U.S. Loses Ruling on Gray Wolves

Ithaca 37

New member
Joined
Mar 4, 2001
Messages
5,427
Location
Home of the free, Land of the brave
A federal judge ruled Tuesday that the Bush administration violated the Endangered Species Act when it relaxed protections on many of the nation's gray wolves.



The decision by U.S. District Judge Robert E. Jones in Portland rescinds a rule change that allowed ranchers to shoot wolves on sight if they were attacking livestock, said Michael Robinson of the Center for Biological Diversity, an environmental group.


In April 2003, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service divided the wolves' range into three areas and reclassified the Eastern and Western populations as threatened instead of endangered. The Eastern segment covers the area from the Dakotas east to Maine, while the Western segment extends west from the Dakotas. The agency left wolves in the Southwest classified as endangered.


But the judge ruled that the government acted improperly by combining areas where wolves were doing well, such as Montana, with places where their numbers had not recovered.


"Interior Secretary Gale Norton tried to gerrymander the entire contiguous 48 states so that wolves in a few areas would make up for the absence of wolves in much larger regions," Robinson said. "Now, instead of drawing lines on the map based on political considerations, any future lines must be based on science."


The judge also found that Fish and Wildlife did not consider certain factors listed in the Endangered Species Act in evaluating the wolf's status, including threats from disease, predators or other natural or manmade dangers.


Fish and Wildlife expressed disappointment in the ruling.


"We believe our rule provided for biologically sound management of the core population of wolves in areas where we knew they could thrive as stable viable populations," the agency said in a statement. "We also believe the rule was correct as a matter of law under the Endangered Species Act."


Mike Senatore, vice president of Defenders of Wildlife, said the ruling would make it more difficult for the Bush administration to reduce or eliminate Endangered Species Act protection for other species.


Practically speaking, only wolves in northwestern Montana were affected by the rule change that allowed ranchers to shoot wolves on sight, said Ed Bangs, wolf recovery coordinator for the Fish and Wildlife Service. The rule never extended to experimental populations in Yellowstone National Park, Wyoming, Idaho and the rest of Montana, and no packs have been established in other states in the region, Bangs said.


"We haven't had a wolf killed by a private citizen defending private property since the new rule went into effect," Bangs said.


By the 1970s, wolves had been virtually wiped out in the Lower 48 states to protect livestock.


Gray wolves were reintroduced in and around Yellowstone in 1995 and 1996, and federal wildlife officials have declared their recovery a success. Officials estimate there are now more than 800 wolves in Montana, Idaho and Wyoming, including Yellowstone National Park.


In the Eastern sector, there are an estimated 3,200 wolves in Minnesota, Wisconsin and Michigan.


A small number of Mexican gray wolves were reintroduced in the Southwest in 1998.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Just when I thought we were making some progress! Maybe the FWS can re-write the rule or appeal Judge Jones' decision. What do you guys think?
 
Ithaca, this actually suprises you? The idea of controlling or managing wolves or grizzlies is a pipe dream.

Can you list the wolf-hugging environmental groups in addition to the Defenders of Wildlife that supported this? I doubt there will be any suprises.
 
I don't see the states getting any control over the wolves in the next 10 years either... I think the battle is just begining...
 
I just read this article this morning and was going to post it up.
I would have to guess it is an activist judge, making decisions from Oregon on a topic that is around a thousand or so miles from his bench....
 
I did some checking up on the judge. This might interest some of you who blame all this activism on the Democrats. :D Or is it OK when the activist judge is a staunch Republican appointed by Daddy Bush?

[COLOR=Red[COLOR=Red]]"Known as a staunch Republican, Jones (Judge Robert E. Jones) was appointed by Bush's father......" [/COLOR] [/COLOR]

"Nelson Lund, a professor at George Mason University School of Law in Arlington, Va., says the appellate courts would be wise to follow the lead of Jones and avoid the appearance of an ideologically driven opinion.
In Bush v. Gore, the controversial 2000 decision that awarded the presidency to George W. Bush, most observers assumed the judges simply voted their political affiliation, a perception that hurts the legitimacy of the judiciary.

But Jones gave the opposite impression in his ruling, Lund said.

Known as a staunch Republican, Jones was appointed by Bush's father. Yet despite hinting in the opinion that he might personally oppose assisted suicide, Lund said, Jones carefully applied the law......"

http://www.oregonlive.com/special/assisted_suicide/index.ssf?/special/oregonian/suicide/042102.html

Could it be that this "activist" judge actually is trying to make sure the law is applied correctly when he rescinded the Dubya administration ruling allowing some wolves to be shot? :confused: I find this very confusing! Is the Dubya administration actually the activist administration trying to circumvent the law and getting their hand slapped by the judge?

Please explain this to me in real simple terms so I can understand exactly who the activists are. :D
 
Elkchsr- Boy, it sure is hard to stomach an activist judge isn't it...those left-wing, oh wait, I mean those right wing activists...I'm too confused on which judges are activists...
 
IT,

Why did I have the feeling this was a set up? You need to stop being so eager. Are you this stealthy in the woods as well?

What do you think, does Bangs and Co getting their walking papers recently have any connection here? I don't really know, just asking. I haven't been following this farce for some time. I'm more inclined to buy into Bambi's thinking on this one. It will be a long time before the mutts get delisted. But maybe Bush has something up his sleeve here. We will see.
 
making decisions from Oregon on a topic that is around a thousand or so miles from his bench....
Elkcsr--I am pretty sure the "topic" is a judge interpreting the law. I am pretty sure he doesn't have to own a cattle ranch in western MT to make those decisions. :rolleyes:
 
ELKCHSR said:
I just read this article this morning and was going to post it up.
I would have to guess it is an activist judge, making decisions from Oregon on a topic that is around a thousand or so miles from his bench....

Hey Elkcheese,

Can you explain why the proximity of a Judge would have any bearing on his interpertation of FEDERAL law? Do you want (and/or think) Federal Laws to be interpereted differently in different geographical locations?

I am betting you can't answer that question, but who knows, maybe you will prove me wrong....
 
Federal Laws to be interpereted differently in different geographical locations
Oh, but they are!!!!
When the wolf was first coming into light, why was it that this whole thing was run thru California, New York, and Washington DC, and not brought before those in the areas that would actually be affected?
 
Ithaca 37 said:
Practically speaking, only wolves in northwestern Montana were affected by the rule change that allowed ranchers to shoot wolves on sight, said Ed Bangs, wolf recovery coordinator for the Fish and Wildlife Service. The rule never extended to experimental populations in Yellowstone National Park, Wyoming, Idaho and the rest of Montana, and no packs have been established in other states in the region, Bangs said.

So the way I take this is the wolves that are protected are the "native" packs up around Glacier... and all the other "problem" wolves can still be dealt with accordingly.

This sounds to me like it has the potential to open a BIG can of worms!!!

Lets say that the states do get control over the wolves, I'm assuming that the control will only extend to the "experimental" packs right... So where will the line be drawn demographically speaking between historic and experimental? Will that line shift south? How far? Those wolves seem like they can wonder a long ways...

What will stop the huggers from suing over the fact that the native packs haven’t recovered enough in their historic range? Truth is they never will because the experimental packs have taken over the historic range, and therefore no action can be taken ever to control the numbers wolves experimental or native at all... because the "historic range" will never contain enough native wolves EVER... How will they differentiate between historic and experimental wolves within the "ranges"?

Lumping them both together under one circumstance and seperating them out under another is crazy... all while being protected...

Does what I'm saying make sense?

The tri states are fugged the way I see it!
 
Allow me to induldge my conspericy theory fantasies here for just a minute. I was talking to one of the Gardiner area "wolf haters" several years ago. He was rambling on about some half baked plan of attack and used a bunch of legal jargon that was way over my head. What's going on here is freakishly similar to what he was talking about. Couple that with the entire USFWS wolf crew "retiring" in unison, and something must be going down. Wouldn't it be a riot if the Defenders of Wildlife suit was being used to come back and bite the Defenders in the ass? This could get interesting!
 
When the wolf was first coming into light, why was it that this whole thing was run thru California, New York, and Washington DC, and not brought before those in the areas that would actually be affected?
Please provide some evidence (although I am not sure of the relevance and don't know what "this whole thing" refers to).

Also, what does a "wolf coming into light" mean? Reintroductions, ESA,...???
 
Yes MATTy, I did read the article. I have been following the news on the experimental wolves, not the native wolves. I need to do more research to make a "edjumacated" decision on the issue.
 
TB- Does it seem to you that an "activist" judge is going against best biology and making a judgment based on his own agenda or is he simply making a sound judgment based on the letter of the law?
 
MATTy, I rely on judges to interpret the laws and rule on ALL the evidense (social and scientific) provided. To rule strictly on the letter of the law is not just, nor is to rule strictly on science.
 

Forum statistics

Threads
111,138
Messages
1,948,422
Members
35,038
Latest member
rohan7
Back
Top