Gastro Gnome - Eat Better Wherever

House of Representatives votes to remove gray wolves from endangered species list

cheeser

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 16, 2018
Messages
512
Location
upper michigan

House of Representatives votes to remove gray wolves from endangered species list​

Lawrence Andrea
Milwaukee Journal Sentinel

WASHINGTON – Lawmakers are one step closer to removing the gray wolf from the endangered species list, an effort that has been a focus in Wisconsin’s congressional delegation.
The House on Tuesday passed the so-called Trust the Science Act, authored by Colorado Republican Rep. Lauren Boebert and co-sponsored by Republican Rep. Tom Tiffany and Wisconsin’s other House Republicans, on a 209-205 vote.
The bill would permanently remove the gray wolf from protections of the federal Endangered Species Act of 1973 and restore wolf management authority to state lawmakers and state wildlife officials. Its future in the Senate is uncertain.
Wisconsin 7th District Representative Tom Tiffany gives an interview before a Donald Trump campaign rally on Tuesday, April 2, 2024 at the KI Convention Center in Green Bay, Wis.


“This is a great success of the Endangered Species Act that a species that was endangered has now recovered,” Tiffany told the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel Tuesday, saying people will "lose respect" for the Endangered Species Act if recovered species are not delisted.
Tuesday’s vote marked the biggest step from Congress since a federal district court ruling in February 2022 relisted the wolf under the Endangered Species Act in Wisconsin and many other states.

The wolf is native to Wisconsin but was largely wiped out in the 1960s after decades of unregulated hunting and bounties. It was re-established in the state in the 1970s following federal and state protections, and its population has notably increased in Wisconsin in recent decades.
Wildlife advocates have favored continued protections for wolves as they hope to see the species reoccupy more of its historic range. Farmers and hunters, meanwhile, largely support lower wolf numbers and generally back state efforts to manage the species.

From 2022 to 2023, the wolf population in Wisconsin saw about a 4% increase. The state Department of Natural Resources last year estimated Wisconsin had about 1,007 gray wolves. Still, the number of wolf packs was down slightly, from 288 in 2022 to 283 in 2023.
In the last decade, the wolf had two periods under state management authority in Wisconsin, from 2012 to 2014 and 2021 to 2022, before judicial rulings restored it to ESA protections.
More:Smith: While there's no change in wolf status in Wisconsin or Lower 48, a national recovery plan is in the works
Wisconsin statute requires the DNR to hold a wolf hunting and trapping season when the species is under state management.
Delisting the gray wolf has been somewhat of a bipartisan goal among Wisconsin’s lawmakers on Capitol Hill.

Republican Sen. Ron Johnson introduced similar legislation in the Senate last year. And Democratic Sen. Tammy Baldwin has authored multiple bills on the topic.
Baldwin last year introduced what she called a “regional-specific” plan to delist the gray wolf in Wisconsin, Minnesota and Michigan’s Upper Peninsula. Her bill would create an advisory committee of scientists and other regional stakeholders who would establish a “delisting rule for the region.”
Neither Johnson nor Baldwin’s legislation appeared poised to be considered in the Senate as of late April.
Boebert's bill would prevent any judicial review of the delisting.
On Tuesday, Wisconsin’s five House Republicans supported the bill while Democratic Rep. Mark Pocan and Gwen Moore voted against it. Just four Democrats supported the measure, and four Republicans voted against it.
Pocan in a statement pointed to a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service wolf management plan released in February that Pocan said would "relieve the pressures of the Grey Wolf." The Service said its plans "provide a vision for species recovery that is connected to site-specific actions for reducing threats and conserving listed species and their ecosystems."

"This is just a crazy member of Congress, who doesn't believe in science, who is trying to undercut the process," Pocan said, referencing Boebert.
Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reporter Paul A. Smith contributed.
 
If wolves survived off of natural gas or oil, I bet there’d be a lot more people in power supporting open seasons.
 
So keeping a species listed will cause people to lose respect for the ESA, but undercutting the ESA entirely to delist a species through legislation won't?

"this [removing a species from the endangered species list completely outside the ESA process] is a great success of the ESA".

1714759600662.png
 
So keeping a species listed will cause people to lose respect for the ESA, but undercutting the ESA entirely to delist a species through legislation won't?

"this [removing a species from the endangered species list completely outside the ESA process] is a great success of the ESA".

View attachment 325050
The FWS proposed delisting but it was blocked by court order. The question is do you want Congress determining what species should be put on or taken off the ESL?
 
To be clear, I have no problem with wolves being returned to state management. However I firmly believe those decisions should be up to the USFWS, not legislators.
The FWS proposed delisting but it was blocked by court order. The question is do you want Congress determining what species should be put on or taken off the ESL?
No. I think everyone should let the FWS should do what it's supposed to do: collect more data to support delisting so they can present a better case and get the species delisted.
 
To be clear, I have no problem with wolves being returned to state management. However I firmly believe those decisions should be up to the USFWS, not legislators.

No. I think everyone should let the FWS should do what it's supposed to do: collect more data to support delisting so they can present a better case and get the species delisted.
Stuff it in the budget bill.🙂

 
Stuff it in the budget bill.🙂

It was stupid then, and it's stupid now. Using politics to override the process...it completely undermines the process and the science.

I wish I could say that the judicial process that results in USFWS recommendations being blocked by court decisions is a system designed to make sure the best science is being used...i.e., if the USFWS's data is flawed, then their recommendations deserve to be blocked until they get better data. But I know there's politics in that process as well. Still, it seems like a better move to let the USFWS have time to go back to the drawing board, collect more data and develop better recovery plans, and try again--not to go completely over their heads and pass federal legislation to undo what the courts did. I mean, what's even the point of the ESA if we do that? Why not just let legislators make all wildlife management decisions?

Well, they do that in Montana, why shouldn't they do it in Washington D.C....
 
The FWS proposed delisting but it was blocked by court order. The question is do you want Congress determining what species should be put on or taken off the ESL?
Yes, if that’s what it takes to get the agencies tasked with taking them off the ESL to actually do it. It shouldn’t take an act of congress to do this.
I completely understand your logic but due to the incompetence and legal shenanigans it seems that it may in fact be a good thing that congress takes action on this. I don’t see a problem with it.
How often do you hear “contact your congressman “ when it comes to issues that need attention?
 
Yes, if that’s what it takes to get the agencies tasked with taking them off the ESL to actually do it. It shouldn’t take an act of congress to do this.
I completely understand your logic but due to the incompetence and legal shenanigans it seems that it may in fact be a good thing that congress takes action on this. I don’t see a problem with it.
How often do you hear “contact your congressman “ when it comes to issues that need attention?
I agree somewhat. If the delisting happened I would be fine with it. However, I don’t like the way this is being done, or the way it was done last time. I would rather they start with tort reform that stopped the FWS delisting.
 
I agree somewhat. If the delisting happened I would be fine with it. However, I don’t like the way this is being done, or the way it was done last time. I would rather they start with tort reform that stopped the FWS delisting.
Ideally.
But until then this seems like a viable solution to me
 
I am not a huge fan of the legislature making these decisions, but unless someone can convince me otherwise, I think it is better than one politically motivated judge making the decision. That is really a bad model. I am not aware of many judges with PhDs in biology.
 
I am not a huge fan of the legislature making these decisions, but unless someone can convince me otherwise, I think it is better than one politically motivated judge making the decision. That is really a bad model. I am not aware of many judges with PhDs in biology.
Judges make decisions on things they don’t have PhDs in all the time. It’s kind of the job. Being ok with how something is done because you like the end result is not a great philosophy for the long term. Eventually you end up on the wrong side of the result.
 
Judges make decisions on things they don’t have PhDs in all the time. It’s kind of the job.
I mean, in all honesty, you could say that about politicians too. One certainly hopes that judges are *slightly* more impartial than politicians when it comes to passing judgment given ample background information and with less concern about re-election campaign funding but...I suppose that's not always the case...
 
I agree somewhat. If the delisting happened I would be fine with it. However, I don’t like the way this is being done, or the way it was done last time. I would rather they start with tort reform that stopped the FWS delisting.
Agree but I wouldn't hold my breath.
 
It was stupid then, and it's stupid now. Using politics to override the process...it completely undermines the process and the science.

I wish I could say that the judicial process that results in USFWS recommendations being blocked by court decisions is a system designed to make sure the best science is being used...i.e., if the USFWS's data is flawed, then their recommendations deserve to be blocked until they get better data. But I know there's politics in that process as well. Still, it seems like a better move to let the USFWS have time to go back to the drawing board, collect more data and develop better recovery plans, and try again--not to go completely over their heads and pass federal legislation to undo what the courts did. I mean, what's even the point of the ESA if we do that? Why not just let legislators make all wildlife management decisions?

Well, they do that in Montana, why shouldn't they do it in Washington D.C....
When bi partisan effort (ID R Simpson AND MT D Jon Tester) is used for sake of Montana/Idaho management under a ridiculous regulation setting for woofs at the time - It was our Representatives mutually doing what was best for our States.

Sometimes USFWS does NOT have the best interests of wildlife in mind... I use sometimes politely.
 
When bi partisan effort (ID R Simpson AND MT D Jon Tester) is used for sake of Montana/Idaho management under a ridiculous regulation setting for woofs at the time - It was our Representatives mutually doing what was best for our States.

Sometimes USFWS does NOT have the best interests of wildlife in mind... I use sometimes politely.
USFWS was supportive of delisting. Serial litigants sued and found a supportive judge. Montana and Idaho reps said enough of the games and put an end to it. End of story.
 
It was stupid then, and it's stupid now. Using politics to override the process...it completely undermines the process and the science.

I wish I could say that the judicial process that results in USFWS recommendations being blocked by court decisions is a system designed to make sure the best science is being used...i.e., if the USFWS's data is flawed, then their recommendations deserve to be blocked until they get better data. But I know there's politics in that process as well. Still, it seems like a better move to let the USFWS have time to go back to the drawing board, collect more data and develop better recovery plans, and try again--not to go completely over their heads and pass federal legislation to undo what the courts did. I mean, what's even the point of the ESA if we do that? Why not just let legislators make all wildlife management decisions?


Well, they do that in Montana, why shouldn't they do it in Washington D.C....

Obvious you were not around when this took place and not at all aware of any of the details.
 
Use Promo Code Randy for 20% off OutdoorClass

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
113,139
Messages
2,010,281
Members
36,004
Latest member
YoJu1000
Back
Top