Court Rules Against Wolf Delisting in Great Lakes

Looks like a federal judge is keeping wolves on the endangered species list in the Upper Great Lakes States. Pretty sad when wildlife management comes down to the whims of a federal judge. There is pretty widespread agreement in the wildlife management community that this species is recovered, some of the best wolf biologists in the world like David Mech and Adrian Wydeven certainly agree. Yet another instance of politics disrupting wildlife management.

http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/344749-court-rules-against-gray-wolf-endangered-species-act-delisting

On a side rant, I have to say I am sick and tired of the childish, immature response by some in the hunting community on social media regarding this issue. Yes, I agree wolves are recovered. Yes, I agree we need a hunting season. Yes, they are a major pain in the arse for some in the farming community. However, all the whining and crying about wolves killing all the deer is simply not true, and this is from someone who lives and spends all his time in Wisconsin's wolf country. Below are some comments from a popular Wisconsin hunting social media page. The only purpose these comments serve is that of shooting holes in the boat of hunters and hurting our reputation as outstanding conservationists.

"It's simple, just gut shoot them whenever you see them, squirrel hunting with a. 22mag coyote hunting with centerfire bow hunting no matter what let the air out of them, do your part to save your deer,livestock and pets."

" I guess we'll just keep shooting the anyway! I don't know a single hunter who will let one walk! Think the state of Wisconsin needs to pay us back some money!"

"Who gives a shit what they rule? It's pretty damn simple. Shoot the bastards and keep your mouth shut about it."

I'm not surprised by the ruling or the comments. I. Have family up that way so I know the attitude. It is sad that They can't get a season though. We have some really poor management due to political influence as well so I feel your pain.

I need to read the link, but in the past, the big hangup was the state's management plan that The Courts didn't agree with. Not sure why they can't plagiarize Montana/Idaho and get something done.

The comments are rather unfortunate. The "smoke a pack a day" mantra is quite tiresome strung on by the same roundheads that forget that wildlife management doesn't just happen by accident

That's too bad. Who appointed the judge?

nick87 said:

I'm not surprised by the ruling or the comments. I. Have family up that way so I know the attitude. It is sad that They can't get a season though. We have some really poor management due to political influence as well so I feel your pain.

Click to expand...

I know a lot of guys that hunt up there. That attitude is how they feel about deer hunting. "If it's brown it's down"...i get wanting meat in the freezer. But we don't need to slaughter the piss out of them.

BigHornRam said:

That's too bad. Who appointed the judge?

Click to expand...

Appeals court so several members.

Question to Northwoods. Is the state fighting this battle or do you have national conservation and sportsman groups offering support? Allowing states to manage wildlife is a national issue which should allow collaboration to fight the fight where needed.

dukes_daddy said:

Appeals court so several members.

Question to Northwoods. Is the state fighting this battle or do you have national conservation and sportsman groups offering support? Allowing states to manage wildlife is a national issue which should allow collaboration to fight the fight where needed.

Click to expand...

The state is fighting this issue, as well as a couple reps within the region. Not sure about other conservation groups, but our state seems to get in such disarray nowadays that there is never a single, pointed and directed message or goal... Only "Delist the Wolves"

beagle001 said:

The state is fighting this issue, as well as a couple reps within the region. Not sure about other conservation groups, but our state seems to get in such disarray nowadays that there is never a single, pointed and directed message or goal... Only "Delist the Wolves"

Click to expand...

Yea I agree. There are a number of groups I would say that support "delisting", like the Wisconsin Wildlife Federation. Unfortunately we are taking so much crap from the state legislature right now that a lot of the active groups are busy fighting those battles. There is a bill at the federal level to delist wolves in the Upper Great Lakes and Wyoming that would not allow the courts to put them back on the list, similar to what happened in Montana and Idaho. With that rate that our Congress moves, however, that could be a while

A good bit of color from Rich Landers. I can't stand the rhetoric from fellow hunters, it makes me cringe. It offers nothing positive to the fight or our image. There are people out there dedicating their time and money to help the cause and you have folks shooting holes in the boat.

http://www.spokesman.com/blogs/outd...y-prevail-great-lakes-endangered-wolf-ruling/

An appeals court upheld today a lower court decision that vacated a 2011 rule lifting federal protections from wolves in the Great Lakes region.

At issue in the case: Can the federal government carve out an endangered population of wolves in order to remove protections?

While the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit concluded that the Fish and Wildlife Service has that authority, it found "major shortcomings" in the agency's analysis backing the Great Lakes delisting rule.

The "fatal" flaw, the court said, was that FWS failed to consider the impacts of delisting the wolves on other populations that remain under federal protection.

"We hold that the Act permits such a designation, but only when the Service first makes the proper findings," Judge Patricia Millett, an Obama appointee, wrote in the court's 54-page opinion.

FWS has classified wolves into different populations under the Endangered Species Act starting in 1978, when the agency listed wolves in Minnesota as threatened and separate from other wolves in the country.

Today's decision is the latest in a string of court losses for FWS in its attempts to delist western Great Lakes wolves, which have expanded both in number and territory since the 1978 listing.

The service's 2003 rule dividing the Lower 48 states into three distinct population segments was vacated by two courts. A federal court also vacated a 2007 rule recognizing a much smaller western Great Lakes population. A 2009 rule was vacated as a result of a settlement.

In dispute in the current lawsuit was the agency's 2011 rule that established the boundary of a new distinct population of wolves in all of Michigan, Minnesota and Wisconsin and parts of Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, North Dakota, South Dakota and Ohio.

Along with defining the boundary, the rule removed protections from the population.

Led by the Humane Society of the United States, environmentalists challenged the rule, arguing that FWS couldn't designate a population segment under the Endangered Species Act just to turn around and remove protections. They also charged that FWS couldn't show that wolves would be adequately protected from disease and human harm across a "significant portion" of their range without federal protections.

In 2014, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia agreed with the environmentalists, finding that the service's delisting rule "directly conflicts with the structure of the ESA."

The government appealed to the D.C. Circuit, arguing in front of appeals judges that the law clearly allowed FWS to designate and delist a segment of a population that is part of a broader species.

In today's opinion, Millett wrote that while the Endangered Species Act "quite plainly allows" the government to revise the status of a listed species, it's "murkier" about whether FWS can carve out populations for the purpose of removing protections.

Because the law isn't clear about the issue, the case turned on the legal doctrine known as Chevron deference. The doctrine says that when a statute is silent or ambiguous on a topic, courts defer to reasonable agency interpretations.

FWS "permissibly" concluded that the Endangered Species Act allows it to identify a population segment within an already-listed species and change its conservation status, Millett wrote.

She noted that the service's position was "consonant" with the purposes of the Endangered Species Act, which is to devote resources to the protection of endangered and threatened species and to remove protections when they're no longer needed.

But, Millett wrote, "holding that the Service has the legal authority to identify a distinct population segment from within an already-listed species does not mean it did so properly here. In fact, it did not."

The agency's "fatal" and "fundamental" error, according to the court opinion, was not addressing the impacts that removing federal protections for Great Lakes wolves would have on the status of wolves that remain in protective status.

FWS looked at western Great Lakes wolves "in a vacuum," Millett wrote.

"The statute requires a comprehensive review of the entire listed species and its continuing status," the opinion says. "Having started the process, the Service cannot call it quits upon finding a single distinct population segment."

The court also found that the agency wrongly omitted all consideration of the wolf's historical range from its analysis backing the delisting rule. FWS looked only at the threat confronting the survival of the wolf in the current moment in time.

"Despite immense losses in the gray wolves' historical range — including the historical range of those wolves now occupying the Western Great Lakes area — the Service nowhere analyzed the impact of that loss," Millett wrote.

At the very least, the service has to define the physical boundaries of where the species historically existed and establish a time frame for measuring a species' historical range, the opinion says.

The court rejected other arguments by environmentalists that FWS didn't adequately assess human threats and state regulations and that its delisting decision was driven by politics rather than science.

Judge Nina Pillard, another Obama appointee, and Judge Thomas Griffith, a George W. Bush appointee, heard the case with Millett.

A different panel of the D.C. Circuit earlier this year upheld FWS's 2012 decision to remove gray wolves in Wyoming from the endangered species list. The court ruled that FWS had reasonably found that the state had adequate plans to ensure a healthy population.

That case centered on different legal issues, namely whether Wyoming was required to ensure a buffer above a minimum population level.

In the meanwhile, right or wrong I would bet the Wolves in some area are losing out because of this. In Clark County I have spoken with a few houndsmen who are frustrated and have taken the matter into their own hands. My guess is a couple packs have been pretty much downsized and I don't think they are BS'ing because there has been a lot less complaints of wolf issues the last couple years. It is what it is....

Thanks for the EE news MtMiller. Here's Sportsmen's Alliance who was a co litigator if that's what you call them?. They put a more positive spin (for them) on it.

http://www.sportsmensalliance.org/news/court-sides-sportsmen-key-issue-leaves-wolves-protected-now/

schmalts said:

In the meanwhile, right or wrong I would bet the Wolves in some area are losing out because of this. In Clark County I have spoken with a few houndsmen who are frustrated and have taken the matter into their own hands. My guess is a couple packs have been pretty much downsized and I don't think they are BS'ing because there has been a lot less complaints of wolf issues the last couple years. It is what it is....

Click to expand...

Maybe......I live right in the thick of wolf country, and most of the guys claiming they are gut shooting wolves spend more time in a bar than in the woods. Also, some of these hound guys are going to shoot wolves no matter what. I will still fully support hound hunting, but my faith and respect in that batch of hunters to follow any rules or regulations has completely gone out the window (and this ain't coming from some liberal living in D.C.) As far as "it is what it is", I guess I have a higher standard for people who hunt. Shooting a listed species is not good for the overall image of hunting. Bragging about taking matters into one's own hands in terms of wildlife management is not good for the future of hunting. Bragging about gut shooting animals is not good for the future of hunting. If these comments on social media made it out to the general public of Wisconsin, how do you think they would view us as hunters?

Clark County, by the way, is a fringe area for wolves. They could have been shot, or just moved out of the area

NWL. You're afraid to offend anti-hunters? They will always be anti-hunting no matter how you phrase things. Like saying harvesting animals instead of killing them. JMO.

Northwoods Labs said:

Maybe......I live right in the thick of wolf country, and most of the guys claiming they are gut shooting wolves spend more time in a bar than in the woods.

Click to expand...

This/\ /\

Here in Montana before the delisting there were plenty of claims by guys SSS'ing lots of wolves and bragging how easy it was. Funny thing, the same guys, now that it legal have not shot any.


Most guys bragging SSS seem to have trouble with that third S.

shootbrownelk said:

NWL. You're afraid to offend anti-hunters? They will always be anti-hunting no matter how you phrase things. Like saying harvesting animals instead of killing them. JMO.

Click to expand...

I am not "afraid" of anti-hunters. My concern lies with the 95% of people who really do not care about hunting one way or the other. Overall most people support hunting, but it is not a real important issue to them. However, you start getting a bunch of big-mouths bragging about gut shooting a listed species and suddenly some of those people in the middle start moving over to the anti-hunting side.

Lots of things about this don't make much sense.

In fewer square miles the Upper Greats lakes has over twice as many wolves as the Northern Rocky Mountains and a higher density of wolves per square mile than Alaska according to the Fish and Wildlife Service.

I think a a big part of the problem is a bigger portion of our populations have little to no relationship with nature and what wolves on the ground really means. The vast majority of the population is Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin live in the southern portions of the states in metropolitan areas and just love the idea of wolves. I think this makes this population of wolves a much more juicy target for litigation.

tjones said:

This/\ /\

Here in Montana before the delisting there were plenty of claims by guys SSS'ing lots of wolves and bragging how easy it was. Funny thing, the same guys, now that it legal have not shot any.


Most guys bragging SSS seem to have trouble with that third S.

Click to expand...

They also have trouble doing the first two.

Bold talk with no action = internet hero.

On the decision, it's helpful for all species under the ESA and will be a benchmark decision in the future as the antis try to consistently fight delisting in court because X species isn't present in 100% of it's former habitat. Common sense needs to prevail, and the courts just gave conservationists a better, clearer path on how to delist.

Having said that, it's time to get beyond the litigaton on wolves, and let states manage a recovered species. There are still measures in congress that are supported across the spectrum of sportsmen's groups. They closely mirror what we did in MT & ID and they preserve the ESA. I never thought I would advocate for a congressional delisting again, but I think we're there w/ the Great Lakes population.

MinnesotaHunter said:

Lots of things about this don't make much sense.

In fewer square miles the Upper Greats lakes has over twice as many wolves as the Northern Rocky Mountains and a higher density of wolves per square mile than Alaska according to the Fish and Wildlife Service.

I think a a big part of the problem is a bigger portion of our populations have little to no relationship with nature and what wolves on the ground really means. The vast majority of the population is Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin live in the southern portions of the states in metropolitan areas and just love the idea of wolves. I think this makes this population of wolves a much more juicy target for litigation.

Click to expand...

Spot on. Well said.

Northwoods Labs said:

Looks like a federal judge is keeping wolves on the endangered species list in the Upper Great Lakes States. Pretty sad when wildlife management comes down to the whims of a federal judge. There is pretty widespread agreement in the wildlife management community that this species is recovered, some of the best wolf biologists in the world like David Mech and Adrian Wydeven certainly agree. Yet another instance of politics disrupting wildlife management.

http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/344749-court-rules-against-gray-wolf-endangered-species-act-delisting

On a side rant, I have to say I am sick and tired of the childish, immature response by some in the hunting community on social media regarding this issue. Yes, I agree wolves are recovered. Yes, I agree we need a hunting season. Yes, they are a major pain in the arse for some in the farming community. However, all the whining and crying about wolves killing all the deer is simply not true, and this is from someone who lives and spends all his time in Wisconsin's wolf country. Below are some comments from a popular Wisconsin hunting social media page. The only purpose these comments serve is that of shooting holes in the boat of hunters and hurting our reputation as outstanding conservationists.

"It's simple, just gut shoot them whenever you see them, squirrel hunting with a. 22mag coyote hunting with centerfire bow hunting no matter what let the air out of them, do your part to save your deer,livestock and pets."

" I guess we'll just keep shooting the anyway! I don't know a single hunter who will let one walk! Think the state of Wisconsin needs to pay us back some money!"

"Who gives a shit what they rule? It's pretty damn simple. Shoot the bastards and keep your mouth shut about it."

Click to expand...

This is why people need to keep these comments to themselves. It does nothing but hinder the result they want in the first place