Wolves getting delisted?

[Rainier10]

Just got this from Big Game Forever and didn't see it already posted here.  Looking good to me. 

Love this quote
"The draft U.S. Department of Interior rule obtained by the Associated Press contends the roughly 6,000 wolves now living in the Northern Rockies and Great Lakes are enough to prevent the species' extinction. The agency says having gray wolves elsewhere — such as the West Coast, parts of New England and elsewhere in the Rockies is unnecessary for their long-term survival."AP article in USA Today: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/04/26/protections-gray-wolves/2116657/

Here is the whole announcement,

Folks,

This is a very significant update.  Many major media outlets are reporting that US Fish and Wildlife Service plans to delist gray wolves nationwide in the coming weeks.  The planned delisting will likely list Mexican Wolves as a separate subspecies.  This means Mexican Wolves in New Mexico and Arizona will remain on the endangered species list.  Here are a few of the articles reporting the nationwide delisting:

LA Times- US plans to drop gray wolves from endangered species list: http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-wolves-20130426,0,280341.story

Spokesman Review- Delisting wolves will shift cost from feds to states: http://www.spokesman.com/blogs/outdoors/2013/apr/26/delisting-wolves-will-shift-cost-feds-states/

Yahoo News-Draft Rule ends protections for gray wolves: http://news.yahoo.com/draft-rule-ends-protections-gray-wolves-174153574.html

One interesting quote in the Associated Press Article reads, "The draft U.S. Department of Interior rule obtained by the Associated Press contends the roughly 6,000 wolves now living in the Northern Rockies and Great Lakes are enough to prevent the species' extinction. The agency says having gray wolves elsewhere — such as the West Coast, parts of New England and elsewhere in the Rockies is unnecessary for their long-term survival."AP article in USA Today: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/04/26/protections-gray-wolves/2116657/

An analysis of wolf populations in the Northern Rockies show wolf populations continue to remain high despite management plans which call for lower population numbers.  These numbers were included as part of US Fish and Wildlife Service Northern Rocky Mountain Wolf Population report which was released April 12, 2013.  This report found that efforts to begin reductions in wolf-populations resulted in a 7 percent overall decrease in the NRM wolf population.  However, the same studies showed a 12 percent increase in the numbers of wolf packs.  This likely means that overall, wolf populations will likely increase significantly during this year's denning season.  Here is one quote from the article,"[US Fish and Wildlife Service Director Dan] Ashe noted that the Service fully anticipated state management would result in reduced populations, given the management goals established in each state’s wolf plan. Despite increased levels of take resulting from sport hunting and control efforts, the population has continued to thrive."  Here is the full press-release from US Fish and Wildlife Service: http://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/pressrel/2013/04122013_annual_wolf_report.html

Big Game Forever will keep you updated on this developing story.  Stay tuned for updates.

--
Ryan Benson
http://biggameforever.org/
ryandbenson@msn.com



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 
 

[jackelope]

Its here already, but it's worth another post.

 

[Rainier10]

This would be sweet, sounds like there is no need for them on the west coast so lets go to open season.  I am sure that won't happen but hopefully a season will be coming sooooonnn!
 

[villageidiot]

Just because the Feds delist them doesn't mean the state of Washington will delist.  We may be stuck with endangered regardless.

[bearpaw]

Just because the Feds delist them doesn't mean the state of Washington will delist.  We may be stuck with endangered regardless.

 

[splitshot]

  there should be a season on them just like bear and cougars or make it like the coyote.  the coyote did not get eterminated.    the state could make money off the wolf.  they even have a coyote tourney in warden annually.   mike w

[winshooter88]

Just like villegeidiot said, this is only delisting federally and has no bearing on the state endangered species protections for our state. To delist for the state there still has to be 15 breeding pairs for three years. Also you can bet that the animal rights groups are going to file lawsuits to stop the federal delisting, just like they will if we ever reach that point with the state. So while it is a step forward there is still a long ways to go. 

[wolfbait]

Just like villegeidiot said, this is only delisting federally and has no bearing on the state endangered species protections for our state. To delist for the state there still has to be 15 breeding pairs for three years. Also you can bet that the animal rights groups are going to file lawsuits to stop the federal delisting, just like they will if we ever reach that point with the state. So while it is a step forward there is still a long ways to go. 

How long will the frauds we call the USFWS play the game of delisting this time? And if they did delist the states would lose all federal money. How much money does WA have to spare to manage an out of control wolf population?

Wait till the end game! It's going to get real ugly very soon.

[wolfbait]

Here we go agin!

Programmed Failure in Wolf Relisting
One all too frequent aspect of government initiatives is that they often are doomed to failure from the get go. The design is such that the planned action is guaranteed to fall apart sooner rather than later and never achieve the putative goals. I call that “programmed failure” and the examples are numerous, from affirmative action to welfare. The cases are so numerous and ubiquitous that programmed failure might be said to be the principal function and overriding style of our modern Federal and state governments.

Programmed failure is abundantly evident in the latest “relisting” of Rocky Mountain wolves. The manner in which the US Fish and Wildlife Service put wolves back on the Endangered Species List is so fraught with contradiction and legal screw-ups that it cannot stand the light of day.

Some background: Years ago the USFWS released Canadian wolves into Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming in a (misguided) attempt to “reintroduce” the species. The wolves multiplied to huge (but expected and predicted) numbers. Over the last few years the burgeoning wolf population has decimated deer and elk herds, and wolves have taken to slaughtering sheep and cattle on private ranches. The situation is out of control.

Last March the USFWS delisted (removed from the Endangered Species List) Rocky Mountain wolves. From an analysis by Dr. Charles Kay entitled Is Delisting Rigged? [here]:

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) has announced that wolves in Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming will be delisted by the end of March 2008. According to a recent USFWS news release, wolves in the Northern Rockies were to be delisted when there was a “minimum of 30 breeding pairs and 300 wolves for at least three consecutive years. That goal was achieved in 2002, and the wolf population has expanded in size and range every year since. There are currently more than 1,500 wolves and at least 100 breeding pairs in Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming. While most sportsmen think that delisting is long overdue, a consortium of eleven environmental groups has said they will sue to stop delisting because there are not enough wolves! Apparently “wolf recovery” has been a fraud from the beginning!

The “environmental” groups did indeed sue, and last July U.S. District Judge Donald Molloy granted a preliminary injunction, throwing out the delisting of gray wolves in the Northern Rockies and order them put back on the Endangered Species list. [here]

In December the USFWS obeyed the Judge and relisted Rocky Mountain wolves [here]. The USFWS was (is) petulant about the situation, though, and their relisting regulation is a deliberate joke — programmed to fail.


Poor Judge Molloy is an idiot when it comes to wildlife ecology, and the USFWS scientists are well-aware of that. They did not appreciate Molloy’s interference in the delisting process, which was a big hassle to begin with. The USFWS went through the painful delisting process because it was the right thing to do. Judge Molloy’s wrench in the gears was most unwelcome.

Gray wolves are not endangered. The species is not on the verge of extinction. There are tens of thousands of wolves in Canada and they are doing quite nicely (from a wolf lover’s point of view). In the absence of control by humans, the species population has exploded, in Canada and Alaska as well as the US Lower 48.

Imposing a raft of killer predators on US citizens and their livestock, pets, and children is not a moral or ethical use of government power. USFWS personnel have gradually come to recognize that, in part because of the negative feedback* they have received from their fellow citizens, and in part because they are not mindless robots themselves. As scientists, and as human beings, they don’t wish to cause grief for no good reason, and “protecting” an exploding (non-endangered) population of bloodthirsty wolves is a completely unreasonable (if not purely evil) thing to do.

[*Rumor has it that certain private threats of retribution have been made. I can't say that such rumors are true, but I don't necessarily doubt them.]

But the Judge said to do it, and so the USFWS was forced to relist wolves. They did so in the most inept fashion, however, or if looked at from another perspective, in a quite adept application of programmed failure.

The main smoking gun is that the USFWS relisted most Rocky Mountain wolves as “non-essential experimental populations”. This is an esoteric issue, so let me try to explain it.

The Endangered Species Act (1973) clearly states it’s purpose as:

Sec 2(A)(4) - the United States has pledged itself as a sovereign state in the international community to conserve to the extent practicable the various species of fish or wildlife and plants facing extinction, …

Sec 2 (B) - PURPOSES.—The purposes of this Act are to provide a means whereby the ecosystems upon which endangered species and threatened species depend may be conserved, to provide a program for the conservation of such endangered species and threatened species, and to take such steps as may be appropriate to achieve the purposes of the treaties and conventions set forth in subsection (a) of this section.

The purpose of the ESA is to “conserve” species at threat of going extinct. Gray wolves are manifestly not at threat of extinction. The species is widespread and numerous. The USFWS knows this. That’s why they attempted to delist wolves in the first place.

And that’s why, when they relisted wolves, the USFWS put them in a little known category, “non-essential experimental populations” or NEP’s. A NEP is what it says it is, a sub-population that is not essential to conserving or protecting a species from going extinct.

Previously sub-populations of gray wolves were listed as “distinct population segments” (for more about the word games associated with sub-populations see [here]). The term “distinct population segment” (DPS) appears once in the ESA, in Sec 3 (Definitions):

(16) The term “species” includes any subspecies of fish or wildlife or plants, and any distinct population segment of any species of vertebrate fish or wildlife which interbreeds when mature.

The term DPS no longer applies, however. It was thrown out by court decisions cited in the new relisting Rule [here]. The USFWS is no longer designating wolf DPS’s.

The Courts’ rulings invalidated the three DPS designations in the April 2003 rule, including the Western DPS. Therefore, as we reinstate the special regulations at § 17.84(n) for the Yellowstone and central Idaho NEPs, we also remove from the regulation erroneous language referring to the defunct Western DPS. In addition, we are removing archaic provisions from the gray wolf special regulation at 50 CFR 17.84(i) that applied only in the immediate aftermath of the NEP reintroductions.

Instead of DPS, the USFWS is now using using the term “non-essential experimental populations”. The term “experimental populations” has an entire section in the ESA (Sec. 10, Exceptions) dedicated to it. Specifically Sec. 10 (j):

(j) EXPERIMENTAL POPULATIONS.—(1) For purposes of this subsection, the term “experimental population” means any population (including any offspring arising solely therefrom) authorized by the Secretary for release under paragraph (2), but only when, and at such times as, the population is wholly separate geographically from nonexperimental populations of the same species.

(2)(A) The Secretary may authorize the release (and the related transportation) of any population (including eggs, propagules, or individuals) of an endangered species or a threatened species outside the current range of such species if the Secretary determines that such release will further the conservation of such species.
(B) Before authorizing the release of any population under subparagraph (A), the Secretary shall by regulation identify the population and determine, on the basis of the best available information, whether or not such population is essential to the continued existence of an endangered species or a threatened species.
(C) For the purposes of this Act, each member of an experimental population shall be treated as a threatened species; except that—
(i) solely for purposes of section 7 (other than subsection (a)(1) thereof), an experimental population determined under subparagraph (B) to be not essential to the continued existence of a species shall be treated, except when it occurs in an area within the National Wildlife Refuge System or the National Park System, as a species proposed to be listed under section 4; and
(ii) critical habitat shall not be designated under this Act for any experimental population determined under subparagraph (B) to be not essential to the continued existence of a species.

(3) The Secretary, with respect to populations of endangered species or threatened species that the Secretary authorized, before the date of the enactment of this subsection, for release in geographical areas separate from the other populations of such species, shall determine by regulation which of such populations are an experimental population for the purposes of this subsection and whether or not each is essential to the continued existence of an endangered species or a threatened species.

Notice (in the new Rule) that in relisting wolves the USFWS designated two NEP’s (non-essential experimental populations), one in the southern 4/5ths of Montana and all of Wyoming, and another in the southern 4/5ths of Idaho.

The NEP areas are adjacent to each other and to the wolves north of the NEP areas, which as I read Section 10 of the ESA above is a direct violation of Sec 10(j)(1). NEP areas are supposed to be “wholly separate geographically”; obviously (see the maps in the Rule) the NEP areas are not separate geographically; they are adjacent!

Furthermore, under Sec 10(j)(2)(B) the Service is supposed to determine whether such populations are essential to the survival of the species. Evidently they did that, and determined that they were NON-essential!!!

The USFWS has determined that the NEP wolves are NOT essential to preserving the species from extinction.  So what are they doing writing rules about non-essential animals? That seems totally outside the purpose of the ESA.

Under 10(j)(2)(C)(i) non-essential populations are to be designated as “a species proposed to be listed”. That is not the case with the wolves. The relisting clearly calls the NEP wolves “endangered”. That was the point of the relisting. They relisted non-essential animals. It is topsy-turvy. Illogical. Inconsistent with the ESA.

The USFWS is not supposed to designate critical habitat for non-essential animals according to 10(j)(2)(C)(ii). As far as I can tell, they did not designate habitat. The wolves are where they are and no land has been set aside for them. So that is something; no wolf reserves.

However, there is also Clause 3. Clause 10(j)(3) is tricky. It refers to populations released prior to enactment of the subsection. I don’t know when the subsection was enacted or when the wolves were released. Assuming the release was prior to the subsection enactment, the USFWS is supposed to determine whether those animals are “essential to the continued existence of an endangered species”. The Service has done that; they determined that those wolves are NON-essential.

Now what? If they are NON-essential, then why are they listed? Why all the rules?

The USFWS did not act arbitrarily in this case. They had some reason for going the NEP route. They set themselves up on purpose. I think they wanted to delist wolves. The courts (Molloy) pulled that rug out from under them. So then the USFWS did the next best thing. They engineered the worst relisting imaginable.

The relisting of wolves as non-essential is programmed failure. The design carries fatal flaws. The inherent contradiction cannot stand up to public scrutiny. If the animals are non-essential, they should not be listed.

The only reason Section 10 exists is to protect candidate species while the USFWS determines the actual threat. We’re past that. The threat has been determined, and it is nil. By admission and declaration, the USFWS is saying that the listed NEP wolves are not essential to conserving the species, which by the way is not actually endangered in the first place.

If Canis lupus was going extinct, then the USFWS would never have moved to delist the species last March. Their considered opinion, based on the work of their experts, is that the gray wolf is not endangered. Most true wolf experts and wildlife population biologists agree. There is wide consensus on that point.

It is only pusillanimous judges parsing arcane language at the behest of special interest groups with hidden agendas that consider wolves “threatened”, if in fact any of those people really do. The science is quite clear; wolves are numerous and the species is doing fine.

There are some serious legal/political games going on. The true condition of the species is not at question. A spurious group seeks to inflict non-endangered wolves on an unwilling citizenry. The USFWS is caught in a bind. Their solution: programmed failure.

The relisting is fishy. It ain’t kosher. It’s one of those “doomed to failure from the get-go” operations that government is so adept at. The bungled relisting was bungled on purpose.

The next step, IMO, is to sue the bejeebers out of the USFWS for their phony relisting, on the grounds that the NEP designation is improper and proof that gray wolves shouldn’t be listed at all. And, IMO, the USFWS will welcome such a suit, and assist the Plaintiffs in making that case.

Hunters, ranchers, foresters, wildlife ecologists, affected state legislatures, rural residents, and even urban residents who have experienced first hand the misuse of Federal powers should pay attention. The iron is hot; now is the time to strike. The USFWS is begging to be sued.

It won’t take much. The rock is perched at the edge of the cliff. The relisting was designed to fail. All that’s required is a little push.

[BOWHUNTER45]

We all know how tough it is to get things done in Washington ..Especially something like this ..These wolf lovers need to change their minds and smoke a pack a day 

[wolfbait]

One by one as their spandex turns to wolf dental floss, they will see red and maybe learn a lesson or two about petting the wild wolves from Alberta.

[wolfbait]

No Wolves? USFWS and WDFW Frauds? Where did the game herds go?

Wolf data deserves scrutiny
by Idaho Farm Bureau Federation
April 28, 2013
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's annual wolf population report released in mid-April, shows "at least" 321 confirmed packs and 1,674 individuals in Idaho, Wyoming, Montana, Oregon and Washington.

Overall numbers are down by about 100 animals compared to last year. Highlighted in the report are confirmation of breeding pairs and growing subpopulations in Oregon and Washington. Further, the report claims there are no wolves in Utah. In addition, the report is riddled with inconsistencies and other strangeness that leads us to believe we aren't getting the full story here folks.

For instance, as far back as 2002, wolves were confirmed in northern Utah, when a pack killed 15 sheep and lambs near Hardware Ranch in Cache County. Livestock depredations have occurred throughout southeast Idaho and northern Utah since that time. In 2002, wolf number 253, a two-year-old male and member of Yellowstone Park's Druid Pack, was caught in a coyote snare in Morgan County, Utah, east of Ogden. This wolf, doing nothing more than following his wild instincts, crossed a political boundary. He was transported back to Yellowstone Park, on the taxpayers' dime, and was later killed by a hunter near Daniel, Wyoming.

In March of 2008, a pilot with experience flying in Alaska spotted five wolves, three blacks and two greys near Dutch John, Utah. KSL News reported that tracks were later found and the wolves answered a howl call. Yet these wolves weren't evicted from Utah. Did the political boundary vanish in those six years?

A large herd of elk migrates out of southeast Idaho to Hardware Ranch in northern Utah every winter. Does anyone really believe there aren't wolf packs following those elk? Do the facts that hunters have killed wolves and livestock depredations have occurred throughout the area prove there are wolves present? In spite of the appearance of solid evidence, the USFWS map that shows confirmed wolf pack territories, reveals no evidence of packs in southern Idaho, northern Utah, or southwest Wyoming.

With all of this evidence of wolves spreading west into Oregon and Washington and occasional sightings in northern Utah, it seems curious that USFWS can't confirm wolf packs south of the Snake River, in northern Utah, or in southwest Wyoming, which leads us to question the validity of the entire report.

We understand the complexity of counting wolves. Imagine flying over vast wilderness areas replete with deep canyons and dark timber. What percentage of existing wolves is it humanly possible to document? We assert that it's a very small percentage and further, that there could be more wolves in Idaho alone than this report documents for the entire region. Yet the USFWS report makes no mention of the difficulties associated with obtaining accurate population estimates.

It's time for USFWS to get serious about telling the truth about wolves. The hundreds of rural families that have suffered economic losses deserve the truth. USFWS, through the use of half-truths and vagueness, has done a masterful job in its public relations efforts. Since the mid-90's their line on livestock depredation has been that wolves only cause a small proportion of all livestock losses. Somewhat true, but they are additional or new losses that the livestock industry did not have to absorb before reintroduction. In addition, when given consideration to the fact that only a small proportion of livestock losses are actually documented, it doesn't soften the blow by much. It's been estimated that only one in nine livestock depredations by wolves are confirmed by USFWS. Yet once again, their report makes no mention of this.

A lot of people have romantic notions about the American West, its wide open spaces and wild animals. The stories that aren't being told are about depopulation trends in rural counties and kids who won't have the chance to go to college next fall because the family business is no longer profitable. And these businesses are not just livestock operations. They include all of the businesses that sustain our rural economy.

This agency's inability to document wolf packs in areas that are politically inconvenient is a serious problem. The report includes the statement that wolf reintroduction has been an incredible success story for endangered species, but glaringly omits the fact that when wolves were reintroduced they didn't have any idea how fast the population would grow or how far territories would expand. http://www.pinedaleonline.com/news/2013/04/Wolfdatadeservesscru.htm

[wolfbait]

“FEDERAL WOLF PROTETION TO END”

-“I do not recollect in all the animal kingdom a single species but man which is eternally and systematically employed in the destruction of its own species.”  Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1 January 1797 –

 

 

FROM THIS MORNING’S NEWSPAPER - “Federal wildlife officials have drafted plans to lift protections for gray wolves across the Lower 48 states, a move that could end a decades-long recovery effort that has restored the animals but only in parts of their historic range.” Associated Press, 4-28-2013

 

Let’s just cut to the chase and describe what is happening here because, it is not what it appears to be.

 

A political decision (the wolf program, just like the entire ESA fiasco was and remains a political problem) has been made “to lift protections of gray wolves” at this time for political reasons so let’s mentions some of those reasons and the faux biology that underlies wolves and other ESA un-Constitutional debacles:

1.      We were told for decades that the ESA/federal bureaucrats dictated that wolves must be restored throughout “their” habitat throughout the Lower 48 states based on the law and “science”.  If this is so, why are these bureaucrats and their favorite law now announcing that “the 6,000 wolves now living in the Northern Rockies and Great Lakes (sic, I am quoting here and evidently the AP believes many wolves live in the Great Lakes as opposed the Great Lakes’ States) are enough to prevent the species’ extinction.  The agency says having gray wolves elsewhere – such as the West Coast, parts of New England and elsewhere in the Rockies – is unnecessary for their long-term survival”?

 

Where to start explaining this? 

 

Six thousand wolves in the Lower 48 states; 99% of which are descended from and are genetically-identical to the 70,000 wolves inhabiting Canada and 5-15,000 wolves inhabiting Alaska; “are enough to prevent the species’ extinction”?  Where does this magic number come from?  Who made this decision?  Has the public education system dumbed us down enough that there are actually American citizens that believe such arbitrary nonsense after decades of Lower 48 federal wolf protection anywhere they popped up? 

 

The “Northern Rockies’” wolves are all descendants of wolves trapped at unreported locations in Canada.  The “Great Lakes’ (States)” wolves are all descendants of the millenniums’-old wolf packs of Minnesota and Manitoba/Ontario piney woods that extend from central Minnesota to the Manitoba and Ontario muskeg flats extending to Hudson Bay.  Saying that the Lower 48 States must maintain 6,000 wolves to “prevent the species’ extinction” is like saying that the Lower 48 States must maintain 6, 60, 600 thousand (pick a number) “free-roaming buffalo” to “prevent species’ extinction” of a “species” of which many thousands currently exist on ranches, several National Parks and National Wildlife Refuges.

 

Does anyone remember how all this wolf/protection and mandatory wolf-spreading was supposedly based on “science”?  This forcible wolf introduction was a bureaucratic construct of US Fish and Wildlife Service political hacks that stole millions from State fish and wildlife programs to introduce the wolves into the Northern Rockies while preventing historic wolf controls in Minnesota that allowed those wolves to increase and spread into Wisconsin, Michigan (both the Upper and Lower Peninsulas) and even down into Indiana, Illinois and Missouri.  What with that agency’s purchase of “science” with grants; hiring animal rights advocates; seducing state fish and wildlife agencies to cooperate with federal goals with grants and jobs; and long-term clandestine program integration with radical environmental/animal rights’ organizations: one is tempted to ask why are these seemingly all-powerful bureaucrats, despite their hiding behind euphemisms like “The agency says” and “it’s the law”, are proposing to end their wolf Blitzkrieg at this time?

 

There never was any real “science” underpinning the wolf expansion in the Lower 48 States.  The perfidious bureaucrats that stole the money to introduce the wolves and their self-serving bureaucrat enablers have gone on to head profitable animal rights organizations and lead federal agencies and to rich retirements and post-retirement scams: to have imagined them and their followers ever offering to “end protections” would have been like predicting the sudden demise of the old Soviet Union.  There seemed to be no end or limit to their subjugation of all rural America using their piecemeal (to avoid alliances among those they harmed) approach.  The answer to what is going on lies in current national politics and a critical examination of what is really happening.

 

2.      The Obama White House, just like all its predecessors, controls these federal agencies and all they do or don’t do.  The hacks and bureaucrats that have drafted and published this “Draft Rule” only do such things at the behest of the White House or to curry favor with the White House from which everything they treasure flows.  The “Rule” reportedly specifically mentions no further wolf introductions in “parts of New England” and “the West Coast”.  Why?

Why were federal wolf introductions never made in the enormous wolf-friendly hills and woodlands of Pennsylvania, New York, New Hampshire, Vermont, and Maine inhabited by a plethora of wolf enthusiasts?  Why were wolves never forced into Colorado or Northern California or Eastern Washington or Eastern Oregon?  Why will the “Mexican” wolves in the Southwest continue to receive federal protection?

Question: what do New England states, West Coast states, Colorado, California, Eastern Oregon, and Eastern Washington have in common?  Answer, they are each majority-Democrat locations.

-If the President and his party are to hold the Senate and take control of the House, they need and do want to please and avoid angering the voters in those locations.

-There is some payback, for instance, to Colorado for passing un-Constitutional gun control and running arms manufacturers and outdoor media companies out of the state.

-Also, these locations are chock-full habitats of the majority of wolf-(is “lovers” politically correct) that give money and political support to unlimited wolf impositions “out there”.

-States like Minnesota and Michigan will, with state “protection” granted by a benevolent central government, do federal bidding as urban enclaves like the Twin Cities, Duluth, Grand Rapids, Lansing, and Greater Detroit can be depended on to keep the State governments from any meaningful wolf management.

-“Lifting protections” will please wise radicals that understand that hunting and fishing programs will be reduced as scarce dollars are diverted to the wolf “hassles” and hunting and fishing participation declines as game declines (into wolf bellies and often for wolf-fun) and safety concerns further diminish youth participation and lone hunting by adults.

-Federal wolf “protection” ending will be bragged about as a federal spending “savings”.

-Federal wolf “protection” ending will be bragged about as proof of “states’ rights” bona fides by politicians that are central-government/socialists to the core.  In fairness here, the “other” party has consistently shown themselves to be simply 3.2 beer compared to the real stuff in this regard in recent years.  They both get you to the same end, only the 3.2 takes a little longer.

-Exempting all those University/Urban area/rural wolf-habitat-rich but Democrat voter-rich areas means that Federal thugs won’t be arresting fathers for killing a wolf in their yard or running pictures in the paper of Buffy the Golden Retriever’s spine head and inside/out hide by the porch from which the kids watched.  No, no any such wolf harms will be relegated to locations that wouldn’t vote right anyway.

-Exempting all those pet-rich locations will allow the (“New England/West Coast”) residents to still smirk and scoff at the facts about wolves and diseases that they spread from anthrax, foot-and-mouth, smallpox (a feared terrorist weapon these days), and Mad Cow Disease to brucellosis, Chronic Wasting Disease, heartworm, several deadly tapeworms, and other such (over 30) diseases and infections.  The fact that diseases and infections are only a concern “out there” and only to a few rural bumpkins and “big/rich” landowners makes it all simply a game to the wolf enablers spouting “ecosystems”, “native” and “they were ‘there’ first” palaver at parties.

-Arizona and New Mexico are to still be forced to accept federal (“Mexican”/gray, max nix) wolves and to suffer federal occupation by federal enforcers.  The same White House government that simply looks the other way about illegal immigration in those states will continue to treat wolves with absolute federal protection denied to unborn and even recently-born humans: go figure.  But Arizona has a state and local governments (Governor, Sheriffs, etc.) that defy central government mandates so they are to be taught a lesson.  Who can forget that Arizona Governor waving her finger at the president on that Arizona tarmac?  God Bless her!  New Mexico had the audacity to elect another stand-up woman (where are our good men?) to succeed the rubbery Richardson that loved wolves and central government controls as much as he did foreign dictators.  Yes, those two states are in need of a lesson and continued wolf diktats from Washington are just the ticket!

-Exempting all those locations also sends a message to those voters that are to be forced to live with wolves: “either you play ball with us, vote for us and cooperate with extremist bureaucracies and radical laws or we (the central government) will make your life worse and worse.” 

 

But you say, how can the federal government threaten anyone after they “end protections for gray wolves in the Lower 48”?  Aren’t the Farm Bureau and all the hunting organizations supporting this like Eastern Europeans celebrating the fall of the Soviet Union?  Won’t State managers be our friends unlike those arrogant federal thugs?  The answer here lies in what is really happening.

 

3.      Ask yourself who is “drafting” (i.e. proposing) this?  If you answered the same persons “agency” (bureaucrats and even persons) that stole millions from the states and went unpunished; then decided where wolves would be placed; and then “enforced” the destruction of big game herds, ranches, and small rural community life: you get an “A”. 

 

What is a “Rule”?  A “Rule” is a regulation issued by a bureaucracy to enforce a law.  The Bureaucracy can issue a “Rule” tomorrow reversing what they issued today based on whatever they make up.  A “Rule” could be reversed or amended after the next election when previously hidden “science” emerges.  In short, this “Proposed Rule” is every bit as reliable and real as all the regulatory and policy promises (“compensation”; big game disappearance explanations; denial of disease dangers to humans, livestock and big game; ignoring danger to dogs [until Wisconsin hunters asked for dog packs to be authorized for wolf hunting and all the crocodile tears appeared about the poor dogs]; denial of human safety dangers as Russians, Indian and other Asians, an Alaskan, and a Canadian died from wolf attacks and many, many others were injured severely and were treated for things like rabies and tapeworm infections): that is to say, not at all. The law that authorizes this power remains!

 

Is it truthful to say the federal government will “end protections” when the state will not be able to kill all the wolves in the state or even simply go below some federally-mandated level without invoking instant federal takeover or unacceptable penalties?

 

Where will the money come from for the state to answer wolf lawsuits?  To radio-collar and satellite track wolves?  To “educate” (i.e. propagandize) the public and the young about wolves?  To count wolves? To live-trap and relocate wolves?  To explain away wolf depredations as the work of dogs or cougars or bears or climate change? To set and monitor wolf hunts? To regulate wolf taxidermy?  To investigate and prosecute wolf-killings?  To regulate hunting and trapping methods, seasons, bags, and all the controversies they entail?  To fend off demands for wolf population reductions and significant wolf control programs?  To handle demands to end livestock loss, dog loss, and human safety threats by wolves?  The feds, their radical partners and too often state fish and wildlife bureaucrats know the money will come out of current state fish and game programs and their intent is to eliminate those programs and to replace them with federal funding through the US Fish and Wildlife Service (for a %) and matched by state tax dollars that will be used to conduct research, “protect”, and educate everyone about everything from snakes and turtles to sparrows and seagulls.  Hunting and fishing will disappear, people will just have to learn to live with deer in the garden, wolves defecating in yards, kids and dogs kept close (and if harmed by wolves, cougars, bears, alligators or other “native species” to accept the blame for behaving incorrectly).  And the lion will lie down with the lamb, etc., etc. 

 

It is the Nirvana envisioned by radicals and self-serving bureaucrats.  It is the fantasy world spouted by extremists, teachers, media outlets, and anti-gun advocates.

 

So despite the following enthusiasms for “ending” wolf protections:

“The national hunter-conservationist organizations include the National Rifle Association of America (NRA), the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation (RMEF), Safari Club International (SCI), and the U.S. Sportsmen’s Alliance Foundation (USSAF); the regional sportsmen’s organizations include the Michigan Hunting Dog Federation, the Michigan United Conservation Clubs, the Upper Peninsula Bear Houndsmen Association, Wisconsin Bear Hunters Association, and the Wisconsin Bowhunters Association.  Collectively these organizations speak for those who hunt wolves, deer, moose, elk, and other game species and who seek to make sure that hunting remains part of sustainable management and conservation strategies for all wildlife.”

I am reserving judgment based on “the record”.

 

The problem isn’t the wolves or the perfidious bureaucracies or even the crooked hacks and radical organizations.  The problem is federal laws that enable federal bureaucracies to disregard Constitutional guarantees, State authorities, and Local governments.  The problem is US Senators that have become harlots for foreign interests and national organizations to the detriment of “their” state’s interests and people.  The problem is two political parties that no longer protect rural Americans or their communities or their interests.  The problem is a central government unfettered and consuming all authority while shredding any Constitutional guarantees.  As long as the current trends remain, things will only get worse.

 

The closest thing to compare it to is Eastern Europe in the early 1950’s.  After 5 or six years of Soviet occupation; the national names were changed to “The People’s Republic of…”, the churches were all closed, the teachers were all state appointed, the only ones armed were soldiers and secret police, kids spied on their parents and parents spied on their neighbors, and Soviet military compounds and enclaves dotted the countryside and urban neighborhoods and all business was government-owned.  Then, imagine the Soviet officials discovering that it would look better if “natives” were invited to a meeting covered by the media, reporters, radio announcers, and other worthies.  The imagine them announcing that the governing of “The Peoples Republic” would now be conducted by and paid for by the local people.  Of course, the Churches were to remain closed; teachers would continue to need Soviet approval; no native could have a weapon; and reports about parents, neighbors, radios, comments, etc.; were still to be taken under pain of imprisonment if ignored; and no private enterprise would be allowed.

 

That is what this ending “wolf protection” amounts to.  Unless and until those federal laws are amended or repealed and we once again have national politicians whose primary concern is us and our welfare, the rot will only get worse.  We can only pray that it hasn’t already reached the level of infection that treatment is no longer possible.

 

Jim Beers

29 April 2013