great Lakes. Under the terms of the agreement, which must still be approved by the court, the Service will provide an additional opportunity for public comment on the rule to ensure compliance with the Administrative Procedures Act.

Gray wolves in the Western Great Lakes area have exceeded recovery goals and continue to thrive under state management. However, the Service agrees with plaintiffs that additional public review and comment was required under federal law prior to making that final decision.

Upon acceptance of this agreement by the court, and while the Service gathers additional public comment, gray wolves in the Western Great Lakes area will again be protected under the Endangered Species Act. All restrictions and requirements in place under the Act prior to the delisting will be reinstated. In Minnesota, gray wolves will be considered threatened; elsewhere in the region, gray wolves will be designated as endangered. The Service will continue to work with states and tribes to address wolf management issues while Western Great Lakes gray wolves remain under the protection of the Act.

This settlement agreement does not affect the status of gray wolves in other parts of the United States.

The mission of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is working with others to conserve, protect and enhance fish, wildlife, plants and their habitats for the continuing benefit of the American people. We are both a leader and trusted partner in fish and wildlife conservation, known for our scientific excellence, stewardship of lands and natural resources, dedicated professionals and commitment to public service. For more information on our work and the people who make it happen, visit www.fws.gov.

Ruling might put wood bison back in Nenana Basin despite natural gas hunt

Meanwhile captive bison killing each other due to competition for food.

Sarah Palin wants a 10j rule classifying reintroduced bison as experimental non-essential so that development of their habitat can go forward unimpeded.

Ruling might put wood bison back in Nenana Basin despite natural gas hunt
Newsminer

Formal Protection For Pika Due To Climate Change

Pikas are disappearing from the alpine areas of Great Basin and may be listed due to climate change.

Pika © Ken Cole

People who frequent the alpine areas of Idaho may be familiar with these small relatives of rabbits. Pikas live in boulder fields where they harvest herbaceous plants and carry them into their dens. You can often hear them calling “eeeep” from these areas. They are very sensitive to high temperatures so, with global warming, their range is becoming more limited. The southern populations suffer from limited habitat which is shrinking due to warmer temperatures and there have been startling losses.

“An investigation in 2003 discovered that six of the 25 pika populations in the Great Basin had vanished, attributed to the effects of warming temperatures.”

Formal Protection For Pika Due To Climate Change
Red Orbit

Judge faults gov’t plan to save Pacific NW salmon

U.S. District Court Judge James A. Redden tells Federal Government to come up with backup plan to breach dams.

Hatchery Chinook Salmon in the South Fork Salmon River. © Ken Cole

Judge faults gov’t plan to save Pacific NW salmon
Associated Press

The four dams on the lower Snake River, Lower Granite Dam, Little Goose Dam, Lower Monumental Dam, and Ice Harbor Dam, were originally built for navigation purposes so that Lewiston Idaho could become a sea port. The river provides subsidized transportation for the Palouse region’s wheat and other products but there are other options for them including the existing rail system. The dams don’t generate much in the way of electricity either and when they generate the most, during spring runoff, the demand isn’t at its high as it would be during the heat of the summer when people use it for air conditioning. Because of this the Bonneville Power Administration sells it at very low rates to aluminum smelters on the Columbia River. During the Enron contrived “power crisis” the subsidized electricity was re-sold at a profit by the aluminum smelters instead of letting water pass over the spillways to benefit salmon during the low water year.

The dams disrupt many natural conditions on the river and kill juvenile fish on their downstream migration. Their impact on returning adult salmon is lower but they do cause issues by raising the temperature which diverts a number of Idaho bound late summer, early fall-run steelhead into cooler rivers like the Deschutes River in Oregon.

Several Native American tribes, Idaho, Montana and Washington have engaged in a collaborative process in an attempt at saving the dams but the Spokane and Nez Perce Tribes and are siding with the environmental groups.

Todd True, attorney for the legal group Earthjustice, had this to say about the collaborative process being utilized to come up with a solution.

“Salmon don’t swim in collaboration,” Todd True said. “They won’t return in greater numbers because of a new collaboration — no matter how sincere.”

Columbia salmon plan goes before judge for third try

Is the Third Time a Charm?

Perhaps no person has more control over the fate of Columbia River salmon and dams today than a 79-year-old Red Sox fan who doesn’t fish or much care for the taste of salmon. U.S. District Judge James Redden is expected to rule as early as next month in the long-running case over whether dams on the Columbia River system are doing enough to protect endangered fish.

Columbia salmon plan goes before judge for third try

By Warren Cornwall – Seattle Times environment reporter

The Judge has threatened to take over management himself if he is not satisfied with the latest recovery plan.

Update:

NW council approves Columbia River management plan

Regarding Kempthorne’s last minute regs to weaken the ESA

Obama has already said he will void it (but that is not always easy to do)-

Feds Rush To Ease Endangered Species Rules. 15 reviewers, 200,000 comments, 32 hours to go through all of them. by Dina Cappiello. Common Dreams.

GAO Investigation Uncovers Political Meddling by Four Top Interior Officials

Brian Ertz posted a related article about this on May 21.

“As Chairman of this Committee, I am forced to conclude that not only has the endangered species program been sorely politicized, but effort after effort supposedly designed to correct the mishandling of the program by this Administration and its agencies has also been badly bungled. At this point, the best hope for endangered species may simply be to cling to life until after January when this President and his cronies, at long last, hit the unemployment line. . . .: Chairman Nick Rahill.

Rest of the story from the House Natural Resources Committee.

Update May 26. Editorial from the Salt Lake Tribune. Hungry bears: Bush policies are endangering species.

Wolf migration into Oregon could cause an unusual alliance

Idaho wolves are moving into Oregon, but soon wolves in Eastern Oregon will no longer be a federally protected species (assuming delisting actually happens). However, Oregon has its own strict, but only partially completed state wolf plan. So wolves will remain legally protected in Eastern Oregon (but by the state).

According to the Wallowa County [Oregon] Chieftain, the situation is one of uncertainty that might cause ranchers to get more friendly with Defenders of Wildlife and also hope that the conservation groups opposing delisting win their suit.

Making friends with the enemy. By Kathleen Ellyn. Wallowa County Chieftain Reporter

– – – – – –

Note that should any wolves make it to western or central Oregon, they will remain a federally protected endangered species (not an experimental population) as well as have Oregon state protection.