Montana rep wants wolves off endangered species list

[drl2]

Proposed Bill Would Allow Nationwide Elimination of Wolves

In what wildlife conservationists are calling a dangerously unprecedented move, Montana Representative Denny Rehberg introduced two separate bills aimed at removing wolves from the endangered species list. This would enable the wolves to be hunted at will across the country -- and biologists say that it could "set the stage for nationwide wolf eradication."

The Defenders of Wildlife noted that "Together, these bills would allow states to eliminate all wolves in the Northern Rockies, Great Lakes and Southwest, including the 42 Mexican wolves struggling for survival in New Mexico and Arizona." As you're likely aware, there are plenty of farmers, ranchers, and landowners across the Midwest who -- for good reason -- wouldn't hesitate to hunt down or kill the remaining wolves that threaten their livestock and livelihoods. But we're talking about the possible eradication of a species here -- surely these bills are dangerous in their overreach.

Speaking of dangerous prospects, if passed, these bills would indeed set a frightening precedent. It would mark the first time a single species was exempted from the Endangered Species Act -- perhaps paving the way for other severely threatened species to be pulled from the endangered species list as well. And that's a slippery slope nobody wants to inch towards.

Are so few wolves left in the wild really doing that much damage, that some people feel they need to be eradicated?

[Gawdzilla Sama]

The purpose of the Endangered Species Act is to get animals off the Endangered Species List. Delisting returns control of the animal to the state government, something the Endangered Wolf Center supports. The wolves will be monitored, and if they get in trouble they will be relisted. This is what happened in Minnesota a few years ago.

So, it's sound like a step backward, but it's actually progress.

[Warren Dew]

Apparently the wolf comeback over the past decade has been so successful that they are indeed a threat to some ranches:

http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/transl ... endangered

It certainly seems to me that wolves could be moved back from endangered to threatened, and I believe they already have been in some areas. It does not seem like the whole species is in imminent risk of extinction any more.

There's already a process for that, though, so I'm not sure what the new legislative proposals actually do.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Apparently the wolf comeback over the past decade has been so successful that they are indeed a threat to some ranches:

http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/transl ... endangered

It certainly seems to me that wolves could be moved back from endangered to threatened, and I believe they already have been in some areas. It does not seem like the whole species is in imminent risk of extinction any more.

There's already a process for that, though, so I'm not sure what the new legislative proposals actually do.

Canus lupus lycoans is making a good recovery, but issues still remain. The wolves are expanding out of Yellowstone, following the river valleys to the northwest, using riparian routes to get past human settlement and into wilder territory. However, the best territory is also the summer grazing for a lot of ranchers. As the elk that are the wolves main prey migrates north in the summer they can see the cattle as available. To combat this ranchers have taken to hiring "ride-alongs", humans who simply hangout with the herds in the summer. Various groups are subsidizing this to determine if it is a workable way to keep the wolves interested in more traditional fare.

[Seth]

Apparently the wolf comeback over the past decade has been so successful that they are indeed a threat to some ranches:

http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/transl ... endangered

It certainly seems to me that wolves could be moved back from endangered to threatened, and I believe they already have been in some areas. It does not seem like the whole species is in imminent risk of extinction any more.

There's already a process for that, though, so I'm not sure what the new legislative proposals actually do.

Canus lupus lycoans is making a good recovery, but issues still remain. The wolves are expanding out of Yellowstone, following the river valleys to the northwest, using riparian routes to get past human settlement and into wilder territory. However, the best territory is also the summer grazing for a lot of ranchers. As the elk that are the wolves main prey migrates north in the summer they can see the cattle as available. To combat this ranchers have taken to hiring "ride-alongs", humans who simply hangout with the herds in the summer. Various groups are subsidizing this to determine if it is a workable way to keep the wolves interested in more traditional fare.

There's really three issues at play here: First is the issue of public-lands ranching. Ranchers who run cattle on public lands have problems with wolves because they are not allowed to kill wolves that are predating on their livestock. They have to call the US F&WS and have an "investigation" to see if a kill was wolf-caused, then the USFWS is supposed to track down and kill the offending wolf. Problem is the USFWS either doesn't respond in a timely manner or most often won't provide a "determination" of a wolf kill, even when the evidence is obvious, and then they will slow-boat the removal order/hunt. Ranchers can only kill wolves if they ACTUALLY SEE a wolf attacking livestock. But even if they do, and they shoot a wolf, they are subject to being second-guessed by the USFWS and they face felony charges if the feds decide it was an "unjustified take."

So, some ranchers use the "Three S" procedure: Shoot, Shovel, and Shut Up." Most failures of this procedure come from violation of the third "S."

Now, I think the USFWS is far too obstructive and uncooperative in doing it's legally-mandated job of removing wolves that predate on livestock, but at the same time it is my position that if you ranch on public lands, you are subject to public lands management requirements. If you don't like the rules, go ranch somewhere else, because you don't own the land.

The second problem is more egregious however, and that's private lands. The ESA unconstitutionally infringes on private property rights by effectively seizing private property for public use without just compensation through regulatory taking. In my opinion, if the government wants to use someone's property to conserve an endangered species, they can either buy the property or at least lease it from the owner.

Private property owners should have the right to shoot any wolves they see on their property. If the USFWS wants them not to, they need to both offer full and unquestioning compensation for livestock damage, and they need to pay rent for using that property for wolf conservation...or Preble's mouse conservation...or Bald Eagle consevation, or any other endangered species conservation.