A federal judge ruled Tuesday that the Bush administration violated the Endangered Species Act when it relaxed protections on many of the nation's gray wolves.



The decision by U.S. District Judge Robert E. Jones in Portland rescinds a rule change that allowed ranchers to shoot wolves on sight if they were attacking livestock, said Michael Robinson of the Center for Biological Diversity, an environmental group.


In April 2003, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service divided the wolves' range into three areas and reclassified the Eastern and Western populations as threatened instead of endangered. The Eastern segment covers the area from the Dakotas east to Maine, while the Western segment extends west from the Dakotas. The agency left wolves in the Southwest classified as endangered.


But the judge ruled that the government acted improperly by combining areas where wolves were doing well, such as Montana, with places where their numbers had not recovered.


"Interior Secretary Gale Norton tried to gerrymander the entire contiguous 48 states so that wolves in a few areas would make up for the absence of wolves in much larger regions," Robinson said. "Now, instead of drawing lines on the map based on political considerations, any future lines must be based on science."


The judge also found that Fish and Wildlife did not consider certain factors listed in the Endangered Species Act in evaluating the wolf's status, including threats from disease, predators or other natural or manmade dangers.


Fish and Wildlife expressed disappointment in the ruling.


"We believe our rule provided for biologically sound management of the core population of wolves in areas where we knew they could thrive as stable viable populations," the agency said in a statement. "We also believe the rule was correct as a matter of law under the Endangered Species Act."


Mike Senatore, vice president of Defenders of Wildlife, said the ruling would make it more difficult for the Bush administration to reduce or eliminate Endangered Species Act protection for other species.


Practically speaking, only wolves in northwestern Montana were affected by the rule change that allowed ranchers to shoot wolves on sight, said Ed Bangs, wolf recovery coordinator for the Fish and Wildlife Service. The rule never extended to experimental populations in Yellowstone National Park, Wyoming, Idaho and the rest of Montana, and no packs have been established in other states in the region, Bangs said.


"We haven't had a wolf killed by a private citizen defending private property since the new rule went into effect," Bangs said.


By the 1970s, wolves had been virtually wiped out in the Lower 48 states to protect livestock.


Gray wolves were reintroduced in and around Yellowstone in 1995 and 1996, and federal wildlife officials have declared their recovery a success. Officials estimate there are now more than 800 wolves in Montana, Idaho and Wyoming, including Yellowstone National Park.


In the Eastern sector, there are an estimated 3,200 wolves in Minnesota, Wisconsin and Michigan.


A small number of Mexican gray wolves were reintroduced in the Southwest in 1998.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ivan:

Practically speaking, only wolves in northwestern Montana were affected by the rule change that allowed ranchers to shoot wolves on sight, said Ed Bangs, wolf recovery coordinator for the Fish and Wildlife Service. The rule never extended to experimental populations in Yellowstone National Park, Wyoming, Idaho and the rest of Montana, and no packs have been established in other states in the region, Bangs said.

.

---

I guess I'm a bit confused by the above part of your post. Here is how it reads on the link provided below: (seems like they mean two different things.


"The court order rescinds federal rules that allow ranchers to shoot wolves on sight if they are attacking livestock, said Michael Robinson of the Center for Biological Diversity, one of the 19 environmental groups that filed the lawsuit.

In practice, the ruling only affects wolves established in northwestern Montana, not the experimental populations established in Yellowstone National Park, Wyoming, Idaho and the rest of Montana, said Ed Bangs, wolf recovery coordinator for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. "


http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/news/archive/2005/02/01/state1337EST7033.DTL&type=golf

I'm not sure what your confusion is... they both read the same way.

The way I take it is that someone is going to have to draw a line to distinguish between the "native" and "experimental" areas. Then what will stop the huggers from extending that line south, and saying that the one or how many ever they decide "native" wolves are there doesn't meet the ESA requirements, so they are all protected.

This is going to cuase more greif in months to come.

Someone has drawn the line! The "line" is Interstate 90 (runs west and east in central Montana)! Wolves above (north of) that freeway are not part of the reintroduced horde! The other part of "the line" is Interstate 15 (runs north and south in mid western Montana)! Wolves west of that line are considered one thing and Wolves east of it are another. I forget the rest of the particulars (governmental gooble-de-gook!) I got a copy of the map and the regulations about 12 days ago at a Fish & Game public meeting. I would gladly send either of you a copy of the new map but I wiped my ass with it and through it away!
I am certain any interested party can obtain another copy from the Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks.
If this latest ruling by the judge stands then Big Game Hunters EVERYWHERE (not just Montana, Idaho and Wyoming!) and the industries and businesses that depend on them had better find some other way to enjoy themselves!
The Wolves will decimate the game herds because the domestic animal growers (ranchers) won't put up with the carnage!
Thanks for nothing rmef!
Hold into the wind
VarmintGuy

All I can say is they're on my "List". Nuff said...

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ivan:
I'm not sure what your confusion is... they both read the same way.

.

---

Ivan,
I read your post (I don't know where it was published) as saying the affected populations could be all the western ones and maybe even the "eastern" ones like Mn etc. I read the article that I referenced as saying: "In practice, the ruling only affects wolves established in northwestern Montana". Thus, my confusion. I guess I'll just wait to get an explanation from a lawyer or something. The affected parties will sort it out, eventually.

I kinda wanted to take my new truck on a little huntin', I mean stock protecting trip. Its only about 20 hours away.