top
US
US
Indybay
Indybay
Indybay
Regions
Indybay Regions North Coast Central Valley North Bay East Bay South Bay San Francisco Peninsula Santa Cruz IMC - Independent Media Center for the Monterey Bay Area North Coast Central Valley North Bay East Bay South Bay San Francisco Peninsula Santa Cruz IMC - Independent Media Center for the Monterey Bay Area California United States International Americas Haiti Iraq Palestine Afghanistan
Topics
Newswire
Features
From the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature

New Rule Would Lower the Bar Again on Killing Endangered Wolves in Northern Rockies

by Wolf Recovery Foundation
BOISE, Id. – A new draft rule from the Bush Administration would once again diminish protections for wolves under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and threaten endangered wolf recovery efforts in the northern Rockies. The new rule would significantly broaden the circumstances under which wolves can be killed allowing the states to kill more than half of the approximately 1,300 wolves in the region today prior to their delisting. The new rule is ardently opposed by wildlife conservation groups in the region.
640_graywolfcreditgarykramerusfws.jpg
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

July 5, 2007



Contact: Suzanne Stone, Defenders of Wildlife (208) 424-9385
Amaroq Weiss, Defenders of Wildlife (541) 552-9653
Chris Anderson, Wolf Education and Research Center (503) 913-2816
Steve Thomas, Sierra Club (307) 672-0425
Ralph Maughan, Wolf Recovery Foundation (208) 417-0906


New Rule Would Lower the Bar Again on Killing Endangered Wolves in Northern Rockies


BOISE, Id. – A new draft rule from the Bush Administration would once again diminish protections for wolves under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and threaten endangered wolf recovery efforts in the northern Rockies. The new rule would significantly broaden the circumstances under which wolves can be killed allowing the states to kill more than half of the approximately 1,300 wolves in the region today prior to their delisting. The new rule is ardently opposed by wildlife conservation groups in the region.

“The new rule allows state agencies to kill wolves for essentially political reasons,” said Suzanne Stone, northern Rockies representative for Defenders of Wildlife. “This is clearly a back door attempt by the Bush administration to remove Endangered Species Act protections for wolves by sidestepping the public delisting process.”

If the rule is finalized, wildlife managers would be permitted to kill wolves that they consider to be a “major cause” of elk and deer declines. Additionally, the new rule would allow private citizens to kill any wolf that they claim is “chasing, molesting or harassing” livestock, pack animals or even dogs used to hunt carnivores – terms that are poorly defined by the draft rule. This action would essentially remove all federal protections for wolves, despite the fact that they are still listed as an endangered species.

“We support a healthy balance between our endangered wolves and our ranching and hunting communities,” said Chris Anderson, executive director of the Idaho-based Wolf Education and Research Center. “However, ranchers are already allowed to shoot wolves that attack their livestock. And hunting concerns are unfounded; all three states have robust elk populations that even exceed state management objectives.”

In Idaho, elk populations are 20 percent above management objectives, and, according to Idaho Fish and Game’s 2006 progress report, “Overall elk populations statewide are near all time highs.” In Wyoming, the state wildlife agency declared that “elk are probably at an all-time high historically.” There are nearly 100,000 elk in Wyoming, which puts the population approximately 17 percent above Game and Fish Commission objectives. In fact, according to Wyoming Fish and Game, the state is increasing the number of hunting tags it will issue this year due to the overabundance of elk. Additionally, two-thirds of the hunting districts in southwestern Montana, all of which support wolves, are currently offering the most liberal hunting opportunities seen in 30 years due to higher elk populations, according to the Rocky Mountain Wolf Recovery 2005 Interagency Annual Report. Montana wildlife officials just announced that they’re seeking additional ideas from the public to reduce elk herd numbers in the region.

“The new rule would allow the killing of wolves as a first, rather than last, resort, and the government has no basis to do so,” said Steve Thomas, regional representative from the Sierra Club, based in Sheridan, Wyoming. “Clearly, the wolves are not affecting hunting opportunities. This rule would promote the needless killing of wolves that eat elk and deer; the same animals that wolves have been preying upon for thousands of years.”

This latest rule further erodes protections for wolves in the Northern Rockies. When wolves were first reintroduced in 1995, the original rules required wildlife agencies and livestock owners to first exhaust all non-lethal alternatives before killing a problem wolf. Private citizens were allowed to kill a wolf only if it was in the act of attacking livestock.

A 2005 revision by the Bush administration weakened wolf protections by eliminating the requirement that wildlife managers exhaust all non-lethal methods before resorting to killing wolves. It also permitted the killing of wolves that were proven to be “the primary” cause of deer and elk populations falling below state game objectives, but subsequent agency studies have found wolves are not the primary threat to big game populations. Private citizens were permitted to kill wolves in the act of attacking domestic animals, not just on their own property, but also on public lands they are federally permitted to use for grazing.

“Any further erosion of wolf protections, and we’ll be back to the days of shooting wolves on sight,” said Ralph Maughan, president of the Wolf Recovery Foundation. “Today, we’ve learned what an important role wolves play in our natural ecosystems. With this newly realized information, there can be no reasonable justification for returning to the days of mindlessly killing wolves.”

####


Boulder White Clouds Council • Defenders of Wildlife • Idaho Lands Council • Sierra Club • Western Watersheds Project • Wolf Education and Research Center • Wolf Recovery Foundation

Rebecca Greenberg
Communications Associate
1130 17th Street N.W. Washington D.C. 20036-4604
Tel: (202) 772-3217 | Fax: (202) 463-3074
rgreenberg [at] defenders.org | http://www.defenders.org
Add Your Comments

Comments (Hide Comments)
by Mike Wagner
This rule is horrible, but so is hypocrisy.

Many of these parties in this article who are against this rule also support
the destruction of Wolves.

<a href="mailto:sstone [at] defenders.org">Suzanne Stone
is against the rule because it's 'political', but yet she is all for delisting, which
weakens the protection of Wolves and will allow them to be murdered.

So any other kind of murder is justifiable?

No!

Of course she in the past has supported the destruction of Wolves.

Victims of their own success

I find it bizarre that WERC, under Chris Anderson,
<a href="mailto:chris.anderson [at] wolfcenter.org">Chris Anderson
portrayed in Wolves at our Door,
made a disturbing remark. He commented that they co-exist with
ranchers, and the hunting community. And that enough
Wolves are already murdered by Ranchers.

Hunting is unethical, and so is the support of destruction
of Wolves in livestock issues. The only way for peace between
Humans and Wolves is the elimination of murder of Wolves,
and the use of Non-Lethal Methods Only and Predator Friendly
Ranching to peacefully prevent livestock issues.



Both which all these parties seem to ignore.

<a href="mailto:
steve.thomas [at] sierraclub.org">Steve Thomas of the Sierra Club in Wyoming, (steve.thomas [at] sierraclub.org)
even supports the slaughter of Wolves as a last resort
and in this case of the rule opposes it the destruction of Wolves.

Of course of the past year, the Sierra Club has sold out
and now supports hunting too.

Sierra Club's Deception
Leaves path of the mother

How odd. Support one kind of murder and abhorror another.
Murder is wrong, and they shouldn't support any kind of
destruction of Wolves either.

<a href="rmaughan2 [at] cableone.net">Ralph Maughan, of the Wolf Recovery Foundation, thinks if the rule passes that mindless killing will begin.
He in the past supported the USFWS and their decisions
in the past, in addition to the destruction of Wolves
in livestock issues. So his side is unclear here.

Murderous Declarations
Supported slaughter of Whitehawk Wolf Pack
Past record of supporting USFWS murderous agendas

Mindless murder has already occurred over the past decade
in livestock issues, and in the past.

Supporting the destruction of Wolves for any reason
voids one's standing in the Non-Profit world and doesn't
have the title of 'Wildlife Conservation Group'.

As George Orwell once said: <font size="4"><b>"Political language is designed to
make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind."</b></font>

It would be the same thing since I support the NAACP, if
I abhorred the abuse of civil rights in regards to African
Americans, and then another minute supported the murder
of African Americans.

Murder is murder and hypocrisy is wrong, and it has to stop.

For more information, go here:
Wolves Under the Gun

Mike Wagner
Founder and Director of Heart of the Wolf Organization
http://www.heartofthewolf.org



How can Bush do this and there has to be a way to stop it. I would stand in front of one before I would let it be shot. They have almost killed off all the tigers ,too. Why? All I can say is Bush needs to hit the road. 1.300 hundred wolves is nothing. I lived in the wilderness with these beautiful animals and not one ever bothered me. It is the ugly hunters,especially the ones that hunt with dogs and guns and traps. People don't eat wolves. Why kill them? I am leaving for the Pacific Northwest again and I would like to know some places where I can go to protect out wildlife. I am not of afraid of these sick people.
by terry
I wonder how many of you people that are so for the wolves live anywhere near where they live and hunt? I say lets get a pack living in Central Park and then get comments from the New Yorkers. Don't sit back away from the problem and try to push your judgments on those of us that live with the results of your recovery programs. Where can I buy a wolf tag, and I'm not kidding.
by an editor
One comment that just might get hidden says at the end that the poster is looking to get a tag (I guess to hunt wolves). That kind of comment would be viewed as provocative, like you're trying to upset the person who posted. The way the rest of the comment had been headed, the person was explaining the reasons why one might want to be allowed to hunt them. "I wonder how many of you people that are so for the wolves live anywhere near where they live and hunt? "
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!

Donate

$160.00 donated
in the past month

Get Involved

If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.

Publish

Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.

IMC Network