USSAF Submits Comments to Remove Western Great Lakes Wolves From ESA Protection

 

Press release from the U.S. Sportsmen's Alliance Foundation:

(Columbus, OH) - The U.S. Sportsmen’s Alliance Foundation (USSAF) and a group of state sportsmen’s organizations have submitted comments to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for returning recovered wolf populations in the Western Great Lakes region to state management.  Western Great Lakes wolves are currently on the Endangered Species List (ESA).   This is the latest in the long-running saga of the USSAF’s support of scientific wildlife management.
In April, the Service announced a proposal to remove Western Great Lakes region wolves from ESA protection.  This move would allow wolves in Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin to be controlled by state wildlife managers.
USSAF’s comments to the Service highlight two major reasons for delisting this population.
First, the comments point out that wolves in the region have far exceeded recovery goals.  Second, USSAF’s comments address a critical scientific issue created by the Service when it also announced that it may recognize a second species of wolves in the Western Great Lakes region.  An incorrect finding that two species of wolves exist in the region would open the delisting to a challenge by the anti-hunting lobby seeking to prevent the return of wolves in the region to state management.
USSAF’s comments are supported by the affidavit of wildlife and wolf genetics expert Dr. Lisette Waits.  Dr. Waits’ comments highlight wolf genetic studies and other scientific facts showing there are not two separate wolf species in the Western Great Lakes region and thus, the Service should not recognize a second species.
Joining USSAF in its comments are the Wisconsin Bear Hunters Association, Dairyland Committee of Safari Club International Chapters of Wisconsin, Whitetails of Wisconsin, and Wisconsin Firearms Owners, Rangers, Clubs, and Educators, Inc.
“For years, science has shown that these wolves have far exceeded recovery goals,” said Rob Sexton, U.S. Sportsmen’s Alliance vice president of government affairs.  “Additionally, we hope that the Service will look at the prevailing scientific facts that show only one wolf population exists within the Western Great Lakes region and it will avoid letting the antis use this unsupported claim as another roadblock to rightfully returning wolves to state management.”
Previous efforts to delist recovered wolf populations have been reversed as a result of lawsuits filed by animal rights groups.  In those cases, the reversals dealt with technical issues and did not question or overturn findings that wolves have met recovery goals.
Click here to view a complete copy of USSAF’s comments.

US removes gray wolf from endangered list

From The Wildlife Society Newsbrief:

The U.S. government is formally removing about 1,300 gray wolves in the Rocky Mountain region from the endangered species list, capping a legal battle that has dragged on for years. The Interior Department will also seek to remove thousands more wolves in the western Great Lakes region from the endangered list because they have recovered to "healthy levels," Interior Secretary Ken Salazar said. The final rule follows an order of Congress last month and means that states will manage the animals and that hunting will resume in Idaho, Montana, and parts of Utah, Oregon and Washington. More

Wolf Agreement Nixed, Budget Resolution OKs Delisting

From the Outdoor Wire:

A rider to the finally adopted federal budget by Idaho Representative Mike Simpson has negated Saturday's rejection of a settlement between environmental groups and the administration which would have removed wolves from the endangered species list and allowed Idaho and Montana to resume state management of wolf populations. Saturday, U.S. District Donald Malloy rejected the settlement, saying all the parties to the original suit did not agree to the settlement. Simpson's budget rider, however, reinstates the 2009 decision by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service to delist the gray wolf in Idaho and Montana. Pro-wolf organizations had agreed to the settlement in an attempt to head off the reinstatement of that decision based on the claims of hunters, ranchers and state officials that the wolf was a recovered population. Representative Simpson, as chairman of the House Appropriations Committee on Interior and the Environment, had included the wolf provision in the original House budget resolution. Montana Senator Jon Tester supported Simpson's rider saying it, "isn't about one party's agenda, it's about what's right for Montana and the West."

From Headwater News:

Congressional action on wolves may leave Wyoming out of luck
With a rider attached to the budget bill that will remove wolves in Montana and Idaho from endangered species protection, Wyoming appears to be left to go it alone, a situation for which the state is to blame.
Casper Star-Tribune; April 11

'Wolfer' author to discuss hunting predators, appreciation for reintroduction

'Wolfer' author to discuss hunting predators, appreciation for reintroduction

By PERRY BACKUS Ravalli Republic RavalliRepublic.com | Posted: Monday, April 11, 2011 11:30 pm

Carter Niemeyer will speak at 7 p.m. Wednesday at Missoula's Roxy Theater, 718 S. Higgins Ave. He will be available for a book signing afterward.

HAMILTON - Carter Niemeyer didn't set out to become an expert on wolves.
For the first 26 years of his career, the author of "Wolfer, A Memoir" was the man behind the gun who killed predators that threatened livestock.
This week, Niemeyer will tell that part of his story in appearances around Missoula.
He'll also let people know how he learned to appreciate the need to bring wolves back to the American West.
Right out of college, Niemeyer moved to Montana from his home state of Iowa and used trapping skills perfected from childhood to kill coyotes, foxes and black bears as a government trapper for a little-known agency called Animal Damage Control.
When wolves began crossing from Canada into Montana and ranchers started complaining about predation of sheep and cattle, Niemeyer was called upon to investigate livestock deaths.
A nonprofit group called Defenders of Wildlife compensated livestock owners for animals that officials like Niemeyer confirmed were killed by wolves.
Livestock producers wouldn't be paid without confirmation.
The results of the investigations were often the difference between life and death for wolves.
That conflict often led to face-to-face confrontations with people on both sides of the wolf issue.
Niemeyer was not a rubber-stamp kind of guy.
His detailed forensic investigations with their meticulous scientific notes and refusal to back down from furious landowners and environmentalists caught the attention of officials preparing to reintroduce wolves into Yellowstone National Park in 1995.
Niemeyer became part of the team that captured the Canadian wolves that became the nucleus of the packs that roam the Northern Rockies today.
Along the way, he gained respect and understanding about the predator and the polarizing effect it had on the human population.

 

Agreement Reached to Delist Gray Wolf in MT and ID

From The Wildlife Society Policy News:

On 18 March 2011, the Department of Interior (DOI) announced that it has reached a settlement agreement with environmental groups that, if approved by the court, would pave a path to return state management of recovered gray wolf populations in Montana and Idaho while the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) considers the full delisting of gray wolves in the Rocky Mountain region. The agreement comes after 10 plaintiffs sued FWS regarding the 2010 reinstatement of Endangered Species Act (ESA) protections for gray wolves in the northern Rocky Mountains. The 2010 restoration of ESA protections was a decision made by a Federal District Court judge who ruled that the species could not be state managed in Montana and Idaho but under federal protection in Wyoming, following a 2009 delisting of the species in the northern Rocky Mountains.

Tracy Brooks/USFWS

The settlement requires that the DOI review the status of the gray wolf within four years via an independent scientific assessment and address future delisting of wolves in the region as a distinct population segment, not on a state-by-state basis. The plaintiffs have requested that the 2009 delisting be reinstated in the two states on an interim basis and agree not to challenge a regional delisting plan for five years, as long as populations are managed sustainably under approved state management plans. Federal protection would remain in Washington, Oregon, Utah, and Wyoming, and negotiations will continue between FWS and Wyoming until an agreement is made on a management plan that provides sufficient protections to wolves, should they be delisted within the state. Four plaintiff groups did not agree to the settlement and are therefore not subject to litigation constraints. The judge is expected to make a decision about the agreement soon.
Sources: E&E Publishing, LLC (Greenwire, E&E News PM), Department of Interior.

Major Sportsmen’s Victory in Maine

Court of Appeals Upholds Major Sportsmen’s Victory in Maine


U.S. Sportsmen’s Alliance Foundation and Leading Trapping Groups

Win Again in Precedent Setting Case

(Columbus) – Trappers in Maine and sportsmen nationwide scored a huge victory after a Federal Court of Appeals rejected an effort from anti-hunting groups seeking to use the Endangered Species Act (ESA) to stop trapping in the state. This decision reaffirms a lower court decision that set a precedent against manipulation of the ESA to stop hunting, fishing, and trapping.

“We are ecstatic and relieved that this lawsuit is no longer a threat to our lifestyle as we prepare to open the 2010 trapping season,” said Skip Trask of the Maine Trappers Association. “The Maine Trappers Association couldn’t be happier with this decision. It is much more than just a victory for Maine. This decision will help protect all trapping and other sports from coast to coast. We appreciate the support and guidance of the U.S. Sportsmen's Alliance Foundation (USSAF) legal team and all of our partners.”

The anti-hunting groups had originally filed the suit in 2008 against the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife. They had argued that Maine’s trapping regulations provided insufficient protection for the Canada lynx, a species listed as threatened under the ESA, and thus required the season to be stopped.

The USSAF, along with the Maine Trappers’ Association, Fur Takers of America, National Trappers’ Association, and several individual sportsmen, intervened in the case on behalf of the state. The groups argued that those seeking to shut down an entire season of trapping (or hunting or fishing) must not only prove the incidental take of an ESA-protected species, but also “irreparable harm” to the population.

In the initial lower court decision, Judge Woodcock concluded that the take of individual members of a reasonably numerous protected species does not necessarily meet the requirement of irreparable harm. He also indicated that the take of lynx occurring in Maine foothold traps, typically catch-and-release incidents, did not constitute irreparable harm in this case. Consequently, Judge Woodcock declined the injunction and the trapping season was able to take place.

Unhappy with the result, the anti-hunting groups filed an appeal in December, 2009 seeking to reverse Judge Woodcock’s decision. The USSAF and the others immediately filed legal briefs in order to defend the major legal victory.

In the unanimous opinion rejecting the appeal, Chief Judge Lynch affirmed Judge Woodcock’s findings that the plaintiffs’ failed to demonstrate the irreparable harm necessary for an injunction. Judge Lynch then went on to criticize the plaintiffs’ last-minute request for lesser sanctions restricting trapping. In the lower court, Animal Welfare Institute (AWI) expressly refused that option and instead pursued a full ban on trapping.

“It may well have done so for tactical reasons, preferring to stress the inadequacy of other remedies in order to strengthen its case for injunctive relief against foothold traps,” wrote Lynch. “Parties are held to their choices and AWI's bait and switch tactics in the courts are to be deplored, not rewarded.”

The latest decision should assist in the defense of any further lawsuits by anti-trappers. It leaves the plaintiffs in this case with few options other than a petition to ask the U.S. Supreme Court to review the case. The Supreme Court agrees to consider only a few dozen cases a year out of the many hundreds of cases filed with it each year.

“It was clear all along that anti-hunters were looking to set a precedent that could be used in state after state to shut down not only trapping, but hunting and fishing as well,” said Bud Pidgeon, USSAF president and CEO. “With this strong decision, antis are going to have a far more difficult time doing this.”

About the U.S. Sportsmen’s Alliance Foundation

The U.S. Sportsmen’s Alliance Foundation protects and defends America’s wildlife conservation programs and the pursuits – hunting, fishing, trapping, and shooting – that generate the money to pay for them. The Foundation is responsible for public education, legal defense and research. Its mission is accomplished through several distinct programs coordinated to provide the most complete defense capability possible.

About the U.S. Sportsmen’s Alliance

The U.S. Sportsmen’s Alliance is a national association of sportsmen and sportsmen’s organizations that protects the rights of hunters, anglers and trappers in the courts, legislatures, at the ballot, in Congress and through public education programs. For more information about the U.S. Sportsmen’s Alliance and its work, call (614) 888-4868 or visit its website, www.ussportsmen.org.

On Wolves and the ESA

The following is from a message sent out to Montana Wildlife Federation folks:

Folks,

I stumbled on this posting today from mainehuntingtoday.com. In this link, Don Peay, of Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife outlines why he’s upset with Senator’s Baucus and Tester for their insistence that a moderate, reasonable wolf bill be considered over the Texas bill which would permanently preclude wolves from ever being listed under the Endangered Species Act. That means if we were down to one wolf in Alaska, wolves would never be listed and/or protected. That’s a damned shame. We would never agree to that for elk, otters, bighorn sheep or any other animal, and we should never agree to that for wolves, as troublesome as they are.

http://mainehuntingtoday.com/bbb/2010/09/30/sens-baucus-and-tester-accused-of-derailing-wolf-bill/

Regardless of how we individually feel about wolves, and the impacts wolves are having to hunting and ungulate populations, it is imperative for Hunters to maintain their conservation roots. To permanently exclude one animal based on inconvenience and political punditry is an affront to our conservation heritage. States can manage wolves effectively and sustainably, while mitigating impacts. Our state and Idaho have developed plans that would reasonably manage wolves. That’s all we’re asking for from Congress.

To permanently preclude a critter based on hatred or convenience is a horrible precedent to set, and it paints hunters and slathering fools who only care about species that we hunt and fish for. I don’t know one hunter or angler who cannot identify the warble of meadowlark, or who doesn’t spend some time watching mink, martens and otters. Our outdoor experience is heightened by these non-game species, and we must constantly strive to protect them as much as we protect elk, mule deer and bighorn sheep. To do otherwise betrays the heritage that our fathers, and their fathers have passed down to us.

Please take a moment and read the link. The position that people who are pushing for a Texas solution to a Montana issue do not have your best interest at heart. They are more interested in wielding power and influence. These same advocates have turned Utah into a “once in a lifetime” state for nonresident elk hunters, and in many areas, for resident hunters. They have, through their advocacy, kept Wyoming’s flawed plan in place, and have kept the Rocky Mountain Wolf listed for more years than any environmental group. Their policy has nothing to do with the North American Model of Fish and Wildlife Conservation, and everything to do with transferable tags, set-asides, and blocking off public lands for the well heeled.

We have seen the enemy, and he is us, as the old saying goes. Senators Tester and Baucus have genuinely worked with MWF and other local stakeholders to develop a solution that has a chance at passage in the lame duck, but it will require hunters to stand up and support reason, civility, and most importantly, a Montana solution.

Representative Rehberg will be holding three panel discussions regarding Wolves next week in Hamilton, Kalispell and Dillon. Don Peay, founder of Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife will be at the Dillon meeting and possibly the Hamilton meeting as well. Luckily, due to MWF’s and our club leaders’ hard work on this issue, we will be included in these panels as well. It is critical for clubs to turn out and let Representative Rehberg know that while we demand that the wolf be delisted, we also firmly believe that any attempts to weaken the ESA under the guise of wolf delisting is a dead end street for us.

Whether or not the Endangered Species Act needs reform is not the issue. That can be taken up in the next Congress. Now, under the stresses and complications inherent in a Lame Duck Session, we have the opportunity to delist wolves in Montana and Idaho. We should take that opportunity and move forward.

These meetings will take place as follows:

October 5:  Dillon
9:00-11:00 AM
University of Montana Western, Lewis and Clark Room at Matthews Hall
 
October 5:  Hamilton
3:00-5:00 PM
Hamilton Performing Arts Center
 
October 6: Kalispell
10:00-12:00 PM
Flathead Valley Community College, Arts and Technology Large Meeting Room.

Please plan on attending these meetings and give support to the North American Model, and to sensible management of wolves.

For all wildlife,

Ben Lamb

Conservation Director for State and National Issues

Montana Wildlife Federation

P.O. Box 1175

Helena, MT 59624

(406) 458-0227 xtn 108

blamb@mtwf.org

www.montanawildlife.org

Examine each question in terms of what is ethically and aesthetically right, as well as what is economically expedient. 
Aldo Leopold

Wolf hunters and haters are creating more anti hunters

From the idahostatesman.com 
Some interesting food for thought. It  also seems to be a call for action for more moderate folks on both sides of the debate to come up with some solutions that don't involve throwing the baby out with the bath water!

Another column from New West: Wolf hunters and haters are creating more anti hunters

Submitted by Roger Phillips on Fri, 10/01/2010 - 9:39am.

Here's another side to the wolf debate that comes from George Wuerthner at New West. He says hunters could drive more moderates into the anti-hunting camp with their anti-wolf rhetoric and insistence on killing wolves.
It's an interesting counter to another New West column I posted below by Bill Scheider that said wolf advocates have over played their hands by suing to have wolves relisted and possibly causing Congressional action that will weaken the Endangered Species Act. A bill is now pending that would do just that.

»

Read more: http://voices.idahostatesman.com/outdoors#ixzz123IZlBCf

Here is the Wuerthner article:

Wolf Restoration is a Challenge to West’s Old Guard

If hunters succeed in this end run around the ESA, and there is the perception of a widespread slaughter of wolves, they risk long term public opposition and loss of public support for all hunting.

By George Wuerthner, 9-27-10

	George Wallace defying federal officials at U of Alabama

A year ago I wrote a New West column asking rhetorically if hunters were stupid. In that article I wondered if hunters were aware of the fact that shooting wolves is unpopular with most Americans and if hunting of wolves continued, it might create a backlash against hunting. 
To answer my own question I have to say that hunters are not stupid—but most are clueless.  Hunters don’t seem to have a inkling about how non-hunters perceive them.  Public support for hunting is only luke-warm—the majority of Americans grudgingly accept hunting, but they are not enthusiastic about people killing animals. Only 10 percent or so of Americans hunt. Hunters are in the minority and they are largely older white males. In America older white males are in their twilight years.
read more: