Wolf Huggers Sue!

[BHR]

I'm not surprised that none of the wolf huggers at this site posted this information. Better late than never.

Paul

Conservation and Animal Groups Move
to Keep Wolf Recovery On Track

Defenders of Wildlife Lead Plaintiff in Challenge of Bush Administration
Moves to Strip Gray Wolf Protection

WASHINGTON, DC – Defenders of Wildlife and 16 other organizations today filed suit to block Bush Administration plans to change the endangered status of wolves in the U.S., lessening protections in most regions, and sharply limiting the areas where wolves will be protected during recovery.

The groups say that plans to change the wolf's status from "endangered" to "threatened" are premature, and noted that several state governments which are scheduled to take over management of the species under the Bush plan have declared their intent to initiate aggressive wolf killing programs.

"It saddens us to have to take this step, especially when we've made such a tremendous start toward real, sustainable wolf recovery," said Rodger Schlickeisen, president of Defenders of Wildlife. "But Secretary Norton is backing away from wolf protection before the job is finished and is jeopardizing all the progress her agency has made so far."

A March 18, 2003, FWS decision downlists the wolf from "endangered" to "threatened" throughout the Rockies and the Pacific Northwest, even though only three of nine states in the region with vast areas of suitable habitat have seen recovery efforts. The rule also downlists wolves to threatened throughout the Great Lakes and Northeast. The rule would sharply limit wolf recovery in the West to Idaho, Montana and Wyoming, and preclude wolf recovery in northern California, Oregon, Washington, northern Colorado, Utah, and the Northeastern United States.

The Bush Administration's plan would ultimately hand over management of gray wolf recovery to various state governments, even though many of those states have made it clear that they intend to encourage large-scale wolf killing as soon as they have the authority to do so. For example, Idaho's legislature recently passed a resolution calling for elimination of wolves from the state "by any means necessary," and Wyoming intends to permit the shooting of wolves on sight anywhere outside of national park lands. Minnesota continues to offer a bounty for killing wolves.

"Even though poll after poll shows that the citizens of Idaho, Wyoming, and other states with wolves want this important species protected, many of these state governments are in the grip of anti-wolf hysteria. Rather than working for a consensus that helps wolves, ranchers and citizens, Secretary Norton can't wait to hand off wolf management to those who would kill them instead," Schlickeisen said.

Parties to Defenders of Wildlife, et al. v. Norton are: Defenders of Wildlife, Sierra Club, American Lands Alliance, Animal Protection Institute, Center for Biological Diversity, Forest Watch, Hells Canyon Preservation Council, Help Our Wolves Live ("HOWL"), The Humane Society of the United States, Klamath Forest Alliance, Klamath-Siskiyou Wildlands Center, Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility ("PEER"), Minnesota Wolf Alliance, Oregon Natural Resources Council, RESTORE: The North Woods, Sinapu, and the Wildlands Project
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

[BHR]

Here's an article that followed the previous one. National Wildlife Federation- isn't that one of the groups Ithaca has bragged about? The guy from the NWF, MR. France is pretty tough on the wolf huggers in this article.

Paul

Wildlife Federation officials dismayed over wolf lawsuit

MISSOULA, Mont. (AP) - A top official with the National Wildlife Federation says he was dismayed that 17 other conservation groups filed suit this week to stop efforts to reduce federal protections for gray wolves.

Tom France, general counsel for the federation, said the return of healthy wolf populations to Montana, Idaho and Wyoming is a success story unequaled in the history of endangered species management, but that some conservationists seem intent on derailing that victory.

''I am disappointed that these groups cannot find another, better way to move wolf recovery forward,'' France said Thursday at the 27th Public Land and Resources Law Conference in Missoula.

Seventeen environmental and conservation groups filed suit Wednesday in federal court in Portland, Ore., hoping to stop the eventual removal of wolves from protection under the Endangered Species Act.

The Wildlife Federation is not part of the lawsuit and has no plans to sue the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service over wolf recovery, France said.

The lawsuit asks a judge to find that the agency violated the Endangered Species Act when it changed the gray wolf from an endangered to a threatened species April 1. It is the first step in the eventual delisting of the animals.

The lawsuit alleges that Fish and Wildlife's decision ignored the fact that several states within the wolf's historic range still don't have any wolves. It also says the decision was not based on the best scientific and commercial information, and failed to recognize that hunting and habitat destruction would resume once endangered species protection was lifted.

France said that when work first began two decades ago on a wolf recovery plan, those involved probably had no realistic expectation that there would be 800 wolves successfully inhabiting Montana, Idaho and Wyoming by the year 2003.

The fact that some conservationists don't see that as a success is unbelievable, France said.

''Yet that is precisely what has happened,'' he added. ''We cannot find a way to make this success real, and that failure threatens to undermine the Endangered Species Act.''

Ultimately, environmentalists risk losing ''an opportunity to gain the confidence of the American public'' by attempting to delay the removal of wolves from the endangered species list, France said.

''This is our chance to show that conservation can be woven into the fabric of society in creative ways,'' he said. ''And why? Why can't we celebrate that success?''

 

[Ithaca 37]

Yup, That's why I like the Nat'l Wildlife Federation. You anti's out there who hate the NWF should admit you've misjudged them all along. Once again I'm right and you're wrong.

Here's another thing for you to think about: Have you ever considered why the 17 groups don't trust the legislatures in WY, MT and ID? Read the article again. They're putting pressure on the legislatures that have been stalling the delisting process. I can't believe how politically naive some of you anti- wolf looney tunes are!

I never claimed there wouldn't be lawsuits from some groups that won't want wolves delisted. If you want to bitch about lawsuits take a look at some of the ones by the anti-wolf wackos.

Paul, Please educate yourself before you waste our time with your idiotic theories.

"...... I think my concern about delisting the wolf right now is focused on Wyoming. The state legislature, just as Idaho's state legislature and Montana's legislature, has to come up with a management plan that seems reasonable and of course ensures the sustainability of the wolf population in perpetuity. Wyoming has drug its feet for a long time coming up with anything that comes close to being usable. What they just voted on in August actually divides wolves into two classes, trophy animals and predators. If a wolf reaches an area where it is defined as a predator, it can be basically shot by anyone, anytime, for any reason. It's not a very well though out plan, and until the state of Wyoming comes up with something that is going to assure the long-term survival of these wolf packs, I think they're not going to be delisted."

http://www.wolftimbers.org/Outside%20Magazine%20October%202003%20.html

<FONT COLOR="#800080" SIZE="1">[ 10-12-2003 22:44: Message edited by: Ithaca 37 ]</font>

 

[BHR]

"Yup, That's why I like the Nat'l Wildlife Federation. You anti's out there who hate the NWF should admit you've misjudged them all along. Once again I'm right and you're wrong."

Looks to me like France's comments were short lived. The NWF hasn't been "misjudged". They are exactly like you Ithaca. A bunch of lying, agenda driven weasels!

Paul

Conservationist backtracks on wolf remarks
By SHERRY DEVLIN of the Missoulian
Lambasted by his fellow conservationists for remarks he made at a law conference in Missoula last week, National Wildlife Federation attorney Tom France issued a written statement Monday chiding the federal government for failing to recover the gray wolf "on suitable habitat across a significant portion of its historic range."

"Removing Endangered Species Act protections for gray wolves in the West is clearly premature," France said in a statement issued by the Wildlife Federation's Washington, D.C., office.

France was on vacation and could not be reached to elaborate on the statement.
However, the group's national communications director said France's comments at last week's Public Land and Resources Law Conference in Missoula caused "some difficulties" and were contrary to the federation's national wolf policy.

During a panel discussion Thursday afternoon, France said he was dismayed when a coalition of 17 environmental groups filed suit hoping to stop the removal of wolves from federal protection.

The return of wolves to Montana, Idaho and Wyoming is a success story unequaled in the act's 30-year history, France said, yet conservationists seem intent on "snatching defeat from the jaws of victory."

"I am disappointed that these groups cannot find another, better way to move wolf recovery forward," he said.

By insisting that the federal government return wolves not only to Montana, Idaho and Wyoming, but also to Colorado, Oregon, Utah and other Western states, the environmentalists' lawsuit threatens to undermine public support for endangered species protection, France said.

The remarks apparently ignited a firestorm, not only within the environmental community, but also within the National Wildlife Federation.

NWF communications director Ben McNitt said the group felt "it was important that our national policy be clearly articulated."

France's comments at the conference, carried in a Missoulian story Friday and then in a subsequent Associated Press story, "created some confusion and controversy," McNitt said.

McNitt could not say why France made the comments. "I wasn't there," he said.

But the statement released Monday, he emphasized, is the Wildlife Federation's official policy.

As released, France's statement said:

"The National Wildlife Federation and other conservation organizations are in agreement that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has failed in its mandate under the Endangered Species Act to recover the gray wolf on suitable habitat across a significant portion of its historic range."

Last month, the statement said, the Wildlife Federation filed a 60-day notice of intent to sue the Fish and Wildlife Service over its national wolf rule - which would not reintroduce wolves to a number of states historically inhabited by the species.

The National Wildlife Federation wants the federal government to recover wolves on suitable habitat in places like Maine and New Hampshire, according to France's statement.

He continued: "The National Wildlife Federation is focusing its legal resources on a campaign to restore the gray wolf to its rightful place in the northeastern United States and supports those groups working to restore the gray wolf to other portions of its historic range."

Bill Snape, chief counsel for Defenders of Wildlife, said he did discuss France's remarks with the Wildlife Federation's senior attorney in Washington, D.C.

Snape is lead counsel on the environmentalists' lawsuit against the Fish and Wildlife Service, and was at Thursday's conference in Missoula.

"I expressed my less-than-happy views in private, and they will remain private," Snape said. "But I am pleased that they issued the statement clarifying Tom's remarks."

 

[Ithaca 37]

Sorry, Paul, but you've been consistently wrong on the wolf issue and the intricate politics of it from the beginning.

In fact, I can't think of an issue yet that you've been able to comprehend.

But please keep trying, you're good for a few laughs once in awhile.

 

[BHR]

Ithaca,

You are a friggin joke. This was all old news and you didn't have a clue about it. You were set up, but I didn't think that even you would be dumb enough to fall for it. Guess I was wrong. Just proves that you do not follow what certain organizations you tout, are up to. Do you even belong to NWF? I doubt it. Again more lies from the green weeny.

You claim I don't have a clue about wolf politics. I'll give it a stab and you can tell me how wrong I am. This is all about buying time to allow the "plague" to spread as far as possible. Nevada, Utah, Colorado, Oregon, Washington, and so on. This was not part of the original "deal", but clearly it was the wolf huggers agenda from day one. The only reason you and the rest of the wolf huggers oppose the Wyoming management plan, is that it is the only one of the 3 state plans that has a chance of controlling the spread of this plague. Wyoming, Montana, and Idaho is enough for now with this little experiment. Let's see what happens here first before we let the wolf continue to expand into new territory.

But if you want to side with the wolf huggers, get ready to lose!

Paul

 

[Mini Moose]

If Idaho in fact does ever come up with a plan that lets in certain areas that a wolf be shot for any reason i will travel to the area just to shoot a wolf, wolves are like that of coyotes to me, just another predator that i have to worry about getting to my deer before i do after it is killed

As long as it is illegal to shoot and kill wolves in idaho i will not shoot to kill them, but if it is legal, it will become that of a sport just like killing of coyotes

Happy Hunting