Bush Administration to Strip Wolves of Federal Protections—Except for Wyoming
- Andrew Wetzler
- Director, Endangered Species Project, Chicago
- Blog | About
- Posted January 14, 2009 in Saving Wildlife and Wild Places , U.S. Law and Policy
The Bush Administration has announced that it will remove protections under the Endangered Species Act from wolves in the northern Rocky Mountains. Today's decision comes just months after a previous attempt to delist the Northern Rocky Mountain population was struck down by a federal court. NRDC, along with Earthjustice and our conservation allies will move quickly to challenge today's decision and I predict it will suffer the same fate.
But we might not be the only ones... I would expect the State of Wyoming and some of the regional rancher groups to file suit too.
One of the differences between the original wolf delisting rule and today's decision is the exclusion of Wyoming. Because the Cowboy State continues to insist that it will classify the wolf as a "predator" (meaning it can be shot on sight at any time and without a permit) throughout most of the state as soon as federal protections go away, the Fish and Wildlife Service decided only to delist the wolf in Montana and Idaho, but leave them protected in Wyoming.
Now, don't get me wrong--Wyoming's plan is awful.
But simply carving up the wolf population in the Northern Rockies into every smaller segment is not the right approach scientifically or legally. Wolves in the region are classified as a single endangered population and, so long as Wyoming's plan remains in place, it is hard to maintain that that this population no longer needs protections. Put another way: if wolves are in danger of extinction in Wyoming, then the entire population is in danger of extinction.
And that is the root of the problem with today's decision. The Bush Administration failed to tackle the hardest, most contentious part of one of our country's hardest and most contentious wildlife issue... Instead, they said "good enough" and pushed something through that will make folks on both sides of the issue see red. This just isn't a solution---and, in fact, what the Administration did today makes it harder to get at a real and viable solution. The reintroduction of wolves stands as a monumental conservation achievement. The efforts should be lauded. But with a viable population of this American icon so close to being a reality, we simply cannot allow the Bush Administration to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory as they slink out the door.
We could eventually see action on this issue in every branch of government. Hopefully, those arguments will lead us to where we really need to be on this issue: a national wolf recovery plan rather than piecemeal delistng.
(bookmark or email this entry)
Comments are closed for this post.
We close comments on a blog post when it's clear the conversation has moved on -- click on the tags (above) or on our homepage to see if we've got fresh news and views on this post's topic.
Comments
Randy Johnson — Jan 14 2009 08:52 PM
It's too bad you think you are always taking the higher ground. There are more than enough wolves in the Great Lakes region for them to be delisted and have control taken over by the states. MAybe you should get out of teh concrete jungle of Chicago and spend some time with the people on Northern Wisconsin that have had wolves impact their lives dramtically. I can't wait to receive a tag for those devil beasts. It'll look nice stuffed over my mantel.
Randy
J.A.Miller — Jan 15 2009 03:47 PM
To use a term "devil beast" to explain wolves explains alot about what kind of person you are. You think TOO highly of yourself Randy as a human being. Are you one of those people that go to church and tell God you respect Him and then turn around and question and destroy His creations? You blame an animal for the instinct/behavior that God gave them as their part in nature. Every living thing is here with a purpose. You cannot wipe out a creature just because it does not fit into your lifestyle. There is consequences that WE ALL pay for that kind of action. There are programs out there that compensate money for livestock proven to be wolf killed that people like you do not want to recognixe so you can go on having an excuse to hate and kill for your amusement and own greed. This especially goes to the Bush administration that has been so sneaky with its actions to break down the ESA. Their tactics and thinking remind me of the greedy stupid, close minded actions of a hundred years ago or so that we are seeing ecological mess' from now. TIMES ARE A CHANGING and making adjustments to those changes would be wise for survival for ALL of us.
randy johnson — Jan 15 2009 08:49 PM
The term "devil beast" comes from the fact that they nip at the hamstrings on wild game and then eat the insides of the animal while it is still alive. There is nothing beautiful about those things. It's sad that you think the Bush administration is at fault for everything. They brought them back, now we have enough of them, so take them off the list. LAst year was the snowiest in recorded history and you claim global warming. It's -29 below without the wind shield! The polar bears are just fine. Your aurguement is flawed, if humans weren't around it would be fine to let nature control the population. But we are here, people, so we need to do the managing. Unless we all go to Europe and leave N.A. alone you'll never get the result you are after. Animals are NOT on the same plane as people. God gave us the animals in Genisis. I've been trolling the tree huggers website looking for people complaining, but nothing. It wasn't until I posted something and then it was almost a full day before I got a response. That just proves that they people that support the point of the NRDC are a very small portion of the populations. Good Day and Jesus loves you.
John Liffee — Jan 15 2009 08:56 PM
Randy - I think I hear the Pleistocene calling you.... Here in present-day reality, we generally know better than to feed the trolls.
Scott McDonald — Jan 17 2009 11:52 AM
Wow. I have great respect for wolves, they happen to be my personal totem animal. However, there is one thing I can not stand. That's blatant misdirection and misrepresentation of the facts.
First off, why do you choose to say "The Bush Administration"? The Bush Administration had nothing to do with this. The Fish and Wildlife Services removed them from the Endangered Species list because they are no longer covered by that Act. I'm not a Bush fan, but lets keep facts straight.
Additionally, the Fish and Wildlife Service, the organization that you are vilifying, has done more for wild life conversation, including wolves, than your paltry organization (or 20 of your rival organizations put together) ever has or probably ever will.
Here's some advice, instead of lobbying and hate-spreading, why don't you join an organization like the Fish and Wildlife Service (Or Park admin, DEP, DEC, etc) and get on the front-line and ACTUALLY help these animals. Sitting in your arm chairs in your urban highrise or your suburban condo spreading lies and hate does no one any good. Put your money where your mouth is and try actually practicing what you preach. That goes for all your readers in addition to the democratic-liberal pet of an author.
Andrew Wetzler — Jan 17 2009 04:46 PM
Scott:
I don't think I'm "vilifying" the Fish and Wildlife Service, but I do think that their decision to delist the gray wolf's northern Rocky Mountains population is neither supported by science nor law.
As for your first point, I hate to break it to you, but this was a decision by the Bush Administration. The Director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Dale Hall) is appointed by President Bush, his boss (the Assistant Secretary of the Interior for Fish, Wildlife and Parks) is a Bush appointee, and his boss (the Secretary of the Interior), who actually signed the decision is, of course, a Bush appointee.
So, we can debate the science all you want, but to pretend that this isn't a decision by the Bush Administration is simply untrue.
Scott McDonald — Jan 19 2009 10:42 AM
Okay, here is an absurd example but I believe it will make my point.
I guess I should consider the man who delivers my mail part of the 'Bush Administration', because the Post Office is a government ran organization. My post delivery man's boss is the local post master, who's boss is the regional post master, who's boss is the post master general ... and so on and so forth until ... GWB himself.
You see, what you are doing is a literary technique oft used by people of your ilk. You use the term 'Bush Administration', because it is 'technically' correct, although greatly misleading. You use that term so you can claim to be correct while by implication place blame and accuse GWB directly. You use that term, knowing full well that 90% of your readers will naturally assume that GWB 'ordered' it directly. All very clever and all very misleading. Which was the point of my original statement. You see, Mr. Andrew, my problem in my original statement was the fact that you were being misleading.
I'm all for saving the wolves. Have them protected permanently! However, unlike you I have integrity.
But know that I'll be out on the front lines trying to saves these animals while you preach impotently from your computer chair in your condo or high rise in Chicago.