Obama proposes lifting Lower 48 wolf protections

[Ban Hammer 13,334]

BILLINGS, Mont. (AP) -- The Obama administration on Friday proposed lifting most remaining federal protections for gray wolves across the Lower 48 states, a move that would end four decades of recovery efforts.

State and federal agencies have spent more than $117 million restoring the predators since they were added to the endangered species list in 1974. Today more than 6,100 wolves roam portions of the Northern Rockies and western Great Lakes where protections already have been lifted.

With Friday's announcement, the administration signaled it is ready to move on: The wolf has rebounded from near-extermination, balance has been restored to parts of the ecosystem, and hunters in some states already are free to shoot the animals under state oversight.

But prominent scientists and dozens of lawmakers in Congress want more wolves in more places. They say protections should remain in force so the animals can expand beyond the portions of 10 states they now occupy.

Lawsuits challenging the administration's plan are almost certain.

The gray wolf's historical range stretched across most of North America. By the 1930s, government-sponsored trapping and poisoning left just one small pocket of the animals, in northern Minnesota.

In the past several years, after the Great Lakes population swelled and wolves were reintroduced to the Northern Rockies, protections were lifted in states where the vast majority of the animals now live: Montana, Wyoming, Idaho, Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota and portions of Oregon, Washington and Utah.

Under the administration's plan, protections would remain only for a fledgling population of Mexican gray wolves in the desert Southwest. The proposal will be subject to a public comment period and a final decision made within a year.

While the wolf's recent resurgence is likely to continue at some level elsewhere — multiple packs roam portions of Washington and Oregon, and individual wolves have been spotted in Colorado, California, Utah, the Dakotas and the Northeast — U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Director Dan Ashe indicated it's unrealistic to think the clock can be turned back entirely.

"Science is an important part of this decision, but really the key is the policy question of when is a species recovered," he said. "Does the wolf have to occupy all the habitat that is available to it in order for it to be recovered? Our answer to that question is no."

Hunting and agriculture groups wary of increasing wolf attacks on livestock and big game welcomed the announcement.

Jack Field, executive vice president of the Washington Cattlemen's Association and a rancher from Yakima, said he was "ecstatic" over the agency's announcement and believed it would make his colleagues more willing to accept the presence of wolves on the landscape.

"Folks have to understand that in order to recover wolves, we're going to have to kill problem wolves," Field said

Over the past several years, hunters and trappers killed some 1,600 wolves in Montana, Wyoming, Idaho, Minnesota and Wisconsin. Thousands more have been killed over the past two decades by government wildlife agents responding to livestock attacks.

That's been a relief for ranchers who suffer regular wolf attacks that can kill dozens of livestock in a single night.

Vast additional territory that researchers say is suitable for wolves remains unoccupied. That includes parts of the Pacific Northwest, California, the southern Rocky Mountains and northern New England.

Whether the species' expansion will continue without a federal shield remains subject to contentious debate.

The former director of the Fish and Wildlife Service under President Bill Clinton said the agency's proposal "is a far cry from what we envisioned for gray wolf recovery when we embarked on this almost 20 years ago."

"The service is giving up when the job's only half-done," said Jamie Rappaport Clark, who was with the agency when wolves were reintroduced in Idaho and Wyoming in the mid-1990s. She now heads the group Defenders of Wildlife.

Colorado alone has enough space to support up to 1,000 wolves, according to Carlos Carroll of California's Klamath Center for Conservation Research. He said wildlife officials had "cherry-picked" the available science to suit their goal, and were bowing to political pressure from elected officials across the West who pushed to limit the wolf's range.

The Center for Biological Diversity on Friday vowed to challenge the government in court if it takes the animals off the endangered species list as planned.

Ashe said Friday's proposal had been reviewed by top administration officials, including new Interior Secretary Sally Jewell. But he dismissed any claims of interference and said the work that went into the plan was exclusively that of the Fish and Wildlife Service.

Future recovery efforts would focus on a small number of wolves belonging to a subspecies, the Mexican gray wolf. Those occur in Arizona and New Mexico, where a protracted and costly reintroduction plan has stumbled in part due to illegal killings and inbreeding.

The agency is calling for a tenfold increase in the territory where biologists are working to rebuild that population, which now numbers 73 animals. Law enforcement efforts to ward off poaching in the region would be bolstered.

Wherever wolves are found, the primary barrier to expansion isn't lack of habitat or prey, but human intolerance, said David Mech, a leading wolf expert and senior scientist with the U.S. Geological Survey in St. Paul, Minn.

Even without federal protection, he believes wolves are likely to migrate into several Western states. He added that they already occupy about 80 percent of the territory where they realistically could be expected to thrive, with sufficient prey and isolation from people.

Although Colorado, Utah, Nevada and Northern California might have room for wolves, Mech said they may not take hold if hunters kill so many Northern Rockies wolves that it reduces the number that could disperse from packs and seek new turf.

http://news.yahoo.com/obama-proposes-lifting-lower-48-231818300.html

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

BILLINGS, Mont. (AP) -- The Obama administration on Friday proposed lifting most remaining federal protections for gray wolves across the Lower 48 states, a move that would end four decades of recovery efforts.

State and federal agencies have spent more than $117 million restoring the predators since they were added to the endangered species list in 1974. Today more than 6,100 wolves roam portions of the Northern Rockies and western Great Lakes where protections already have been lifted.

With Friday's announcement, the administration signaled it is ready to move on: The wolf has rebounded from near-extermination, balance has been restored to parts of the ecosystem, and hunters in some states already are free to shoot the animals under state oversight.

But prominent scientists and dozens of lawmakers in Congress want more wolves in more places. They say protections should remain in force so the animals can expand beyond the portions of 10 states they now occupy.

Lawsuits challenging the administration's plan are almost certain.

The gray wolf's historical range stretched across most of North America. By the 1930s, government-sponsored trapping and poisoning left just one small pocket of the animals, in northern Minnesota.

In the past several years, after the Great Lakes population swelled and wolves were reintroduced to the Northern Rockies, protections were lifted in states where the vast majority of the animals now live: Montana, Wyoming, Idaho, Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota and portions of Oregon, Washington and Utah.

Under the administration's plan, protections would remain only for a fledgling population of Mexican gray wolves in the desert Southwest. The proposal will be subject to a public comment period and a final decision made within a year.

While the wolf's recent resurgence is likely to continue at some level elsewhere — multiple packs roam portions of Washington and Oregon, and individual wolves have been spotted in Colorado, California, Utah, the Dakotas and the Northeast — U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Director Dan Ashe indicated it's unrealistic to think the clock can be turned back entirely.

"Science is an important part of this decision, but really the key is the policy question of when is a species recovered," he said. "Does the wolf have to occupy all the habitat that is available to it in order for it to be recovered? Our answer to that question is no."

Hunting and agriculture groups wary of increasing wolf attacks on livestock and big game welcomed the announcement.

Jack Field, executive vice president of the Washington Cattlemen's Association and a rancher from Yakima, said he was "ecstatic" over the agency's announcement and believed it would make his colleagues more willing to accept the presence of wolves on the landscape.

"Folks have to understand that in order to recover wolves, we're going to have to kill problem wolves," Field said

Over the past several years, hunters and trappers killed some 1,600 wolves in Montana, Wyoming, Idaho, Minnesota and Wisconsin. Thousands more have been killed over the past two decades by government wildlife agents responding to livestock attacks.

That's been a relief for ranchers who suffer regular wolf attacks that can kill dozens of livestock in a single night.

Vast additional territory that researchers say is suitable for wolves remains unoccupied. That includes parts of the Pacific Northwest, California, the southern Rocky Mountains and northern New England.

Whether the species' expansion will continue without a federal shield remains subject to contentious debate.

The former director of the Fish and Wildlife Service under President Bill Clinton said the agency's proposal "is a far cry from what we envisioned for gray wolf recovery when we embarked on this almost 20 years ago."

"The service is giving up when the job's only half-done," said Jamie Rappaport Clark, who was with the agency when wolves were reintroduced in Idaho and Wyoming in the mid-1990s. She now heads the group Defenders of Wildlife.

Colorado alone has enough space to support up to 1,000 wolves, according to Carlos Carroll of California's Klamath Center for Conservation Research. He said wildlife officials had "cherry-picked" the available science to suit their goal, and were bowing to political pressure from elected officials across the West who pushed to limit the wolf's range.

The Center for Biological Diversity on Friday vowed to challenge the government in court if it takes the animals off the endangered species list as planned.

Ashe said Friday's proposal had been reviewed by top administration officials, including new Interior Secretary Sally Jewell. But he dismissed any claims of interference and said the work that went into the plan was exclusively that of the Fish and Wildlife Service.

Future recovery efforts would focus on a small number of wolves belonging to a subspecies, the Mexican gray wolf. Those occur in Arizona and New Mexico, where a protracted and costly reintroduction plan has stumbled in part due to illegal killings and inbreeding.

The agency is calling for a tenfold increase in the territory where biologists are working to rebuild that population, which now numbers 73 animals. Law enforcement efforts to ward off poaching in the region would be bolstered.

Wherever wolves are found, the primary barrier to expansion isn't lack of habitat or prey, but human intolerance, said David Mech, a leading wolf expert and senior scientist with the U.S. Geological Survey in St. Paul, Minn.

Even without federal protection, he believes wolves are likely to migrate into several Western states. He added that they already occupy about 80 percent of the territory where they realistically could be expected to thrive, with sufficient prey and isolation from people.

Although Colorado, Utah, Nevada and Northern California might have room for wolves, Mech said they may not take hold if hunters kill so many Northern Rockies wolves that it reduces the number that could disperse from packs and seek new turf.

http://news.yahoo.com/obama-proposes-lifting-lower-48-231818300.html

We need to know what Bush did in this regard and where the NRA stands on this, before we can decide where we stand

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

We need to know what Bush did in this regard and where the NRA stands on this, before we can decide where we stand

NRA is in favor. This has the potential to increase gun sales and people get to kill. Just wolves but it's still a kill. NRA is in favor.

Bush didn't do anything in this regard. Nobody could make him understand that wolves actually exist and convince him that they are not an invention from the fairy tales.

Edited June 8, 2013 by Mr. Big Dog

[Ban Hammer 13,334]

NRA is in favor. This has the potential to increase gun sales and people get to kill. Just wolves but it's still a kill. NRA is in favor.

Bush didn't do anything in this regard. Nobody could make him understand that wolves actually exist and convince him that they are not an invention from the fairy tales.

so you're saying obama is a puppet for the nra?

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

so you're saying obama is a puppet for the nra?

No, I am saying anything that has the potential to increase gun sales and result in more killing - no matter what is being killed - has the unwavering support of the NRA.

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

NRA is in favor. This has the potential to increase gun sales and people get to kill. Just wolves but it's still a kill. NRA is in favor.

Bush didn't do anything in this regard. Nobody could make him understand that wolves actually exist and convince him that they are not an invention from the fairy tales.

As usual your loud, forceful and don't have a "can't find your ####### with two hands and a flashlight" clue what you are talking about.

As usual Obama took something Bush did that Liberals did not like and did even more of it. Oddly Libs still defend him..

Bush delists gray wolf in majority of U.S.

DENVER | The Bush administration removed the Canadian gray wolf from the Endangered Species List on Wednesday in every state except Wyoming, making a last-ditch bid to put states in charge of the animal’s recovery in the face of staunch environmental opposition.

The decision marks the third time the administration has tried to delist the gray wolf. Previous efforts in 2007 and 2008 were blocked by federal judges, who sided with a coalition of environmental groups arguing, among other things, that state management proposals were inadequate.

Deputy Interior Secretary Lynn Scarlett yesterday cited the wolf´s ahead-of-schedule recovery numbers in the Rocky Mountains and Great Lakes regions, as well as the efforts of states to address issues such as hunting and trapping seasons, control of problem animals, and the long-term health of the wolf population.

There are about 1,500 gray wolves in the northern Rockies and another 4,000 in the Great Lakes area. The wolves, which were nearly wiped out by hunting last century, had been listed as threatened in Minnesota and endangered everywhere else.

“Wolves have recovered in the Great Lakes and the northern Rocky Mountains because of the hard work, cooperation and flexibility shown by states, tribes, conservation groups, federal agencies and citizens in both regions,” Mrs. Scarlett said. “We can all be proud of our various roles in saving this icon of the American wilderness.”

Environmental groups denounced the decision, accusing the administration of trying to “prematurely strip wolves of legal protection before the clock runs out next Tuesday on the most anti-environment administration in American history,” said Defenders of Wildlife in a statement.

The group promised to fight the decision in court and called on President-elect Barack Obama to re-examine the issue when his administration takes over next week.

“It is outrageous that the Bush administration has chosen to create this unnecessary legal problem for the new Obama administration to deal with as it takes office,” said Defenders of Wildlife Pesident Rodger Schlickeisen.

Also unhappy with the decision was Wyoming Gov. Dave Freudenthal, a Democrat who said he would wait for the state´s attorney general to review the ruling before reacting.

“I am obviously disappointed about what I know thus far, and will wait to issue further comment,” he said.

The Fish and Wildlife Service issued a statement Wednesday saying that the agency would continue to manage the wolf in Wyoming because the state´s wolf-management plan was “not sufficient to conserve Wyoming´s portion of a recovered northern Rocky Mountain wolf population.”

Governors in Idaho and Montana praised the decision while noting that the ruling isn’t yet final. The decision is scheduled to take effect 30 days after publication in the Federal Register, but could be held up for months in the face of a likely federal lawsuit.

“We support local control. Montanans know best how to manage our wildlife,” said Montana Democratic Gov. Brian Schweitzer.

The Obama administration could also decide to delay the delisting while undertaking a review of the case.

“We´re cautiously optimistic at this point, but we understand there could be a long way to go until management is turned over to the state,” said David Hensley, legal counsel to Idaho Gov. C.L. “Butch” Otter, a Republican.

The Bush administration delisted wolves in the Great Lakes region in March 2007 and those in the Rocky Mountains in February 2008. Both decisions were sent back for further review after separate federal lawsuits.

Gray wolves were airlifted from Canada into the Northern Rockies in 1995 as part of the federal wolf-recovery program. The original goal was to establish 30 breeding pairs and 300 wolves across Idaho, Montana and Wyoming for at least three consecutive years.

The wolves thrived, meeting the recovery goal in 2002 and exceeding it in every year since. At the same time, ranchers have complained about packs attacking livestock and hunters and hikers have worried about their legal ability to protect themselves if confronted by wolves.

Wolves never disappeared from the Great Lakes region, but their numbers dipped to a few hundred in the 1970s. After being listed, the wolves have rebounded to about 4,000 throughout Wisconsin, Michigan and Minnesota.

[Ban Hammer 13,334]

No, I am saying anything that has the potential to increase gun sales and result in more killing - no matter what is being killed - has the unwavering support of the NRA.

and obama supports it. he's a nra puppet.

what's that say about obama supporters?

[GandD 5,966]

and obama supports it. he's a nra puppet.

what's that say about obama supporters?

The NRA wouldn't be the NRA if they only held sway over the republicans. Dems put on a good show but they're quick to give up. Edited June 9, 2013 by GandD

[Pooky 3,781]

The NRA wouldn't be the NRA if they only held sway over the republicans. Dems put on a good show but they're quick to give up.

Politicians are like that. Personally, I trust the wolves more.

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

The NRA wouldn't be the NRA if they only held sway over the republicans. Dems put on a good show but they're quick to give up.

I distinctly remember Big Dog telling us the NRA was now irrelevant several months ago. Now he is telling us they are practically running thecountry

[Pooky 3,781]

I distinctly remember Big Dog telling us the NRA was now irrelevant several months ago. Now he is telling us they are practically running thecountry

When you have no solutions, the next best recourse is finding a boogeyman to blame.

[GandD 5,966]

When you have no solutions, the next best recourse is finding a boogeyman to blame.

The solutions are being blocked by said bogeyman. To say the NRA doesn't have a dominating voice in Washington on the gun debate is naive.

[Pooky 3,781]

The solutions are being blocked by said bogeyman. To say the NRA doesn't have a dominating voice in Washington on the gun debate is naive.

So the NRA isn't irrelevant?

Somehow, I doubt I was the one being naive, because even though I disagree with most of what the NRA holds dear, I never underestimated their reach into Washington.

[GandD 5,966]

So the NRA isn't irrelevant?

Somehow, I doubt I was the one being naive, because even though I disagree with most of what the NRA holds dear, I never underestimated their reach into Washington.

I never said they were irrelevant. I said their shadow was big enough to envelope more than just republicans. Besides I didn't say you were naive, jut that it was naive to think they didn't control the gun debate in Washington.

[Ban Hammer 13,334]

I distinctly remember Big Dog telling us the NRA was now irrelevant several months ago. Now he is telling us they are practically running thecountry

well they sure seem to have co-opted obama. oh wait, he must be irrelevant too.