Arizona Republic: Montana pols could imperil wolves

Well cry me a river (0.00 / 0)

Matthew, I can go way out on a limb here and state with certitude that the overwhelming majority of Montanans aren't going to care one iota about this editorial.  And in my opinion, nor should they.

1)  Right out of the gate, the assumption is made that Montana's wolf issues are just stinky 'politics'.  That's bullshit, bullshit that the editorialist backtracks on (contradicts) later in the editorial.

2)  Right from the get-go, Tester's stance and Rehberg's are equated as dooming the wolf on the ESL.  Again, that's flat out false.

3)  Tester's efforts have always been to delist the wolf only in areas where they have been deemed "recovered" according to the very federal wildlife officials who have already deemed the wolf recovered in the Northern Rockies.

4)  Let's not pretend that "legitimate" channels for Grey wolf control weren't tried, (like the editor does.)  If Wyoming had come up with a rational wolf control plan like Montana and Idaho did, then the Northern Rockies grey wolf would no longer be universally protected.  They didn't, and Malloy's ruling was that wolves cannot be delisted in part of the region without defeating the letter of the ESA.  The forgoing pretense completely ignores that the efforts of Jon Tester have been every bit as legitimate and legal.

5)  The true stink of politics comes from this editorial itself.  Last I checked, Arizona has two Senators of it's own, and yet neither Kyl nor McCain are mentioned in this editorial.  Instead we have this line of utter crap:

Democrats - including the Obama administration - have been allowing Tester to build his states' rights bona fides as he seeks re-election. The president and Democrats in Congress should show some spine and serve a higher interest than Tester's political future.

Right.  Democrats and Obama have been "allowing" Tester to so far not pass a damned thing concerning wolves.  Democrats have been so spineless that they're letting a Montanan scrape and shuffle for crumbs of legislation that have gone no where.  Bad Democrats, bad Obama.  Further, Rehberg has already claimed to be offering similar legislation in the Republican controlled House.  And what fiery admonishment does this brave editorialist offer?  ~crickets~

This was a hatchet job, Matthew.  That's all it was meant to be.

---

by: Rob Kailey @ Mon Feb 14, 2011 at 22:38:37 PM UTC

I'd didn't make this post... (0.00 / 0)

...for the "overwhelming majority of Montanans."

I made this post for those among us who care about endangered species policy, wildlife and good governance. I'm not sure, Rob, that even very mainstream conservation groups, such as Defenders of Wildlife, would agree with some of what you've written about Tester's wolf bill, or the negative ramifications of opening up the door to members of Congress just legislating animals off the Endangered Species list.  

Again, here's the release Defenders sent out when it was first introduced last session. I'm pretty sure Defenders of Wildlife knows what they are talking about when it comes to wolves and ESA policy. Thanks.

Senate bill would short-circuit Endangered Species Act protection for wolves

New legislation could set back wolf recovery, undermine federal protections for wildlife

Summary:

• Sens. Baucus and Tester (D-MT) introduce legislation to remove federal protections for wolves in Idaho and Montana

• Legislation undermines ESA, threatens wolf recovery

WASHINGTON, DC (September 29, 2010) - Montana Senators Max Baucus and Jon Tester introduced a bill yesterday that would bypass the Endangered Species Act and remove recently restored federal protections for wolves in the states of Idaho and Montana.

The following is a statement by Rodger Schlickeisen, president of Defenders of Wildlife:

"We all share the goal of wanting to see wolves fully recovered, delisted, and returned to responsible management by the states. However, those decisions should be made in accordance with the Endangered Species Act, based on the best available science, not by Congress."

"Congress should not be legislating on a species-by-species basis to determine endangered species winners and losers.  When Congress enacted the Endangered Species Act in 1973, it wisely left those determinations to scientists and wildlife management professionals adhering to the standards established in the ESA.  This bill unwisely reverses course and threatens to politicize what should be science-based decisions.  It would set a terrible precedent, not only for wolves but for the conservation of all threatened and endangered species."

Background:

On August 5, a U.S. District Court in Montana restored federal protections for wolves in the Northern Rockies. The court's decision stated that a "distinct population segment" of a listed species could not be subdivided along state lines under the Endangered Species Act. That decision set aside a 2008 delisting rule written by the Department of the Interior under the Bush administration and enacted by Secretary Salazar in 2009 to delist wolves across the Northern Rockies while maintaining protections in Wyoming.

---

by: Matthew Koehler @ Mon Feb 14, 2011 at 23:34:45 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Okay (0.00 / 0)

We're not wildly in disagreement here.  But we do have to face facts.  The DOI was ready to delist wolves in the Northern Rocky Mountain states, given certain protections. Wyoming's plan was "gut shoot 'em when you see 'em and if you shoot 'em close to a park, then SSS (Shoot, Shovel and Shut Up)". We agree that Malloy ruled as he did because "a "distinct population segment" of a listed species could not be subdivided along state lines under the Endangered Species Act."  The fault here is with Wyoming, not Jon Tester.

But Montana still has a problem.  I agree that Congress should not likely be making moves to legislate species control, state to state.  What I strongly do not agree with is blaming the guy trying to solve the problem when the federal government itself cannot solve the real problem which is Wyoming's lack of adherence.  Tester has an obligation to attempt to help Montana's concerns.  Whether DOF likes it or not, whether any of us like it or not, that is our Senator's job, the one we hired them for.  The science has spoken.  Wolves are recovered in the Northern Rocky Mountains.  Yet when Jon Tester attempts to get policy for this state in line with science, suddenly science is forgotten by those who claim primacy over it.  That's not science; it's politics whether it comes from an Arizona news rag or the Defenders of Wildlife.  Science becomes "all or nothing", which isn't science at all.  It's political bullshit.

---

by: Rob Kailey @ Tue Feb 15, 2011 at 00:11:01 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Some valid points there, Rob (0.00 / 0)

BUT, if I understand what you're saying in the sentence: "Tester's stance and Rehberg's are equated as dooming the wolf on the ESL." ... then they're saying the same thing. They're not.  While I'm not overjoyed with Tester's stance, it does vary from Denny's.  Rehberg won't be happy until every wolf is eradicated from the lower 48.  You can see this in his rhetoric and in the bills he's advancing.    

---

by: pete talbot @ Mon Feb 14, 2011 at 23:32:35 PM UTC

What science? (0.00 / 0)

"The science has spoken.  Wolves are recovered in the Northern Rocky Mountains."  Really?

FWS is holding to its position that 300 wolves is a recovered population.  Is that the science?  A viable population of species usually requires 500 breeding adults.  What makes wolves different; recovered at 300 individuals?  Is there a scientific paper supporting FWS's position?  I'd like to read that one.

Tester's bill goes way beyond killing off wolves and pandering to lobbyists paid to hype overblown threats to elk and livestock.  He may be forever fameous for his attacks on bedrock environmental law -- America's ESA is admired the world over.  I fail to understand how Tester's calculated nativist play helps him in urban districts with sidewalks and curbs.  

---

by: steve kelly @ Tue Feb 15, 2011 at 16:17:59 PM UTC

Yeah, really (0.00 / 0)

FWS is holding to its position that 300 wolves is a recovered population.  Is that the science?  A viable population of species usually requires 500 breeding adults.

And the best avaliable estimates show the northern Rocky Mountain population of Grey wolves to be ~1700.  That is only in Montana, Wyoming and Idaho.  Grey wolves are moving into Washington, Oregon and Colorado all from the northern Rockies.  Even by your own estimations from whatever papers you haven't read, 1700 and expanding is a viable recovery population.

Even their current numbers can't be sustained, however, when Wyoming's only control plan was to list them as a 'varmint' or nuisance predator.  That's why Salazar signed an order exempting Wyoming from the delisting and removing them from local control.  Malloy struck down that order not because wolves aren't recovered in the region but because the ESA doesn't recognize state boundaries, but rather habitat range.

Tester's bill goes way beyond killing off wolves

That's funny.  See, I've read the Tester/Baucus bill and it doesn't say anything about killing off wolves, much less anything WAY BEYOND killing them all off.  All it does is attempt to rewrite the statutes of the ESA specifying the delisting and return of local control of the Grey wolf to Montana and Idaho.  I agree that that sets a dangerous precedent for the ESA, or would if it were ever to pass.  I'm not convinced that it would or will.  I am impressed however, how the fear of that precedent can cause such hyperbolic spew and go well beyond killing off all the wolves.

---

by: Rob Kailey @ Tue Feb 15, 2011 at 20:55:37 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Recent LTE from Defenders of Wildlife RE: Wolf numbers (0.00 / 0)

Letter to the editor in the Missoulian recently from Mike Leahy, Rocky Mountain Region director, Defenders of Wildlife (http://missoulian.com/news/opinion/mailbag/article_a15a8310-24a6-11e0-ac4f-001cc4c03286.html)

Denver Bryan attacks conservation groups for continuing to press for a better deal for wolves ("Environmental groups work to keep wolf management in D.C.," Jan. 10). If he were the wildlife supporter he claims to be, he might want a better deal too - one that's based on science.

Currently, Wyoming, Idaho and Montana are committed to maintaining just 100 to 150 wolves per state based on outdated, unscientific numbers identified in 1987. There is no evidence to suggest those numbers make up a healthy, recovered wolf population.

It would be nice to believe that states would never reduce wolf populations from more than 1,500 wolves in the region to fewer than 500. But Idaho, when asked to stand behind its voluntary plan to maintain at least 500 wolves, immediately withdrew that plan in favor of an earlier one calling for around 100-150 wolves.

Meanwhile, Wyoming has been crystal clear it will maintain only the minimum number of wolves and will eliminate them from nearly 90 percent of the state. So far, Gov. Brian Schweitzer's administration has stuck with its plan to maintain higher wolf numbers statewide, but the current legislature may overrule that plan and the next governor will not be bound by it.

Leaving wildlife populations at the mercy of politics is not a gamble we should take with any species. All wildlife is supposed to be managed according to the best available science. Wolves deserve no less than any other species. That's why conservation groups continue to work for a science-based plan for returning wolves to state management - one that ensures a healthy population over the long run.

If we abandon core wildlife management principles like science and sustainable populations for wolves, will we also abandon them for other species? That's the most important question every wildlife supporter should be asking.

---

by: Matthew Koehler @ Tue Feb 15, 2011 at 21:02:35 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Thank you for bolding (0.00 / 0)

It helps to spot the contradictions.  Like this:

Currently, Wyoming, Idaho and Montana are committed to maintaining just 100 to 150 wolves per state based on outdated, unscientific numbers identified in 1987.

So far, Gov. Brian Schweitzer's administration has stuck with its plan to maintain higher wolf numbers statewide,

So, which is it?  It is this kind of obvious fear-mongering that helps convince people that politics already rules from the environmentalists.  It doesn't help at all when science is referenced as holy writ, and yet all people see are court rulings.  It was Salazar's DOI biologists in US Fish and Wildlife that signed off on the assurances of Montana and Idaho to retain a population that would number 1500 animals as they remained listed in Wyoming.

So here we are.  No one controls the situation, except the courts.  The department of the Interior apparently doesn't because they aren't allowed to tell Wyoming to pull it's head out it's ass.  The states obviously don't control their animal populations (~cough bison cough~), but yet the same draconian control by the federal government isn't being applied to wolves.  The states can't be trusted to fulfill their commitments that they're not really committed to, and the Federal Government is obviously incapable of doing it's job.  So, what we have here is a giant political mess, and people screeching that politics shouldn't be involved in what can only be solved by political action.  Small wonder that nothing gets done.

---

by: Rob Kailey @ Tue Feb 15, 2011 at 22:38:00 PM UTC

[ Parent ]