Appeals court backs wolves’ endangered status

protect The wolves We have to figure out how to roll this ruling into all states that contain Wolves. With the assistance of the Indian and Public Trust We believe that this is in fact possible. 1 Reason listed below we have seen first hand in states like Washington. Ruling on our Website

Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”), 5 U.S.C. § 551 et seq. Because the government failed to reasonably analyze or consider two significant aspects of the rule—the impacts of partial delisting and of historical range loss on the already listed species—we affirm the judgment of the district court vacating the 2011 Rule.


Appeals court backs wolves’ endangered status 

protect the wolves

WOLF1021c4 — A gray wolf moves through forested country in winter. Credit: MacNeil Lyons, National Park Service

It is about time for good news from somewhere! We need to roll this into Washington State now!

Wolves in the Great Lakes region  won another reprieve Tuesday when the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia said the animals must remain under federal Endangered Species Act protection.

The appellate court backed a district court decision that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service still hasn’t shown that it properly followed federal laws when it declared wolves partially “recovered” across just a portion of the animal’s historical range.

The federal agency in 2011 officially listed the wolf as recovered in part of its original territory — including Minnesota, Wisconsin and Michigan — even though they remain virtually nonexistent in nearby areas where they once thrived. That official recovery handed wolf management back to states and tribes. But wolf supporters sued, saying the animals still hadn’t recovered across enough areas.

“Because the government failed to reasonably analyze or consider two significant aspects of the rule — we affirm the judgment of the district court vacating the 2011 Rule,” the appeals court said in its 54-page decision released Tuesday. “The agency has failed repeatedly over the last sixteen years to make a delisting decision that complies with” the federal Administrative Procedure Act, the court noted.

The U.S. Interior Department, which includes the Fish and Wildlife Service, has not said if it will appeal the ruling.

But the reprieve may be short-lived for wolves in the affected states.

Lawmakers in Congress have introduced legislation that would delist wolves in Wyoming, Minnesota, Wisconsin and Michigan, effectively bypassing the court’s ruling.

While those legislative efforts have failed in the past, it’s expected they might pass both the Republican-controlled House and Senate this year and be signed into law by President Donald Trump.

Until then, however, wolves will remain federally protected and off-limits to hunting or trapping in the four states. In Minnesota, where wolves are listed as threatened and not endangered, federal trappers can and do kill wolves near where livestock have been reported killed by the big predators.

“This decision re-affirms what we know: the wolf is a vulnerable and valuable species and needs federal protections for their long-term survival. The wolf is an important part of our state and nation’s ecology and culture,” said Maureen Hackett, president of Minnesota-based Howling For Wolves, in a statement. “We have known all along that wolf hunting recklessly endangers this valuable asset.”

Source: Appeals court backs wolves’ endangered status | Duluth News Tribune

Collaboration in Washington State leads to dead wolves/ need to stop Rolling Over!! 

wolves, wolf, protect the wolves, wolf protection organization, native american religious 501c3

Thank you George for the EXCELLENT ARTICLE!! No Worries here…. We not only stand our Ground, we are acquiring new ground daily!!


I am reminded of David Brower’s admonishment “Polite conservationists leave no mark save the scars upon the Earth that could have been prevented had they stood their ground.”


by  on JULY 31, 2017

The shooting of the Profanity Pack last year and now a kill order for the Smackout Pack in Northeast Washington clearly demonstrated the failure of the current strategy of many conservation groups who are involved in wolf recovery efforts.

In this case, a number of organizations, including Wolf Haven International, Conservation Northwest, Defenders of Wildlife, and the Humane Society had joined the Wolf Advisory Group or WAG, a collaborative group that worked with the state of Washington as well as other “stake holders” (read ranchers) to produce a wolf recovery strategy.

The plan, among other components, calls for the lethal removal of depredating wolves. This applies to both public and private lands. Therein lies the rub. Who should have priority on public lands? Public wildlife or private livestock?

I am sure that these organizations have the best intentions—they want to see wolves thrive—however, they need to take a step back and consider whether their current strategy ultimately gains acceptance for wolves and other wildlife or merely becomes a “green washing” of actions that maintain the status quo and ultimately never really improves conditions for wolves and other wildlife.

When the Profanity Pack killed some cattle on a public lands grazing allotment, these organizations supported the killing of the pack, despite the fact that the rancher involved had placed his cattle on an allotment with a known wolf pack. He even placed salt blocks within a few hundred yards of a wolf den and rendezvous site. In essence, the Profanity Pack was set up to be killed by the agencies managing the land and wolves. But as members of the WAG, these organizations did not object to the killing which they called termed “regrettable” and other adjectives, but which they ultimately supported.

As members of the WAG they were silenced from voicing outrage, and even more importantly, condemning the entire situation where private livestock are given priority on public lands. And in this case, where the rancher and public agencies like the Forest Service did not take actions to avoid the conflict.

What could have been done differently? Well for one, the Forest Service, the agency managing these lands could have closed the allotment temporarily to grazing to preclude interactions between wolves and livestock. Better yet it could have removed the cattle entirely. But without a united voice from wolf advocates, the agency allowed this tragic and almost inevitable conflict to occur.

This gets to the heart of the issue. Which animals should have priority on public lands? The public’s wildlife or domestic livestock being grazed as a private use of public resources for private profit?

The conservation groups that are part of the WAG cannot change the paradigm. The reason is simple. Collaborations like the WAG start with certain assumptions—that domestic livestock has a priority on public lands—and if you don’t agree with that starting premise, you are not welcome on the collaboration.

It is no different than timber collaborations where the starting assumption is that our forests are “unhealthy” and “need” to be “managed” (read logged) to be “fixed”. If you disagree with that starting assumption, there is no welcome for you in forest collaborations.

This gets to the issue of strategy. As long as the assumption is that private livestock has priority on public lands, nothing will change. Wolves will continue to be shot unnecessarily.

But it goes further than whether wolves are shot. Domestic livestock are consuming the same forage as native wildlife like elk. On many grazing allotments, the bulk of all available forage is allotted to domestic livestock, thereby reducing the carrying capacity for wild ungulates (like elk) which are prey for predators like wolves.

In addition, there are a number of studies that demonstrate that once you move domestic cattle on to an allotment, the native wildlife like elk abandons the area. This means wolves must travel farther to find food, exposing them to more potentially greater mortality from hunters, car accidents, and so on.

You won’t hear any of these conservation groups articulating these “costs” to native wildlife because one of the consequences of joining collaboration is that your voice is muted. You remain silent to “get along.”

The groups joining the Washington WAG defend their participation by saying ranching on public lands is not going away, so the best way to influence wolf policy is to participate in these collaborative efforts.

The problem is that this legitimizes the idea that ranching and livestock have a priority on public lands. Keep in mind that grazing on public lands is a privilege. It is not a “right” despite the fact that the livestock industry tries to obscure the truth by referring to “grazing rights”.

If we are ever going to change the situation for wolves and other predators, not to mention other wildlife from elk to bison, we need to challenge the starting assumptions that livestock have a “right” to graze on our public lands.

Imagine for a minute what the Civil Rights movement would have accomplished if its leaders had joined a collaborative with the KKK and folks who were intent on maintaining the status quo in the South. Under such a paradigm nothing much would change. Sure they could have made the same rationale that today’s conservation groups make when they argue that public lands livestock grazing is not going away—and I’m sure many people involved in the Civil Rights movement assumed that segregation would never end either.

But some brave souls did not accept the starting assumptions. They refused to give up their seats at the front of the bus or at lunch counters. They demanded that all citizens had a right to vote without polling taxes and other measures designed to disenfranchise black voters.

The failure of conservation organizations to avoid questioning the presumed “right” of livestock operations to exploit the public’s land means we will never really change the circumstances under which predators live.

While any organizations that continue to support public lands grazing might defend their decision by suggesting that changing the paradigm is too difficult, I respond by saying as long as they never challenge anything, nothing will change.

I am reminded of David Brower’s admonishment “Polite conservationists leave no mark save the scars upon the Earth that could have been prevented had they stood their ground.”

Source: Collaboration leads to dead wolves | The Wildlife News

A Supreme Court decision on a case in 1842 became a foundation for the Public Trust Doctrine,

protect the wolves with the public trust doctrine

By the Masked Biologist
Special to the Star Journal

The founding fathers traveled to the colonies primarily from Europe, especially England. At that time, British wildlife was considered the property of the landowner, and land ownership was limited to gentry, nobility, and monarchs. Wildlife in the colonies was likely treated as an endless commodity, along with timber and other natural resources. When the colonies became the United States of America, wildlife was not considered in the development of the constitution or its amendments.

As the boundary of the nation expanded westward, the need to explore new country was coupled with the opportunity to learn about this continent’s plants and animals. The Lewis and Clark expedition left from St. Louis in 1803, headed west using rivers and waterways in an attempt to find a trade route to the Pacific coast. They returned in 1806, successful in their mission. They hauled journals, sketches, live animals and animal skins and mounts halfway across the continent to meet the expedition’s mandates placed by President Jefferson. This was an era of exploration and manifest destiny—man was conquering the wilderness and discovering what wildlife inhabited it for his use.

This nation’s wildlife was exploited throughout the 1800s. Buffalo were slaughtered, skinned, and left to rot. Migratory birds, such as ducks and passenger pigeons, were shot in large masses and shipped by the barrelful on rail back to the east coast to feed people and hogs. Animals we now refer to as big game, such as wild turkey and deer, were treated as the property of the landowner, and often squandered. Any animal that was thought to have even a hint of a negative impact on humans or livestock were shot for a government bounty, including wolves, bobcats, and coyotes.

At the same time, a kind of upper class had developed, and many had a desire to make hunting a sport and treat animals with care and restraint. A Supreme Court decision on a case in 1842 became a foundation for the Public Trust Doctrine, which stated that this country’s wildlife resources are owned by no one, they are to be held in trust by government for present and future generations. Canadian officials saw this wildlife conservation ethic develop, and the ensuing treaties and cooperative efforts gave birth to the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation.

The North American Model considered wildlife an international resource and eliminated markets for game, calling for the allocation of wildlife by law (such as licenses, closed seasons and legal forms of take). It further stated that wildlife is a public trust resource, and should only be killed for a legitimate purpose. For the first time, biological science is called to task when the model stated that science is the proper tool to carry out wildlife policy. Over decades, the model was further refined and put into practice. President Theodore Roosevelt’s presidency, 100 years after the Lewis and Clark expedition, was when significant wildlife policy implementation began.

Decades later, during Franklin Roosevelt’s administration, the 1937 Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act (or Pittman-Robertson Act) was passed. In an era where the country was struggling mid-recovery from the Great Depression, the Aid in Restoration Act was a self-imposed federal tax on sportsmen who purchased hunting equipment. Wisconsin has received almost $200 million from this act for wildlife habitat development, land acquisition, wildlife health, research, hunter education, restoration of wild turkey, fisher, gray wolf and trumpeter swans. The North American Model of Wildlife Conservation has been heralded as the world’s most successful policy and law system developed to benefit wildlife and their habitats, with an emphasis on sound science—and it has withstood the test of time.

The Masked Biologist earned a Bachelor of Science degree from a university with a highly regarded wildlife biology program. His work in natural resource agencies across the country provided opportunities to gain experience with a variety of common and rare fish, plant and wildlife species. Follow The Masked Biologist on Facebook. Email questions to [email protected]

Source: Test of time: How today’s wildlife conservation efforts began and survived | Star Journal

Protect The Wolves

Facebook By Weblizar Powered By Weblizar


%d bloggers like this: