Federal Judge Asked to Lift Federal Protections on Wolves!
3/28/2011
MISSOULA, Mont. (AP) — Ten conservation groups and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service asked a federal judge Thursday to approve their plan to lift endangered species protections for wolves in Montana and Idaho, effectively reversing his previous rulings on the matter.
But four other conservation groups who splintered from the plaintiffs told U.S. District Judge Donald Molloy the proposed settlement is driven by politics, not science, and will hurt the species before it has fully recovered.
"If the settlement agreement is entered, one thing is clear: hundreds of wolves will die,'' said Jay Tutchton, attorney for two of the groups.
Molloy said he would rule soon on whether to recommend the proposed deal to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which has jurisdiction over the case since Molloy ruled for the plaintiffs last August and the federal government appealed.
If he does recommend it, or says it raises serious questions, the appellate court would then remand the case back to Molloy and he would make a final ruling.
Molloy rejected arguments last summer to remove federal protections in Montana and Idaho but allow them to remain in Wyoming, which has a wolf management plan considered hostile to survival of the species.
Molloy ruled then that decisions on the Endangered Species Act should be based on science and not on political boundaries, such as state lines.
The proposed deal asks Molloy to stay his ruling. It also provides assurances that wolves will not be hunted to extinction and requires the Department of Interior to review the animal's status within four years of the deal's enactment.
Department of Justice attorney Mike Eietel called the deal "a path that allows the parties to work cooperatively and outside of litigation.''
Michael Senatore, the attorney representing the 10 conservation groups who want to settle, said the deal will allow the issue to move forward and reduce the conflict and public rancor that has surrounded it. The conditions of the settlement also would provide for a new body of science on which governments can base their wolf management policies, he said.
But Tutchton called the conservation groups' willingness to settle a "dramatic flip-flop'' when nothing has changed since Molloy ruled in their favor last year. Instead, he argued, those who want to settle are trying to avoid the possibility of Congress passing a law that would take wolves off the endangered species list not just in Montana and Idaho, but in adjacent states and possibly nationwide.
The deal would put into place a system that Molloy has already ruled illegal, Tutchton said.
Senatore said portrayals of the settlement as politically motivated are unfair and that provisions in the settlement for monitoring the species and to conduct an independent review will go a long way to satisfy doubts over the information the Fish and Wildlife Service previously used to delist the wolves.
Montana and Idaho would take over management of wolves within their borders under the agreement, allowing the states to reinstitute hunts that were halted after one season.
Montana officials have endorsed the settlement while Idaho Gov. C.L. "Butch'' Otter has decided against taking a formal stance.
There are now more than 1,650 wolves in Idaho, Montana, Wyoming and parts of Oregon and Washington state since they were reintroduced to the Northern Rockies in the 1990s. The settlement would keep endangered species protections for the smaller populations in Oregon and Washington and any wolves that migrate to Utah.
Ranchers, hunters and state officials say the wolf population has grown too large and is a threat to livestock and big-game animals.
Molloy also considered Thursday arguments in a separate but related case on the legitimacy of designating wolves in parts of Idaho and southwestern Montana below Interstate 90 as a nonessential, experimental population.
That designation allows those states flexibility to kill wolves that attack livestock or reduce the population of elk and other ungulates.
Department of Justice Attorney Erik Petersen said that designation was essential to gain public tolerance to the idea of reintroducing wolves, and the species' recovery depends on that tolerance.
Tutchton, arguing against the designation, said there is plenty of evidence the experimental population has merged with the endangered population of wolves, and that the experimental population's boundary is a "magic line'' based on a legal fiction.
Molloy said his reading of the law was that wolves can be considered an experimental population only as long as they are wholly separated from other wolf populations. Because I-90 doesn't keep the experimental and endangered populations from intermingling and breeding, he asked, at what point are the wolves no longer considered experimental?
Petersen said there is no requirement for Fish and Wildlife Service to change the designation. It can do so at its own discretion, through a petition by the public or because of a court order.
Molloy did not rule on the matter Thursday
__________________
The greatest pleasure in life is doing what people say you cannot do.
Federal Judge Asked to Lift Federal Protections on Wolves!
