Gray wolf protections to end in 2020
Trump administration will remove endangered species status for gray wolves across “most” of U.S.
Grey Wolf Protections to End 2020 (GO Hunt)
- Thread starter Dsnow9
- Start date
thusby
Well-known member
Just end up in litigation again.
And they'll lose. But hey, Don Peay & Ryan Benson can go back to UT and claim credit while they stick their hands out for more socialism.
D
Deleted member 20812
Guest
Can’t help yourself huh?
Elkmagnet
Well-known member
I agree with the effort but it has to be done in a politically sustainable way or it will fail. He knows that but if it fails his voters base will just blame the other side. More finger pointing and rabble rabble rabble.
D
Deleted member 20812
Guest
Ummm, yeah about that. You didn't see me making the #2 post in the thread, laced with political trolling. In fact, I seem to recall you getting your hand slapped by the boss of this place not long ago for your very thinly veiled political innuendo, no?
As to the merits of the decision, if I recall correctly the rub last time was evaluating the listing based on DPS. It's hard to say what is different now. The article is very vague in detail. Hopefully the USFWS is not simply recycling its same arguments and hoping for a different results. That's simply a waste of time and money.
Nick87
Well-known member
Had it been a negative move the political trolling would have been 10 fold.
D
Deleted member 20812
Guest
I'm starting to think I have a much better chance of a pragmatic discussion with Finn than I do here. Go back and witness the interchange between @BuzzH and @Hunting Wife about CWD. No politics, no BS, just objective and factual discussion, then we can revisit this.
D
Deleted member 28227
Guest
I would love to have CO have wolf management right out of the gate... I can’t decide if this helps or hurts.
So yeah gray.
I believe it helps... its specifying Mexican wolves maintain ESA while Grey do not... the whole topic of Randy's discussion with the AZ wildlife biologist about the Mexican wolf becomes a potential support to take action, at least for the population management of the grey wolves...
D
Deleted member 28227
Guest
Just sat through the CO Mt.Lion plan, amazing the number of folks that came out to essentially protest lion management.
My worry is that this gets labeled as partisan instead of scientific and galvanizes people, ie when CPW goes to promulgate regulations they get even more pushback than they would have.
Amazing how you are so troubled by one person within a thread of many, to the point you toss a childish tissy fit, stomp loud enough to hinder other reasonable discussion and dismiss the entire topic and discussion by others. Get over your righteous thread self and move on.
My initial post may have hurt your feelers... get over it. As for your other little whine-fest soap box tissy...
I added the italics and underline.Sytes said:
It's not political, it's a statement of the theme Trump is laced within. The anti-ESA, Center for Biological Diversity, Yvon Chouinard/Patagonia et al, are going to oppose it regardless. Thus, screw them. Push for what is ESA accomplished and let them file their obstructionist legal actions - as if anyone would expect anything different from them. Heck it's their right. If they find a judge that tends to lean towards their interest - well, heck - that is our legal system at work. More power to them. I don't like it... many don't. As also mentioned, hopefully US Attorneys are able to actually manage a successful brief and work towards dismissing the ridiculous impression wolves should gain full range - unimpeded routing to adjoin a migration passage right through cities of modern time - and because they can not, they must maintain their ESA status.
There is no reason the Upper Peninsula and attached States must continue with absurd numbers of wolves -beyond ESA standards, meanwhile Montana, Idaho, Wyoming have proven successful State management - far exceeding minimum ESA standards.
It is time Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin, etc may manage wolf populations as an animal that has successfully recovered - period.
D
Deleted member 20812
Guest
No feelers hurt here, but do carry on.
The problem with this is that the USFWS & the DOI have not addressed the underlying issue of delisting a Distinct Population Segment versus versus proving that they are restored across the historic range. The latest judicial decision on denying delisting of the GL population, and various rulings since the Simpson-Tester delisting rider have shown that the courts will go with a strict interpretation of delisting based on the past listing criteria, leaving us in a position where populations that do deserve delisting (Great Lakes) are tied to recovery in states that have little to no habitat for wolves (Illinois, Indiana, Ohio). Because wolves used to be in those states, they are considered when it comes to recovery and delisting.
So, while I think that delisting of grey wolves in the Great Lakes is worth a separate congressional effort for delisting, we remain unable to get beyond the litigation cycle that will see a massive waste of time & resources at the federal level, and a situation where the anti-delisting crowd will continue to win. We have to address the DPS issue, or we'll be in a blackhole of litigation forever, on every species.
Furthermore, this effort has been in the works for years, long before this administration, and yes, delisting certain populations makes total sense, but not when it's tilting at the same windmill that we've repeatedly been trounced on before. If this is an effort to delist across the entire US, then it will fail in court. Wolves are not recovered across a significant portion of their historic range. That's a plain fact, and one that will be used to kill this effort.
I'd rather have a delisting decision that sticks, than one that gets us back into court.
LuketheDog
Well-known member
Impossible...
True, & poorly worded on my part:
I'd rather have a defensible delisting decision that wins in court than another one that gets us a loss.
Similar threads
