Interior Secretary Salazar Affirms Recovery of Gray Wolves in Western Great Lakes... North Rockies

[XemaSab]

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

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

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

http://www.fws.gov /

If the species is considered fully recovered, it's delisted.

The goal is to eventually delist species. The goal is not to keep them on the endangered species list forever.

[sandnsea]

1. Except when dumbass governors

want to hunt them into extinction again.

They need to continue to be protected from hunting or we wasted all these years of money to rebuild the population in the first place.

[babylonsister]

2. Nope. nt

[XemaSab]

4. According to the recovery plan

the goal was a minimum of 10 breeding pairs in each of three recovery areas.

It sounds like the goal has been met, and then some.

http://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/species/mammals/wol...

[babylonsister]

5. You are right. And then some. Thanks. nt

[Vanje]

12. As ever , You blow your opposition out of the water

with your impervious and well crafted arguments.
There is no adequate response.
None.

[Big Blue Marble]

3. Under other circumstances that would be great news.

As it is now, it is simply the signal to let the killing begin.


Salazar's friends who trade in hunting and cattle only want the wolves to go away. Read how the Governor of Idaho responded to
the de-listing decision.

"Idaho and Montana already have crafted plans for public hunts to keep wolf populations in check. There are no immediate plans for hunts in the western Great Lakes, which has nearly 4,000 wolves.

Idaho Gov. C.L. Butch Otter on Friday repeated his desire to get the first available wolf hunting tag in the state so he can try to shoot one of the animals.

"The fish and game population is really counting on a robust population of trophy animals to maintain that part of our economy," he said."

Link

Why oh why does the Obama Adminstration throw its own environmental supporters under the bus, while rewarding
the states of Idaho and Montana, EV's that will never be in his column?

There are 35 breeding pairs and 1500 wolves (which means a lot of very young wolves going to slaughter) in Idaho and Montana.

Environmental groups are vehemently disagreeing that the wolves should be de-listed.

"Less than two hours after Salazar’s announcement, the Sierra Club sent out a press release saying: “The state plans could threaten the long-term survival of the gray wolf in the Northern Rockies, especially given the genetic isolation of wolves throughout the recovery area. Aggressive wolf-killing practices, coupled with genetic isolation and plans to institute hunts in Idaho and Montana, could push wolf numbers dangerously low and reverse decades of recovery work. The Sierra Club, along with other conservation groups, plans to challenge the wolf delisting decision in court.” - same link as above.

[depakid]

6. They certainly haven't recovered in Oregon yet

Though apparently there's a breeding pair or two in the state. Recovery in Oregon will be based on popukations currently threatened by governor "Butch" Otter in Idaho- as well as similar plans in Montana.

Hopefully, Defenders of Wildlife will be successful in their court action to overturn this ill considered decision.

[malakai2]

8. That's because of the way certain ESA terms have been interpreted by various administrations

The Western Great Lakes DPS consists entirely of the few thousand wolves in northern Minnesota, and several hundred each in northern Wisconsin and the UP of Michigan. Know what the administrative boundaries of the Western Great Lakes DPS are? Highway 83 in North Dakota from the Canadian border south to the Missouri River, the Missouri River south to Omaha, I-80 east to Toledo, and the Canadian border again back to central North Dakota. Most of that is not capable of supporting wolves, but much of it is also no deterrent to dispersing wolves from the population core...so FWS figured that if they drew the lines far enough out, they could delist eventually and not have to worry about take within the entire area of wolves' historic range, because dispersers would be dead before they made it to safe territory. They'll still be listed outside the Western Great Lakes DPS, but there will be no efforts to restore them to any other part of their historic range, so in practice it allows FWS to delist wolves after only ensuring survival of relict populations in a fragment of the historic range.

The Northern Rockies DPS and Southwest DPS are different in that those areas were completely extirpated, and wolves were reintroduced under ESA Section 10(j). That means they're legally defined as "experimental, nonessential" populations, in that the loss of those populations would not jeopardize the species. Which means the take prohibitions within those areas, or in adjacent areas previously block cleared (no wolves in surveys), are considerably more loose than they would be within the Western Great Lakes DPS, with the exception of those wolves within national parks or wildlife refuges where take is not allowed. Because the Northern Rockies DPS focuses on Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming, there is no federal provision for restoring wolves to Oregon, Washington, Utah, or Colorado-or the western Dakotas-all of which likely have some available wolf habitat remaining. If those states want wolves, it's going to require full "recovery" of the Northern Rockies DPS and wildlife trading between states (I'll give you some bull elk and black bears, you give me some wolves and fishers), or dispersal into those states that have effective state species protection laws. I think Oregon does, I know North Dakota does not, and several of those states would probably not be interested in prosecuting someone who did kill a dispersing wolf. As a matter of fact, I'm pretty sure South Dakota is allowed to take up to 2 wolves per year, and their state trappers have no qualms with shooting anything that ranchers or Dept. of Ag administrators want gone. The Southwest DPS has not even been capable of getting off the ground, because some conditions set as part of their 10(j) permit require FWS to release wolves only in a few small areas, remove wolves that leave certain core areas, and kill wolves that feed on livestock...even if said livestock was, say, left to calve upwind of a wolf den with the intention of sacrificing the cow so that the wolf would be removed.

I wouldn't hold my breath on this being overturned, not unless DoW has proof that the decision was arbitrary and capricious. The court will defer to expert opinion, and if the senior field biologists are saying "The DPS is fine, it's met the recovery goals, our protocol is to monitor and re-list if a particular lower bound is crossed," I don't know how DoW is going to argue without essentially saying "No it isn't, no it hasn't, that won't work because we said so."

[truebrit71]

9. The court already sided with DoW in halting the delisting by FWS. The bush admin..

..over-ruled the court in their way out of office...and the Obama administration has rubber-stamped that move.

DoW and others will simply go back to court and seek to have the injunction re-instated and tell the politicians (regardless of party) that whether they like it or not they too have to follow what the courts say...

I am bitterly disappointed in this move by the Obama administration, but not totally unsurprised when you see who Obama chose to head the department. One has to wonder why Salazar was chosen..was he the only one that DIDN'T have tax problems?

[malakai2]

10. On what grounds?

The NR DPS recovery goal has been met. The agency is required under ESA to relinquish control when conservation has been achieved. Unless there was a procedural violation that can be proven in court, I don't see why a court wouldn't grant FWS deference. So...where's the procedural violation?

As for Salazar, Obama probably went that route because of his insistence on working with people and trying to meet them halfway. Resistance to ESA provisions tends to be a little (batshit) crazy west of the Mississippi, so meeting people halfway starts with appointing an Interior Secretary from the intermountain west, then not doing things like ignoring past promises without a good reason.

[Doremus]

7. Kicking for the wolves.

The furry kind, not the bastards who think another head on the wall compensates for their small penises.

[Vanje]

11. There are less than 800 wolves in Idaho

and, as I understand it the delisting will go into effect here.

I heard our governor (Butch Otter) gleefully talking on my radio yesterday, about getting his wolf license and shootin him some.
"Protection" of Idaho's wolves will transfer to the states.
Idaho Fish and Game employees know that Governor Butch is their boss. And they know that he is itchin to hang a wolf pelt on his wall.