Delisting of Gray Wolves as Endangered, Fed gov comments open to Sep 11, 2013

[Beringia]

Jamie Clark President of Defenders of Wildlife, (formerly Director of US Fish and Wildlife from 1997 to 2001)



"The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service announced recently that it plans to prematurely delist wolves under the ESA and abandon their restoration efforts for gray wolves everywhere except for the Southwest. With wolves struggling to gain a toehold in the Northwest and still nonexistent in places with excellent suitable habitat like California, Utah and Colorado, the federal government is giving up on the dream of full gray wolf recovery. Put simply, they are quitting before their work is done.

Some 5,000 wolves currently inhabit six states in the lower 48. This is a marked improvement since the late '80s when there were only a few hundred left in northern Minnesota. Yet, the reality is that the recovery of the species throughout key areas in the West remains as uncertain as ever. Idaho, Montana and Wyoming have already started to drive their wolf populations down. Anti-wolf legislation has cropped up in Oregon and Washington, where there are presently only about 100 wolves. Utah's legislature passed a bill several years ago banning wolves altogether. And without continued federal protection, we're as likely to see sustainable populations of unicorns in five years in Colorado and California as we are to see sustainable populations of wolves.

By walking off the job before the task is done, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is redefining what it means to recover imperiled species...and not in a good way. The agency has adopted a shrunken vision of what wolf conservation is all about, failing to stick with the program until full recovery is achieved. We didn't take this easy way out in recovering the bald eagle or the American alligator, and we shouldn't do it now for wolves."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jamie-rappaport-clark/mission-forgotten_b_3403584.html




BILLINGS, Mont. (AP) — The Obama administration on Friday will propose lifting most of the remaining federal protections for gray wolves across the Lower 48 states, a move that would end four decades of recovery efforts but has been criticized by some scientists as premature.

Under the administration's plan, federal 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.

http://www.businessinsider.com/obama-administration-ending-federal-protection-of-gray-wolves-2013-6


Comments accepted until September 11, 2013.

Summary

We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) evaluated the classification status of gray wolves (Canis lupus) currently listed in the contiguous United States and Mexico under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). Based on our evaluation, we propose to remove the gray wolf from the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife

http://www.regulations.gov/#!submitComment;D=FWS-HQ-ES-2013-0073-0001

[Hydra]

1. *sigh*

Here we go again...

[MoonRiver]

2. K&R

I've been fighting for years to keep wolves protected. The onslaught against them never stops though.

[NuclearDem]

3. Only 5,000?

Yikes.

Could someone with a little bit more knowledge on the subject educate me as to why we would even consider taking them off the endangered list? I mean, is there some threat to other species or a threat of overpopulation I should be aware of?

[Beringia]

4. Head of US Fish and Wildlife Dan Ashe following politics instead of science

US Fish and Wildlife Agency director Dan Ashe told the media that the gray wolf had recovered to the point that it could thrive and even enlarge its territory without federal oversight. Several wolf advocates and some members of Congress disagreed. Once wolves are delisted, their management will fall to individual states.



GRAY WOLF PEER REVIEW PANEL PURGED BY AGENCY
Fish & Wildlife Service Forces Contractor to Axe Scientists Due to Sign-On Letter .

Posted on Aug 08, 2013

Washington, DC —Three of the nation’s top wolf experts have been excluded from the scientific peer review of the plan to remove federal protections from the gray wolf on orders from the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (FWS). The scientists were barred because they had signed a letter with 13 other scientists expressing concern about the scientific basis for the federal plan, according to Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER)..

The federal wolf de-listing plan is the subject of an accelerated peer review conducted by a private consultant firm, AMEC, chosen by FWS. Although the peer review is supposed to be independent of FWS, the agency controls selection of the reviewers engaged by the contractor..

FWS exercised that control in blocking at least three of the seven names on AMEC's list of reviewers chosen for their qualifications: Dr. Roland Kays of North Carolina State University, Dr. Jon Vucetich of Michigan Technological University and Dr. Robert Wayne of the University of California, Los Angeles. All have published extensively on the wolf and are considered preeminent experts..

In an August 7th email to one of the scientists, an AMEC official stated that the FWS had vetoed his participation in the peer review even though the firm had already selected him for his qualifications:.

“I apologize for telling you that you were on the project and then having to give you this news. I understand how frustrating it must be, but we have to go with what the service [sic] wants.”.

While the FWS claims that it seeks an “unbiased” review panel, given that this issue has received much discussion in both the media and scientific journals over the past decade the agency’s posture results in the exclusion of almost all qualified wolf scientists. This may leave the panel with only those experts who have never opined publicly on the issue, either because they favor delisting or they feel it inappropriate to comment on such proposals due to income from federal contracts..

“To avoid dealing with the serious scientific concerns raised by its delisting plan, the Fish & Wildlife Service is packing the review panel for its own proposal,” stated PEER Executive Director Jeff Ruch. “Selecting your own reviewers defeats the purpose of independent peer review.”.

The May 21st letter signed by the 16 prominent wolf researchers presented a number of serious scientific concerns with the gray wolf delisting plan as well as lack of designated habitat for the highly endangered Mexican wolf. The letter was submitted as a public comment to which the Service has yet to respond, although this week’s action suggests it was read..

The FWS disqualification of scientists appears at odds with White House Office of Management & Budget guidance which states that selection of peer reviewers should be primarily driven by expertise of the reviewer, followed by a need for balance to reflect competing scientific viewpoints followed by their independence from the agency..

The AMEC wolf peer review is slated to be completed by September 11th but the peer reviewers will not be provided with the public comments containing issues raised by scientific experts..

“Steamrolling a fast-track scientific review on a matter of this controversy underlines that it is politics not science driving the decision-making,” Ruch added. “If it wants to maintain any credibility, the Fish & Wildlife Service should openly address and resolve the array of serious scientific criticisms which have been leveled. This peer review charade will only lead to more litigation which could have been avoided.”

http://www.peer.org/news/news-releases/2013/08/08/gray-wolf-peer-review-panel-purged-by-agency/

[Nevernose]

6. The gun/hunting lobby is strong in the West

Or, rather, the hunting lobby is financially backed by the gun lobby.

Regardless, they advertise and agitate against wolves through all kinds of media. It's one of those issues wherein no one can really tell if it's a genuine grassroots effort or if the as roots have just been stirred up, because the issue just seems to naturally appeal to those on the right side of the spectrum.

Basically: it's a win for the hunting industry. If there are wolves present in an area, elk hunting (amongst other types of hunting) becomes more difficult, because when their natural prey is in the area, the elk tend to spend a lot of their time in the trees. People stop paying hunting guides five grand a weekend if they can't kill anything. And if wolves are de-listed in some form, then those same hunting guides can charge ten grand for a weekend wolf hunt.

Most of the "concerns" were proven to be bullshit years ago, but this doesn't stop the anti-science, anti-wolf people from spreading their lives.

[rhett o rick]

5. Plez save the wolves. nm