L.A. Times reveals national delisting except for the struggling, tiny population of Mexican wolves-
The Los Angeles Times has broken the news that U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is going delist the gray wolf completely with one exception, the Mexican wolf. Arizona and New Mexico wanted even the 50-60 Mexican wolves to be declared “recovered” despite the well known fact that the goal of 100 free roaming, reproducing Mexican wolves has never been met.
Critics say this whole thing is politically driven. Read the article in the LA Times. Note that a year from now the Times will probably be owned by the Koch Brothers and not provide us with breaking news about wildlife. U.S. plans to drop gray wolves from endangered list. By Julie Cart. LA Times.
Comments
I said in the other article that a rail or dragster with Kenny Bernstein team has a logo of a cow and the words are protect our lands or something to that degree. So the cattle industry has their hands in drag racing too. Money buys our government and politicians on both sides. We call our selves human!
Ralph,
Interesting you should mention the Koch brothers and the LA Times, and wolves in the same paragraph. Here is a timely opinion piece from the Washington Post, which if speculation comes to pass, cannot be good for America, wolves and all. Heck, it can’t be good for democracy, as the uber-rich continue their march to domination!
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/harold-meyerson-what-would-the-koch-brothers-do-to-the-los-angeles-times/2013/04/23/469baa94-ac44-11e2-a8b9-2a63d75b5459_story.html
WM,
We don’t need to worry, everyone will read the Wildlife News instead of the Koch Bros. newspapers. 😉 🙁
Hey Ralph I wish you were not just making a joke !
http://www.lucascattlecompany.com/news. I was wrong it’s Lucas Ralph look this up and turn on your speaker ,and WM do the same !
Richie G,
It looks like this cattle company is opposing some ballot proposition that affects the number of puppies breeders can have at a time. I don’t know anything about it. It is in Missouri.
How can you remove a species from the endangered species list in areas where it hasn’t recovered (e.g., western WA & OR, CA, UT, CO, ND, SD, OK, NB, KS, IL, IA and parts of the northeast etc. How much of this is politics-driven and how much is based on sound-scientific research?
I realize that the USFWS did acknowledge that the eastern wolf (Canis lyacaon) of Eastern Canada is a distinct species of wolf, and grey wolves were probably never present in the northeast, yet they probably won’t list that species as endangered?
Jase:
They will argue that (a) the species is “extinct” in most of these areas because no remnant populations remain and (b) there is no suitable habitat for wolves, so there is no point in attempting recovery. And under their new interpretation of ‘a significant portion of its range’ they need not consider the size of range contraction (or “lost” habitat) when making listing decisions.
If you want a “taste” of what this will look like, check out the FWS’s 5-year review for the Eastern cougar (http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/five_year_review/doc3611.pdf). They simply declared the population extinct–job’s done.
So much for Obummers new Interior Secretary
Yes, what about that? Haven’t heard a peep.
http://www.politico.com/story/2013/04/sally-jewell-sworn-in-behind-closed-doors-90009.html
I didn’t know she had been sworn in.
I dislike Obama more every day, but I think the wolf delisting is a product of political appointees in Interior below the level of Secretary. Jewell didn’t order this. She apparently just took office.
I’m guessing she could easily reverse or postpone the decision, after all she only answers to one person.
Me too – and I thought Ken Salazar was instrumental in getting the wolf delisted along with developing Wyoming’s plan. After all that, we are a bit concerned about the future.
Jewell didn’t order this for sure but she ought to know enough about it by now to recognize that the crazies are running the show and that the American people are being deprived of a national treasure and their landscapes and ecosystems destroyed by two special interest groups.
Always enjoy your myopic, FoxNews-inspired political rants, Timz. Apparently you missed the other thread where Obama’s EPA is opposing the Keystone XL pipeline? Here: http://www.thewildlifenews.com/2013/04/25/on-earth-day-the-epa-sends-its-objections-to-keystone-xl-environmental-impact-statement/
Your favorite ‘Obummer apologist’,
JB
Wait a minute! I thought I was timmy’s favorite Obummer apologist.
Sorry, second favorite Obummer apologist. 🙂
I find this to be the biggest environmental tempest in a teapot. So, we don’t build Keystone XL extension – what about the network of others, including the original Keystone pipeline? The Oglalla is in danger from many things, most of all depletion from overuse. But people have latched on to this issue (all the while driving an SUV, I wonder). Meanwhile, Keystone will find a way to move their product. They say that America’s consumption has dropped. I’m skeptical and wonder if it is has levelled off because the economy has slowed down.
Renewables require too much space and habitat encroachment to be efficient. Where I am (in the Northeast that is sunshine- challenged in winter) 14,000 solar panels over 33 acres are required to power one building, and that’s only during the daytime. I can only imagine what 24,000 acres in the Mojave will look like and what it will sacrifice, while LA and Las Vegas continue to waste energy. There’s a massive 150 turbine wind farm that’s been trying to get a foothold in what was once a marine sanctuary before the Federal government commandeered it. We can see what an expensive boondoggle it be.
So, if you measure what is green by how it relates to human (over)usage of energy only, then I guess the definition applies, but most take the entire planet and it’s inhabitants into consideration. The EPA criticisms are a procedural requirement only and would seem to apply to all pipelines past and present?
And my favorite part of visiting Las Vegas (which is awesome and fun but an environmentalist’s nightmare what with water and power usage) was the drive through the Mojave and the Joshua Trees. 🙂
more making excuses for your man despite the fact the keystone pipeline has absolutely nothing to do wit wolves being delisted. now you and wm can go back to your three-way circle jerk with Obama.
JB,so you think FOX news is complaining about wolves being delisted. for someone who tries to pass himself off as an intellectual that thinking makes you seem more like an imbecile.
Yawn.
wow,no FOX rant reference or obscure post of something you found on google. The “yawn” response however still shows your lack of ability to come up with an original thought. keep working on it.
Gosh, what’s eating at you Timz? After all, I did say that “always enjoy” your rants. It is so refreshing to find someone who can deliver an entirely one-sided, partisan take on political issues. I also enjoy your penchant for twisting our President’s name; “Obummer”…I tell you, it takes me right back to third grade. That’s comedy gold for 8-year olds! And I have to admit, I just can’t keep up with all of the original thoughts that emanate from the Timz mental machine.
Please keep up your thoughtful political analysis! I honestly don’t know what we would do here without you. 😉
So you want to know why I think it is ridiculous to blame Obama for the wolf delisting? Okay, here’s the serious response:
Attempts to remove the entire species of gray wolves within the conterminous US from ESA protections date back to 2002, when Interior released the first Final Rule (which means the planning probably started in Interior in the late 1990s). However, wolves were absent from the vast majority of their range within the U.S., and courts interpreted these large geographic areas as “significant”; because an endangered species is one that faces sufficient threats in all or “a significant portion of its range”, FWS/Interior had their hats handed to them in federal court (back to the drawing board).
While many conservationists agreed with these rulings, others did not, and Interior went back to the drawing board. Their efforts ultimately resulted in the now defunct, 2007 opinion by the Solicitor at Interior on how to interpret a “significant portion of its range”, which my colleagues and I argued against. Meanwhile, Interior got the academic backing they needed in the form of a series of papers by Robin Waples, a NOAA fisheries biologist. Similar to the Solicitor, Waples and colleagues argued that one need not consider the geographic size of range lost when making a listing status determination (see refs below). This is the key piece required for wolves to be delisted, and it pre-dates Obama’s inauguration. You will, of course, respond that he (or his Secretary) have the power to intervene. They could, with one swipe of the pen, make this proposal disappear. Yet, this proposal to delist wolves is coming to Obama from the bottom up, and is apparently endorsed by agency scientists. So were he or his Secretary of Interior (the politicians) to swoop in and put a stop to a proposal to delist delivered by agency scientists, he would be guilty of the EXACT type of political interference that so many here deplore.
There you go, Timz. Those are the facts. I cannot wait for your thoughtful reply.
Refs
Waples, R. W., P. B. Adams, J. Bohnsack, and B. L. Taylor. 2007. A biological framework for evaluating whether a species is threatened or endangered in a significant portion of its range. Conservation Biology 21:964-974.
Waples, R. W., P. B. Adams, J. Bohnsack, and B. L. Taylor. 2007. Normativity Redux. Conservation Biology 21:1649-1650.
Waples, R. W., P. B. Adams, J. Bohnsack, and B. L. Taylor. 2008. Legal Viability, Societal Values, and SPOIR: Response to D’Elia et al. Conservation Biology 22:1075-1077.
So to add to the discussion….
I called the DOI/FWS this morning in an attempt to speak to an Endangered species division chief to discuss the delisting. Its a long story but I spent close to 1 hour on the phone trying to reach anyone, someone from that division. I still did not have complete success but I did reach a chief of external affairs from the public affairs department who told me that the information leaked to the papers is incorrect. The agency does not intend to issue a blanket delisting of wolves. According to my discussion with him, apparently an official stance can not be quoted just yet as today there is a meeting of staff about the leak. I hope that he is in the correct inner circle and that this information is true. I don’t want to release his name as I feel he went out on a limb to offer that info. Here is what I have to say on the issue of reaching the ESA division to leave comments. It was very discouraging to say the least.
I am going back to the drawing board to find how to actually speak to a division chief at headquarters about the delisting of grey wolves. The website is set up so that one must go to the endangered species division and where you would normally expect to see the information to get a contact you are directed to e mails. I then found telephone contacts under the regions but then you reach a clerical type person who attempts to thwart every effort to speak to a specialist or chief. It’s a frustrating process that all but the most determined would give up on. I had to actually remind the clerk that I am a citizen and that the chiefs of the departments are public servants and that I have every right to speak in person to one of them. The ordinary concerned citizen would have given up – this is not how a transparent system is supposed to work. Lets hope the delisting info is good.
Louise Kane says,
“I had to actually remind the clerk that I am a citizen and that the chiefs of the departments are public servants and that I have every right to speak in person to one of them.”
Amen to that. If they are going to be rude or impersonal to me, they will have to do it to my face…emails are just 1’s and 0’s on a screen.
Yet, this proposal to delist wolves is coming to Obama from the bottom up, and is apparently endorsed by agency scientists. So were he or his Secretary of Interior (the politicians) to swoop in and put a stop to a proposal to delist delivered by agency scientists, he would be guilty of the EXACT type of political interference that so many here deplore.
In this case it would be to save an animal that many have worked hard to restore, which is in the process of being driven to extinction again – so it isn’t the same thing. It is setting the ship right again and back on course after Darth Vader, er, Ken Salazar, had the helm for the last four years. I don’t deplore it. The only thing I do deplore is this administration’s laisez-faire stance on the environment and wildlife isn’t working and in fact is causing a lot of destruction. We await to see what his new SOI will do. I predict nothing except to get more hiking boots out into the national parks, and ruin more land with any and all energy exploration.
Thank you Louise for finding out the real story – I’m surprised at the LA Times.
Federal officials insist that the approximately 5,000 wolves in the Northern Rockies and Great Lakes region are enough to prevent extinction. But that conclusion ignores warnings from scientists and conservationists that the wolves’ numbers have not reached sustainable levels and that the agency’s analysis of wolf subspecies and habitat is flawed.
Those same critics challenged the federal government’s decision two years ago to withdraw Endangered Species Act protection in the Northern Rockies, Eastern Oregon and Eastern Washington and give the job of wolf management to the states. Since that delisting, more than a thousand wolves have been killed in sanctioned hunts, including 422 wolves last year in Idaho alone.
Now, the Fish and Wildlife Service is considering removing protections in the protected areas that remain. Yet the wolves are just beginning to get a foothold in Western Oregon, Washington, Utah and Colorado, and it’s too early to end federal protection in those areas.
The Fish and Wildlife Service is under intense pressure from ranchers, hunters and some federal and state officials to remove the remaining protections. As Jamie Rappaport Clark, the former director of the Fish and Wildlife Service and now the president of Defenders of Wildlife, notes, the agency’s latest delisting decision “reeks of politics.”
http://www.registerguard.com/rg/opinion/29785866-78/wolves-federal-wildlife-delisting-fish.html.csp
So much for science in this decision. The President puts such a low priority on this department that he had his wife visit and welcome the new SOI as some sort of ladies’ tea party I guess. The LA Times has it’s own agenda too, I think.
“In this case it would be to save an animal that many have worked hard to restore – so it isn’t the same thing.”
Ida: It isn’t the same because, in principle, you agree that politicians should trump agency decisions, or because, in this case, such a decision would agree with your politics?
I would argue that it is extremely two-faced to scream about political interference when the politics go against you, and then turn around and call on politicians to get involved when things aren’t going your way.
Yes JB –
As they say, what’s good for the goose…
Standing on ceremony isn’t helping the wolves at all. Backrooms deals and dishonorable politics are the rule of the day.
Ida:
I am so sick of the “that’s not science it’s politics” argument that I can hardly stomach responding again. It’s a horseshit argument. Science can only, ONLY, ONLY/b> answer factual questions. It is not capable of answering “should” questions (like, should wolves be listed or delisted). In the case of a listing status determination, science can help managers quantify the risk of extinction, but whether that risk is deemed acceptable ultimately determines whether a species is listed or delisted. (Note: Scientists disagree on this issue where wolves in the NRMs are concerned, but 4 out of 5 peer reviewers (i.e., wolf ecologists–or scientists) found the plan acceptable.) IF (and from Louise’s post that word seems appropriate) Interior moves forward with a proposed rule, it will have to be (again) reviewed by scientists; and if the majority of the scientists don’t find the Rule acceptable, then you might have a legitimate claim. But we’re a long way from that point.
Ralph has brought up a number of times what wolves are nothing more than chump change in all that is going on. Between: still trying to dig out of the mess “W” trolled into; Korea; debt; trade imbalance; eternal strife in the Mideast; an obstructionist republican party; deficit reduction; China; Russia, always the Russians; the perceived power grab by the 1%…and at the same time trying to govern the country
And Obama should stay up at night worrying about wolves. That’s what his secretaries and advisors are supposed to worry about. During his campaigns, did he ever mention wolves, in regard to gray wolves. Holding his feet
To the fire about wolves is irrational.
The article I gave you the big picture is the cattle companies are taking over ,in every aspect of open land. In California their is not a wolf pack yet , am I wrong. In the east in Maine they hate coyote’s let alone if a wolf pack wanders in. So who is instrumental behind delisting the wolves throughout the country? The New England states don’t have wolves, and if they do it’s a wolf-coyote mix. Sounds like an all out war on the wolves.IMHO
Richie G,
In many places around the country state legislatures are passing what dim-witted reporters laughingly call “Veggie libel” laws. Smarter media call them “ag-gag laws.” I think these laws are a real threat to our freedom of expression. It should be noted, that the forces behind these are rarely truck gardeners. Most prominent is the livestock industry.
Here is an opinion piece from USA Today. Ag-gag’ bills harm free speech: Column. http://tinyurl.com/bs2t6zh
🙂 Made my day.
They’ll be gunning for OR-7 now, if Yellowstone’s collared wolves are any indication. Shall we start a countdown? What is California going to do? 🙁 I would have hoped that our new SOI would have been strong right from the starting gate – but it doesn’t look like it. Appeasement is the new environmentalism. Another four years of misery.
For over a year now, I have been saying the UFWS employees I know have been saying the agency wants to wash its hands from wolves, today’s announcement has basically said, they want nothing to do with wolves any longer. I really do wish I was wrong, but.
I wish you were wrong too, SB. 🙁
What does everyone expect with budget cuts and animals are not a priority.
I have always said it should be a state issue not a federals issue and wildlife services and residents should play a part in how the wolf is managed (not out of state intrest or out of the United States).
The wolf is here to stay and none of the wildlife agencies want the wolf relisted. Management might not be satisfactory to pro wolf advocates.
There was a recent article about an old elk #10 who died and did anyone here complain from the pro wolf side like a collared wolf.
Robert,
Don’t get me wrong, I want and believe that wolves should be delisted, but I don’t want it done for the wrong reason, when things are done for the wrong reason, we end up with years of litigation, which I suspect is what is going to happen again.
why the hell do you want to see wolves delisted Savebears? Would you want to see, wolverines, or any other animal that could potentially repopulate in an area that they formerly inhabited but where none existed, delisted? Delisting should only occur when the threat abates, the threat to wolves is ominously still present and persists solidly in ignorance and stubborn cultural bias that needs to be eradicated before wolves should be delisted. and please don’t preach about the ESA
Robert R.,
Did anyone “anti-wolf”/”pro-elk” people mourn the loss of elk #10? Did you?
Quit trying to equate the people who want to see the wolf recovered throughout the west as “anti-elk”. Your assertion is ridiculous and you know it.
Last time I checked the elk was doing just fine. Whereas the wolf appears to be on the way to being treated as vermin again. It would be refreshing if you attempted to actually make a point in one of your posts, instead of barfing up your usual nonsense.
I think it’s a big stretch to call these people pro-elk.
Jeff what about the wildlife watchers who got use to seeing this elk in YNP, different than a collared #wolf.
Yes there were some that was sad #10 was lost and I to will not see him any more.
You say the wolf is on the of being treated as vermin. Most game animals are considered pest,
both rural and urban.
Quota: Elk No. 10 became internationally famous after the British Broadcasting Corp. made a film on elk that featured the Mammoth animals as well as those in Estes Park, Colo. Clips from the films “Street Fighter”.
I don’t think you totally understand why elk are doing well. There is two reasons. 1 there is becoming a lot of land being bought up by big money people who then do not allow hunting. There for those elk populate without being manage by hunting. Some of these land owners do not tolerate predators. 2 almost half of Montana is not inhabited by wolves, so that population has grown.
In the ares that can be access, both public and private the elk numbers are down.
Robert:
Elk populations in the US are up in most states. Long term population trends are quite good. The reduction in SOME areas of Montana–folks like to conveniently forget–was largely purposeful. In fact, analyses that have looked at elk population decline in the northern Yellowstone herd have attributed that decline *mostly to human-hunting.
Personally, I don’t mind elk decline in some areas. I would hate to see elk become as ubiquitous (and troublesome) as white-tailed deer.
I may be wrong but the northern Yellowstone elk herd did not by its self decline totally from hunting because of the amount of licenses issued.
Robert:
See this publication:
Vucetich et al. 2005. Influence of harvest, climate and wolf predation on Yellowstone elk, 1961-2004, Oikos,
111(2): 259–270.
Abstract: In the period following wolf (Canis lupus) reintroduction to Yellowstone National Park (1995–2004), the northern Yellowstone elk (Cervus elaphus) herd declined from ∼17 000 to ∼8000 elk (8.1% yr−1). The extent to which wolf predation contributed to this decline is not obvious because the influence of other factors (human harvest and lower than average annual rainfall) on elk dynamics has not been quantified. To assess the contribution of wolf predation to this elk decline, we built and assessed models based on elk-related data prior to wolf reintroduction (1961 to 1995). We then used the best of these models to predict how elk dynamics might have been realized after wolf reintroduction (1995 to 2004) had wolves never been reintroduced. The best performing model predicted 64% of the variance in growth rate and included elk abundance, harvest rate, annual snowfall, and annual precipitation as predictor variables. The best performing models also suggest that harvest may be super-additive. That is, for every one percent increase in harvest rate, elk population growth rate declines by more than one percent. Harvest rate also accounted for ∼47% of the observed variation in elk growth rate. According to the best-performing model, which accounts for harvest rate and climate, the elk population would have been expected to decline by 7.9% per year, on average, between 1995 and 2004. Within the limits of uncertainty, which are not trivial, climate and harvest rate are justified explanations for most of the observed elk decline. To the extent that this is true, we suggest that between 1995 and 2004 wolf predation was primarily compensatory.
The wildlife agencies do not speak for the people and nor are they to be trusted. The old saying actions speak louder then words is quite obvious when it comes to state and federal agencies and their shameful treatment of wolves, and most predators. and when enough people speak out in outrage as they did in Michigan, then the legislators just ignore the people’s voices and sidestep democracy and make their own laws. The Koch brothers, NRA, Safari Club love this kind of democracy. Its easy to buy laws now.
last i checked, obuma was the president and its his administration,,, and his minions make the decisions, not the koch brothers,,,,, talk a bout a wolf in sheep clothing this obuma was,,,glad i opted out and have nothing to apologize for
The Endangered Species Act, like any law, is only as good as the agencies that enforce it.
In the case of the Grey Wolf , and the Obama admin’s intention to utterly wash their hands of those $#@ing wild dogs roaming the American West , wherever that is , we can make a substantial claim that the ESA has been distorted to the point of failure. By Politics.
It can only be politics, since managing the wolf program by science, ecology , accepted wildlife conservation practices and flexible planning would have treated the restored Grey Wolf populations much more sustainably. Instead, the Feds thru the USFWS has surrendered to the politics and forsaken the language and spirit of ESA that requires USFWS to absolutely assure habitat, domain, and range of recovering species. The Hunting Hegemony and the Cattle Barons conflated threats prevailed, wrongly.
We here at the Wildlife News community know full well that wolves threaten neither hunting opportunity of the viability of Western stockgrowers anywhere near the extent claimed by the elitist hunting lobby groups and the anachronistic cattlemen . The percieved threat of wolves to huntable elk herds is almost laughable. Truth be told, the Don Peay’s and Toby Bridges’ of the West are so insecure and uneducated about the wolf-elk predator-prey relationship that it drives them to a paranoid schizophrenic place. Whereas the Cattle Barons are throwbacks to long gone days of the ” Big Bad Wolf” and superstitions. it is convenient for the Stockgrowers to use the wolf to mask the failed economics and outrageous resource impacts that the production of nonnative bovines have wreaked on the American West at the expense of all wildlife, , but especially Grey Wolves and Bison. [If only the Obama admin would do the right thing in these troubled budget times and require western cattlemen to surrender their subsidies and begin paying their own way , with respect to grazing fees, water allotments, market props , USDA services becoming ” User fees” instead of freebies , etc etc ]
While this issue of abrogating the ESA before the Grey Wolf was fullyr estored and had ample room to roam, and by default turning over all wolf management to the states will require more research , I have an inescapable fear that blanket state management of wolves is probably worse than weak federal control or no management at all. The states hate wolves; do not consider them wildlife; have lousy predator programs; but most ominously of all they have just enough resources at their disposal to begin anew the wholesale Caniside practiced by their ill-willed grandfathers.
Besides, Wildlife Services isn’t going away any time soon ….but maybe should when it comes to large predator control.
Well said. The states won’t have the resources to manage wolves even if they wanted to. Just imagine taxes going up to protect habitat without a human use to justify it. Ain’t gonna happen.
As you say, if wolf and wildlife management is going to be handed over to the states for management entirely, then we don’t need an agency to act as Federal Exterminators any more.
Obama is an excellent people president, but he and his administration fail miserably when it comes to the environment and wildlife. And no, not approving Keystone XL isn’t going to change that (although in the minds of many it will). Just how clueless is obvious when they make getting kids into the national parks the top goal of the Interior Department. While a laudable goal, it isn’t in the domain of the Interior. It may have benefits in the future, but there’s no way to know. We need to protect them in the present. I’m sure ranchers, hunters and oil companies can rest easy now.
CodyC
What is considered fully restored? Is there a true number or an endless number. With today’s encroachment on the outdoors (subdivisions etc.)could the environment support lets be moderate and say 50,000 wolves, probably would not be tolerated.
Makes me wonder when tens of thousands of wolves roamed, what it was actually like. Correct me if I’m wrong but wasn’t some 80,000 wolves eradicated in the 1800’s.
somehow mankind has thrived despite the terrible threat that wolves present, yet as human inhabitation spread, wolves were effectively eradicated. Who is the threat, who does not coexist well? Humans or wolves….hmm and its being done again. Stupid, cruel and destructive. Not the wolves
Louise your scaring me. Why don’t you just mention we need a holocaust being that humans are the problem.
Robert R,
The fact that ALL these various species were in North America, despite 80,000 wolves is very telling. What does it tell you? That they were all very good at hiding from wolves? That they negotiated a truce with the wolves? How is it that 80,000+ wolves inahbited the NRM area and all this wildlife STILL survived? What does that tell you about North America before domestic animals?
Mark I’m not going to discount your theory but it would be nice to know other than mass numbers of buffalo what antelope,deer and elk numbers were at that time. Also we must remember most ungulates were plains game.
Its hard to swallow but it all came down to the need for meat and having enough and in order to do so any other predators had to be eliminated.
Are ancestors did not have the foresight to see what they were doing to them selves before it was to late.
I just wish some could watch the DVD a wildlife legacy.
Robert R says,
“Are ancestors did not have the foresight to see what they were doing to them selves before it was to late.
I just wish some could watch the DVD a wildlife legacy.”
We’ll continue the tradition our ancestors began…no foresight. I’ll will check out the DVD.
Given the terms of the “experimental, non-essential” reintroduction of wolves in the specific, targeted areas of Idaho, Wyoming, and Montana, I suppose there is some logic for delisting in those areas under those terms.
But, isn’t there a separate standard for delisting under the ESA in the rest of the nation? When the western Great Lakes population was delisted as “recovered”, it was based on just that–a recovered population in at least certain areas of 3 states. Actually, that population was listed as recovered north of Interstate 80 which includes the northern half of Iowa where there are likely no more than a few wolf “stragglers” yearly–but that’s not my point.
Where is the recovered wolf population in Missouri, Kansas, Kentucky, Utah, Tennessee, Colorado, Nevada, etc., etc.?
Saw a blurb on a network news program disseminating the government spin on the delisting proclaiming that it is a great thing because wolf populations have now recovered. Nothing mentioned about the widespread ongoing killing of wolves in the Rockies, the lack of wolf recovery in most of the country, and the lawsuit that wolf advocates won several years ago reversing the USFWS’s decision to delist wolves in much of the country. It is a fact of life that here in the northeast, virtually nothing has been done by the federal government to protect wolves or to promote their natural recolonization. The protection/promotion of wolves here under the ESA has been virtually nonexistent. Delisting will have little to no practical effect. Had the USFWS actually been implementing a recovery plan here, the delisting might have some real negative impact. That does not mean that another lawsuit is not called for, however, since the only way we will ever have a wolf recovery plan here in the northeast is under federal direction. As far as the gray/eastern wolf issue is concerned, it is highly likely that northern portions of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont and New York had gray wolves because these areas were wolf/moose/caribou ecosystems up until some time in the 19th century.
That’s the great mystery which I am sure will be disregarded entirely – what about places where recovery plans weren’t implemented? It’s preemptive to just say they have recovered in the entire country when proposed areas have been completely dismissed now. Will this small ‘recovered’ population in the US survive yearly hunting? I doubt it. Perhaps hunting should be done away with now – if a blanket delisting goes through? Ha.
He does have more important things to worry about Immer, which is why nobody can understand why delisting wolves and appeasing ranching and hunting interests is such a big deal for this administration. Oh for a line item veto and this would have never happened in the first place. Or would it have? When Congress cried shutdown under Bill Clinton, he called their bluff and that was the end of it. How I miss those days, and the 8-year continuity and philosophy of Bruce Babbitt.
I think if Clinton had been allowed to run this last time, he would have won by a landslide. His “faults” aside, the man knew how to govern.
Yes, I think someone’s private life doesn’t always carry over into their trustworthiness as a leader. Experience is important; I think that’s what President Obama doesn’t have. His advisors stink and insult the country’s intelligence with their cursory nod to environmental issues. Perhaps they don’t understand the issues either. And environmental groups that support Democrats unquestioningly such as the Sierra Club would have John Muir turning in his grave.
yes he did
Another aspect of the “blanket delisting” proposal, if it makes it into a final FWS rule without successful legal challenge, would be a HUGE blow to the fund-raising efforts of Defenders of Wildlife. It would leave a big dent in their coffers. They would lose the keystone species of their financial support (along with grizzlies if and when they get off the list). It would be hard for Defenders to justify the $350K salary plus perks they pay to Jamie Rappaport Clark. And, didn’t we talk about compensation being a big motivator for some on another thread here – gotta wonder if Jamie would work for half or a third that much, being an environmental icon and such, that some here think she is? Defenders, and maybe some other pro-wolf organizations has alot riding on this, and its more than the well-being of these canines and ursines.
+1
unfortunately, with controversial issues, there comes a point for the pharisees, when the rallying cry is “show me the money”.
On the flip side, those with ethics and moral fiber will quickly show themselves as such
Here is what Nancy Warren of wolfwatcher has to say about sb 288 in Michigan… Casperson beats out tester and baccus for the sleaziest anti democratic anti wildlife/ move yet. This is what makes people apathetic, hopeless and angry. 257,000 voices/signatures collected in under 65 days squashed by a slimy backdoor political move that is not supported by their constituency and conducted against an entrenched democratic process enacted by the legislature.
If you are angry about this take a moment and write to let these senators know that this sleazy move is noted nationally.
About 3 pm this afternoon I called the office of Representative Andrea
LaFontaine, Chair of the Natural Resources Committee. I asked if SB 288
would be heard by the committee tomorrow, since it was not yet posted to the
online agenda & I had not yet received any notification. I was told the
notice would be issued by 6 pm – they are only required to give 18 hrs
notice.
At 4:12, notification was received that SB 288 would be taken up by the
committee tomorrow at noon. I was told it will go to the full house on
Thursday. Despite our best efforts, Little Red Riding Hood is alive and
well in the hearts of our Michigan Legislators and their fear of appearing
“anti-hunting” will likely win out over democracy.
I expect SB 288 will be signed into law before the DNR NRC meets on 5/9
At this point, I am not certain of our next steps.
There will also be a meeting of the NRC Policy Committee on Wildlife and
Fisheries on 5/8
Both meetings will be at Ralph A. MacMullan (RAM) Conference Center
104 Conservation Drive, Roscommon, MI 48653
(Au Sable Room)
5/8/2013 Meeting agenda NRC Policy Committee
12:00 p.m.
1. Wolf Presentation by William VanderZouwen, Wisconsin Department of
Natural Resources
2. Wolf Presentation by Dan Stark, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
3. Written testimony from outside experts.
Public Appearances
Here is the agenda for the Meeting on 5/9:
NRC Meeting http://www.michigan.gov/documents/dnr/agnMay13_418591_7.pdf
If you’re unable to attend the meeting but wish to submit written comments
on Agenda items, please write to: Natural
Resources Commission, P.O. Box 30028, Lansing, MI 48909 or e-mail:
whippled1@michigan.gov . If you would like further
information or would like to address the Commission, please contact Debbie
Whipple at 517-373-2352 or e-mail:
whippled1@michigan.gov . Persons registering on or before the Friday
preceding the meeting will be allowed up to five (5)
minutes for their presentation. Persons registering after the Friday
preceding the meeting or at the meeting will be allowed
up to three (3) minutes. Persons with disabilities needing accommodations
should contact Debbie Whipple
—–Original Message—–
From: Natural Resources
Sent: Monday, April 29, 2013 4:12 PM
To: HREP-NATU@listserver.legislature.mi.gov
Subject: [NATU] REVISED AGENDA: House Natural Resources Standing
CommitteeMeeting
Revised Agenda House Standing Committee Meeting
Natural Resources, Rep. Andrea LaFontaine, Chair
DATE: Tuesday, April 30, 2013
TIME: 12:00 PM
PLACE: Room 307, House Office Building, Lansing, MI
AGENDA:
SB 16 (Sen. Walker) Natural resources; wildlife; wildlife violator compact
law; modify enforcement provisions.
SB 288 (Sen. Casperson) Natural resources; hunting; natural resources
commission ability to designate species as game; provide for.
SB 289 (Sen. Casperson) Natural resources; hunting; right to hunt and fish;
provide for.
To view text of legislation go to:
http://www.legislature.mi.gov/mileg.aspx?page=CommitteeBillRecord
Committee Clerk: Joy Brewer
Phone: 517-373-8474
e-Mail: joybrewer@house.mi.gov
Individuals who wish to bring written testimony need to supply a minimum of
thirty copies for distribution.
Individuals needing special accommodations to participate in the meeting may
contact the Chair’s office.
Schedule changes or cancellations available at http://www.legislature.mi.gov or 24
hours at (517) 373-8140.
Notice posted: 4/29/2013
_______________________________________________
To manage your membership please visit
http://legislature.mi.gov/mileg.aspx?page=listserversignup