Defenders Of Wildlife et al Attempting To Stall Wolf Delisting Process

Defenders of Wildlife, along with at least 14 other wolf preservation, animal rights and environmental groups, have submitted a letter to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service requesting that the comment period set forth in the latest attempt by USFWS to delist the gray wolf, be extended to 90 days from 30. (Click here for a complete copy of the letter.)

In the letter, Defenders, et al, are requesting an extension of 60 days because they say the USFWS has not made it clear how they propose to address the two recent court rulings that returned the gray wolf to federal protection in the Northern Rockies and Western Great Lakes. They also claim new scientific evidence “further calls into question the underlying biological basis for the northern Rockies proposal”. They fail to specifically point out what that new evidence is.

When Judge Donald Molloy waved his magic legal wand back in July 2008 that returned the wolf to federal protection, he declared that the Wyoming wolf management plan was inadequate to ensure the sustainability of the wolf in that state. He also said that there was no evidence that the wolves were interbreeding between sub-populations. He called it genetic connectivity.

Defenders is claiming that the wolf issue is too complex to be able to adequately comment in just 30 days and that the USFWS is not making it clear how they intend to proceed with their new proposal to delist the wolf. Actually, I think it is quite clear how they intend to address the issue. The question is, are they adequately prepared to aggressively deal with the issues and convince the court? Do they even intend to?

The letter submitted to USFWS lists out the specific issues the Service wants people to comment on.

(1) Whether it is appropriate or necessary to revise our recovery goal (described below) to clarify that the genetic exchange called for can be satisfied through either natural migration or
managed genetic exchange.
(2) What additional management, protections, and regulatory mechanisms may be needed to facilitate genetic exchange (including both natural migration and managed genetic exchange) including the actions outlined in the draft memorandum of understanding regarding the protection of genetic diversity of NRM gray wolves (available online at: http://westerngraywolf.fws.gov).
(3) What portions of Wyoming need to be managed as a trophy game area, how Wyoming should manage wolves in the trophy game area, and the significance of all portions of the range in the State of Wyoming in maintaining the viability of the NRM DPS.
(4) The adequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms in Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming, including whether Wyoming’s regulatory mechanisms do or should manage for 15 breeding pairs and 150 wolves in mid-winter and if Wyoming’s malleable trophy game area affects its ability to manage for such numbers of wolves.
(5) If we determine that Wyoming’s State law and State wolf management plan do not constitute adequate regulatory mechanisms, the area in northwestern Wyoming that is a significant portion of the range of the NRM DPS that should retain its nonessential experimental population status under section 10(j) of the Act, even if we determine the rest of the DPS should be delisted.
(6) How Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming’s management of take associated with their defense of property laws and hunting regulations affects each State’s commitment and ability to manage for 15 breeding pairs and 150 wolves in mid-winter.
(7) Whether and under what authority the Service may identify and designate a DPS within a broader pre-existing listing and determine that this DPS should be removed from the endangered species list.

In knowing the ruling by both judges Molloy (Northern Rockies) and Friedman (Western Great Lakes), along with an examination of the 7 issues the USFWS is seeking comment on, it doesn’t require an expert to understand how the feds intend to address delisting, although they are not specific. They intend to resolve the “genetic connectivity” issue – how is anyone’s guess – and deal with Wyoming’s wolf management plan. It appears to me that if Wyoming doesn’t change their plan to one that will resemble those of Idaho’s and Montana’s, they will be excluded from the delisting.

There really isn’t much need to extend the comment period. What more can be said? We know what the Service said and did before and we know what the courts have ruled. The court was quite specific, whether we agreed with it or not, on what needed addressing.

The stall tactic is one that Defenders hopes will accomplish at least a couple of things. One, is to drag this process out as long as possible. From the very beginning, when the feds announced their intent to delist the wolf, everyone said this would be tied up in the courts for at least 10 years, giving the wolf a chance to further breed and spread its range.

The second desire to stall is to allow the Obama administration time to take over and gut the Department of Interior and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, hoping that their job will become easier in gaining unlimited protection for the wolf. In the letter, Defenders backdoors this by claiming the feds are trying to rush the delisting through before the end of the Bush administration.

The Service instead appears to be rushing through this delisting process in order to adopt a severely flawed plan before the end of the Bush administration.

Defenders could have shown more honesty and said they wanted to stall the proposal until Obama took office – one side pushing, the other stalling.

It is my opinion that both scenarios are true – USFWS rushing for delisting and Defenders, et al, stalling in wait of Obama. Either way, I hold out little hope that delisting will occur. In the last round in court, I don’t believe the USFWS was at all prepared for a court battle. I can only assume they knew the fight was lost before they went to court and had no intentions of taking the fight to an appeals court and beyond if necessary. Perhaps they were only interested in gaining an understanding of what the court wanted. The other scenario is a fully corrupt USFWS, which isn’t too far fetched and would be a representation of the rest of Washington.

It would seem the best way to deal with Wyoming is to remove them from the Distinct Population Segment. However, we haven’t a clue as to how Judge Friedman’s ruling that said the USFWS can’t make up a Distinct Population Segment, will bear in this case. From his ruling, we now don’t know if the feds declaration of a Distinct Population Segment in the Northern Rockies was legal. And, whether it would be legal to exclude Wyoming from the DPS, effectively once again, creating another DPS.

Addressing the “genetic connectivity” is a different story. USFWS had no evidence to prove or disprove connectivity and Judge Molloy relied on a faulty study to base his judgment on. In this short a time, there is no way the feds could have done any studies to prove connectivity exists, so they are left with only trying to please the court that they will institute some kind of man-made, manipulated programs to attempt this genetic connectivity. I have my doubts, especially from a court that seems bent on keeping the wolf protected.

We can only guess what will happen to the DOI and the USFWS in the new Obama administration. Already there is talk of naming Robert Kennedy Jr. as the new Interior Secretary, a known radical environmentalist.

Tom Remington