Skip to comments.Wyo will file wolf lawsuit Tuesday ( against the Feds )
Posted on 05/30/2009 6:02:38 AM PDT by george76
The Wyoming Attorney General said Friday will file a lawsuit next Tuesday to challenge the recent U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's ruling that rejected the state's wolf management plan.
"The Endangered Species Act requires listing and delisting decisions to be based on science," Bruce Salzburg told the Wyoming Farm Bureau Federation at a symposium about the law in Casper.
But the Fish and Wildlife Service, a division of the U.S. Department of Interior, decided in early March to leave the gray wolf in Wyoming on the endangered species list for political and public relations reasons...
The Fish and Wildlife Service, however, delisted wolves in Montana and Idaho.
The federal government requires each of the three states to maintain 15 breeding pairs and 150 wolves.
But it requires Wyoming to manage at least seven breeding pairs and 70 wolves outside the national parks, Salzburg said.
Because Yellowstone National Park has averaged nearly 11 breeding pairs, that brings Wyoming's requirement to 18 pairs, he said. "Maybe the Fish and Wildlife Service believes Wyoming needs a good spanking."
So in light of the apparent success wolves in the greater Yellowstone area, Salzburg wants to pose a question to the federal government: "Is the trophy game area sufficient for habitat and for prey here to maintain Wyoming's share of sustainability?"
If so, why should wolves be protected elsewhere...
Cheyenne lawyer Harriet Hageman...The federal government, through the activism of radical environmental groups, brought them from Canada ultimately to end grazing on federal lands...
"There was no intent from the beginning to confine them to Yellowstone National Park."
(Excerpt) Read more at casperstartribune.net ...
no intent from the beginning to confine them to Yellowstone National Park
The entire EPA is based on politics, not science. Read their home page. They describe their “founder” as Rachel Carson. The known liar of Silent Spring.
The wolf FedGov introduced is nearly twice the size of the local gray wolf that had been removed. Effectively, the ESA is being used to introduce an exotic species. This wolf completely outsizes the local elk, and is rapidly depleting an aging elk herd because they prefer pregnant females and yearling calves. This is exactly what is happening in Canada to the caribou. As long as there are cattle and sheep, the wolf population will have a source of food with which to take the elk population to zero. "Endangered elk" would be a bonanza for the bureaucrats.
The real goal here is to get rid of resource industry so that western states can be dominated by an urban/bureaucrat/retiree vote and "investors" in South American cattle production (Soros, Rockefeller, etc.) can turn a buck.
Therein lies the problem. If wolves had been reintroduced into National and State Parks and protected on those lands while leaving the states to control their populations on federal and state lands elsewhere we wouldn't be having this fiasco.
The states could have hunting seasons for wolves on State, Forest Service and BLM lands managing them by maintaining a minimum number while giving land owners permission to shoot any wolf on sight that is on private property.
It wouldn't take long for wolves to realize where they're safe and where they're not. I think this would all but end livestock predation and greatly cut down on wolves decimation of game animals.
I believe Wyoming has a good case against the feds and hopefully they'll succeed.
That is the sentence that caught my eye. See, I don't think I knew that was the reason for reintroducing wolves, and now I know that it was a stupid reason because I have read your book. Going to do some reading tonight.