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. Read the rest of this entry »