Post by: denali on April 09, 2011, 04:09:39 PM
BOISE, Idaho (AP) — BOISE, Idaho (AP) — A federal judge has denied a proposed settlement agreement between the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and 10 conservation groups that would have lifted endangered species protections for wolves in Montana and Idaho.
U.S. District Judge Donald Molloy in Missoula on Saturday rejected the agreement that could have led to public hunting of some 1,300 wolves in the two states.
Molloy in the 24-page decision cited the court's lack of authority to put part of an endangered species population under state management and expose that population to hunting.
He also says he can't approve the settlement proposed in March because not all parties involved in the case agreed with it.
Read more: http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/article/Judge-blocks-deal-on-protections-for-wolves-1330241.php#ixzz1J4PvZq4J (http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/article/Judge-blocks-deal-on-protections-for-wolves-1330241.php#ixzz1J4PvZq4J)
Good thing in my opinion, wolves need to be delisted in ALL states, and it will be done politically
Post by: bearpaw on April 09, 2011, 04:14:34 PM
Post by: ribka on April 09, 2011, 04:21:29 PM
Post by: haugenna on April 09, 2011, 04:31:38 PM
Poorly written article though.
Post by: Machias on April 09, 2011, 06:19:05 PM
Post by: mulehunter on April 09, 2011, 07:35:29 PM
Mulehunter
Post by: lokidog on April 10, 2011, 10:16:55 AM
I just heard on the radio that Gov Otter signed the wolf bill. Idaho may self initiate a hunt now if they can keep the feds from stopping them. :IBCOOL: :IBCOOL: :IBCOOL:
Not sure how Malloy rejecting "the agreement that could have led to public hunting" is a good thing since it seems Federal Law supersedes State Law. :dunno:
My question is if Malloy says you cannot delist in one area and not another, why are they even cosidered endangered when they are not endangered in other parts of their range? To me, that would be like saying elk are endangered because there are not very many of them in Illinois. Is it because they claim that this wolf is not the same as the wolf in Canada? I am curious.
Post by: bearpaw on April 10, 2011, 10:28:53 AM
Post by: Humptulips on April 10, 2011, 11:01:02 AM
I would say this is a very bad precedent. USF&W would have to delist across their range to allow hunting and they have not shown they are ready to do that. If they were to do that it will probably be years of lawsuits before you would see an end of it. Only other thing is if USF&W were to appeal to The Supreme Court which they have been unwilling to do with any of Molloys rulings.
Also if the budget bill retains the exemption for wolf hunting in ID and MT then the rest of the states like WA will probably never get wolves delisted.
This looks like a really bad ruling to me.
Post by: bearpaw on April 10, 2011, 11:47:39 AM
So what he is saying is an ESA listed animal cannot be delisted in part of its range but only be delisted across the entire range. It would seem then that as long as this subspecies of wolves are listed in any state such as WA, OR, UT, or WY, they cannot be delisted in ID or MT and no hunting will be allowed unless they are delisted across their entire range.
I would say this is a very bad precedent. USF&W would have to delist across their range to allow hunting and they have not shown they are ready to do that. If they were to do that it will probably be years of lawsuits before you would see an end of it. Only other thing is if USF&W were to appeal to The Supreme Court which they have been unwilling to do with any of Molloys rulings.
Also if the budget bill retains the exemption for wolf hunting in ID and MT then the rest of the states like WA will probably never get wolves delisted.
This looks like a really bad ruling to me.
Come on, did you expect a good ruling from "EnviroJudge". :chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle:
Continueously the enviro groups have set their own rules to apply as they need them. For now you can't separate a population, but as soon as the wolf groups are ready to sue for "recovery across the US" which they are palnning, then suddenly all these populations will need to managed seperately so that the recovered population does not prevent "EnviroJudge" from ruling in favor of separate wolf populations across the country. :twocents:
Post by: Humptulips on April 10, 2011, 01:17:09 PM
I don't see nationwide delisting coming about. Not PC outside the Rocky Mountain states.
Call me a pessimist but unless this ruling is appealed I don't see wolves delisted anytime in the forseeable future.
Post by: bearpaw on April 10, 2011, 10:30:19 PM
In the meantime, ID and MT are working toward excercising states rights, but no way to know if that will succed yet or not. Hope Otter signs the Wolf Disaster Bill soon.
Post by: hughjorgan on April 10, 2011, 10:52:17 PM
I am not sure if Simpson still has the wolf delisting attached to the congrssional budget, but the last I heard it was still attached. If the budget is passed with that language attached, wolves are delisted. That is the best hope.
In the meantime, ID and MT are working toward excercising states rights, but no way to know if that will succed yet or not. Hope Otter signs the Wolf Disaster Bill soon.
The language still exists in the bill and enviro-extremists are going to be trying to fight to get it removed. Just check out those groups that sued to keep wolfs listed and you will see that is what they are fighting at the moment. It will be the first thing you see on their website...
Post by: Gringo31 on April 10, 2011, 11:00:51 PM
Quote
So what he is saying is an ESA listed animal cannot be delisted in part of its range but only be delisted across the entire range
If you can't delist on a specific area then how are are wolf hunts in Alaska?
If you look at Washington State endangered species, you'll see a bunch of listings for salmon and steelhead. Seems that they are only listed for part of their range.
This is expected for it to not make any sense.
Post by: Humptulips on April 11, 2011, 11:48:28 AM
I don't understand....QuoteSo what he is saying is an ESA listed animal cannot be delisted in part of its range but only be delisted across the entire range
If you can't delist on a specific area then how are are wolf hunts in Alaska?
If you look at Washington State endangered species, you'll see a bunch of listings for salmon and steelhead. Seems that they are only listed for part of their range.
This is expected for it to not make any sense.
Exactly the problem. If how I read it is correct it could have far reaching effects beyond wolves. Very bad precedent. I would be very happy if someone would tell me I read it wrong. If not it needs to be appealed.