Wolf Delisting

[EJ_Mac]

Quote:

The Feds took over because the individual states seemed to generally have one purpose which was to as completely exterminate the wolf as possible.

Exactly. And when the delisting was proposed, it was blocked because some states (I know WY was one) had little or no wolf management plan in place and planned to simply allow un-managed shooting of wolves by anyone who felt like it.

So it was not the fault of the environmental groups, but the states who had the attitude of "any wolf is a dead one." The same attitude that a lot of individuals still have. That attitude is why wolves are still listed, despite rebounding numbers and a successful comeback under ESA protections.

[walleye101]

  EJ_Mac said:

Exactly. And when the delisting was proposed, it was blocked because some states (I know WY was one) had little or no wolf management plan in place and planned to simply allow un-managed shooting of wolves by anyone who felt like it.

So it was not the fault of the environmental groups, but the states who had the attitude of "any wolf is a dead one." The same attitude that a lot of individuals still have. That attitude is why wolves are still listed, despite rebounding numbers and a successful comeback under ESA protections.

That is a pretty broad generalization. It does not explain the law suit blocking delisting in the midwest were recovery is complete, exceeding and possibly doubling recovery goals, confirmed depredations and lethal removal by the Feds already number in the hundreds per year, and State wolf management plans are approved and in place for delisting. Yes, it is the fault of the environmental groups that filed suit blocking the delisting. Their attitude or position that sound wolf management should not proceed no matter how successful recovery has been under the ESA is just as radical as those who think all wolves should be shot.

[ANYFISH2]

My understanding is the can bd delisted in one region yet still be listed/protected in another. Am I correct or wrong?

There should be no bearing on minnesota regaurding what Wyoming is doing. Of course some organizations will feel differantly.

[Red Cabin]

Yes, last year they were protected in the Midwest, while off the list in some western states.

[EJ_Mac]

Problem is, the judge didn't see it that way. Yes, he may have been able to delist in one area and not another, but he didn't do that. But my point is that it never would have gotten to a judge and there probably would have been no lawsuit (not a tenable one) if the states with no management plans had HAD viable ones. Those states gave the environmental groups a reason to sue, so the enviro groups were not the root cause of the wolves remaining protected. Had all the states been ready to move forward with solid management plans, the groups would have had no legal leg to stand on.

[just_jig]

Environmental groups sue just to advance their agendas, their reasoning can be lame, they don't care about legal leg. They are the root problem.

MN had a viable Wolf plan and environmentalist shopped for a liberal judge to side with them (I believe it was a Judge in the State of Virginia). The ruling may very well have been different if a Federal Judge lets say in Duluth heard the case.

[EJ_Mac]

Quote:

MN had a viable Wolf plan

Maybe so, but we're not talking about just MN (if you read the posts above). We're talking about the other states management plans.

I think the only "agenda" that was being advanced was in not agreeing with (for example) Wyoming's plan to simply treat wolves like coyotes. Federally protecting a species for 30-odd years so it can rebound from the brink of extinction, only to delist it and let a state allow unchecked hunting of it is kind of a waste - both of effort and taxpayer dollars. So they had a point. Maybe it shouldn't have been applied to all the states, but that was the judge's decision - not theirs.

You can call blame the environmental groups if they make a more appealing target for you, but the fact remains that if a state like Wyoming had looked at wolf delisting with the same level of responsibility as MN, WI, MI and everyone else did, and had prepared for it by coming up with an actual managemnt plan, wolves would already be delisted.

[croixflats]

Well said EJ_Mac. I gave examples of what you were saying earlier in the thread you said it much better than I ever could.

[EJ_Mac]

  croixflats said:

Well said EJ_Mac. I gave examples of what you were saying earlier in the thread you said it much better than I ever could.

Thanks. But that's the first time someone has ever accused me of saying something better

My wife says I usually use 20 words when 4 will do...

[goblueM]

  EJ_Mac said:

Problem is, the judge didn't see it that way. Yes, he may have been able to delist in one area and not another, but he didn't do that. But my point is that it never would have gotten to a judge and there probably would have been no lawsuit (not a tenable one) if the states with no management plans had HAD viable ones. Those states gave the environmental groups a reason to sue, so the enviro groups were not the root cause of the wolves remaining protected. Had all the states been ready to move forward with solid management plans, the groups would have had no legal leg to stand on.

exactly. Wyoming ruined it for everybody. They only had to have a reasonable plan, something other than their "the only good wolf is a dead wolf" default. If they'd had a reasonable plan, they coulda had a season on wolves and they'd still be delisted

Of course, the USFWS messed up big time as well with their de-listing of wolves in Idaho and Montana but not in Montana, which was pretty embarrassing considering you cannot protect one part of an evolutionarily significant unit but not another

[swamptiger]

The way I remember it, Wyoming didn't want the wolves re-introduced back into their state to begin with - it was pretty much forced on them by the Feds with the backing of the enviros.