Wildlife and People

Nutty Grizzy Decision Appealed

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has appealed last September’s ruling [here] by (who else?) Judge Donald Molloy relisting grizzly bears.

Molloy ordered the USFWS to place the abundant bears back onto the Endangered Species list because, as the Judge alleged, global warming is killing the white pines which are a principal food of grizzly bears [here].

The problems with Molloy’s ruling are that:

1. The grizzly bear population is exploding. The species is in no way going extinct;

2. Global warming is a hoax and a scam. Average temperatures have been falling globally and in North America for 12 years;

3. White pinenuts are not a principal food of grizzly bears, which are omnivorous and eat almost anything. Grizzly bears are abundant where there are no pinenuts at all.

Strike three! Judge Molloy fancies himself to be a biologist, but in fact he is a fraud and a nincompoop.

The USFWS under Obama has aborted the Spotted Owl Recovery Plan, relisted non-endangered wolves, relisted non-endangered grizzly bears, and acted in general like a bad day at the insane asylum.

But after a year of dithering, they have decided to appeal one of the many pathetic nutzoid rulings by Molloy.

So that’s something. Don’t count on the USFWS to prevail, however. This is a toothless crocodile appeal, just going through the motions for PR purposes, without any real desire to overturn Molloy’s ruling.

Yellowstone Grizzly Court Decision to be Appealed

FWS Appeal 2009 Decision Putting Bears Back on Endangered Species List

U.S. Sportsmen’s Alliance, 8/26/10 [here]

Wolves are not the only controversial animal recently put back on the Endangered Species List. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) recently appealed a 2009 court decision, made by Judge Donald W. Molloy of the Federal District Court for Montana that placed the Yellowstone Grizzly back under Endangered Species (ESA) protection. The outcome of the appeal will lead to an important precedent as to how difficult it will be in the future to delist any species once placed under federal protection even when their populations have recovered.

Judge Molloy’s decision came in response to a suit brought against the FWS by a coalition of anti-hunting and environmental groups seeking to overturn the agency’s 2007delisting of the bear. The Service has publicly stated that the Yellowstone Grizzly’s have surpassed recovery goals and they strongly oppose the decision.

Among the reasons cited by Molloy for relisting the grizzlies was a determination that the FWS relied on state regulations to assure protection of the bears after being delisted that he did not believe were adequate.

“We disagree with every point [Judge Molloy] has,” stated FWS grizzly bear recovery coordinator Chris Servheen according to press reports.

Judge Molloy’s decision could have far reaching implications. This case may establish a precedent that could be used by anti-hunters to block the delisting of healthy and sustainable animal populations, such as the Northern Rocky Mountain wolves and the Great Lakes wolves.

The Yellowstone Grizzly population has reached approximately 600 bears. At this number, many biologists believe that the Yellowstone ecosystem is at full saturation level with grizzlies. In fact, the target recovery population to trigger the delisting was set at 400-500.

RMEF Calls on Congress to Reform Endangered Species Act

Black Bear Blog, August 7, 2010 [here]

Editor’s Note: Below is a press release sent out by the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation in response to the recent ruling by Judge Donald Molloy to return gray wolves in Idaho and Montana back to Federal protection. Perhaps if the RMEF had been on board with opposition to the rapid expansion of gray wolves earlier on, we would not be looking at further destruction of ungulate populations, more particularly, the elk they so much cherish. The same holds true for the outdoor sportsmen. By the time some got on board, it was too late. With the passing of every court ruling, the process to reverse the tragedy foisted on a population of people who were lied to and became victims of ignorance and activism, becomes more and more difficult. Please get involved before all proven and practical wildlife management is destroyed at the whims of environmental extremists who own the Courts. — Tom Remington, Black Bear Blog

News Release, RMEF, 08/07/2010 [here]

MISSOULA, Mont.–The Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation is calling for immediate Congressional review and reform of the Endangered Species Act following a judge’s decision yesterday to reinstate full federal protection for gray wolves.

The Aug. 5 ruling means state wildlife agencies no longer have authority to manage skyrocketing wolf populations–even in areas where wolf predation is driving cow elk, moose and elk calf survival rates below thresholds needed to sustain herds for the future.

RMEF says the judge has opened a door for perhaps the greatest wildlife management disaster in America since the wanton destruction of bison herds over a century ago.

“When federal statutes and judges actually endorse the annihilation of big game herds, livestock, rural and sporting lifestyles–and possibly even compromise human safety–then clearly the Endangered Species Act as currently written has major flaws,” said David Allen, RMEF president and CEO. “We have already begun contacting the Congressional delegations of Idaho, Montana and Wyoming to ask for an immediate review of this travesty–and reform of the legislation that enabled it.”

Allen pointed out an irony, if not an outright error, in the decision issued by U.S. District Judge Donald Molloy.

“Judge Molloy said wolves in the northern Rockies are a single population that cannot be segmented based on political boundaries. But he essentially did that very thing himself, because he considered only the wolf population within the U.S. There are 75,000-plus gray wolves across Canada, yet Judge Molloy stopped at the border and did not consider the entire Rocky Mountain population. The gray wolf is simply not an endangered species,” said Allen.

Animal rights groups who continue to litigate over wolves are “gaming the system for their own financial benefit,” he added, saying, “There are no elk in Iowa, but we are not suing folks to reintroduce them. This is simply a financial scam for the animal rights groups, and it’s all being paid for by the American taxpayer.”

Additionally, Allen urged the governors in Idaho, Montana and Wyoming to begin the process of formally implementing “the 10(j) rule” as provided within federal law. For all species reintroductions classified as a “nonessential, experimental population,” as is the case with gray wolves under the Endangered Species Act, the 10(j) rule allows states more flexibility to mitigate for unacceptable impacts on big game populations, livestock and domestic animals.

Molloy Relists Wolves

Thursday U.S. District Judge Donald Molloy ordered the US Fish and Wildlife Service to place Rocky Mountain wolves back on the Endangered Species list.

Judge orders protections reinstated for wolf

By MATT VOLZ, AP, Idaho Statesman, 08/05/10 [here]

A federal judge has ordered endangered species protections reinstated for the gray wolf in Montana and Idaho.

The federal government last year removed protections for wolves in those two states but not Wyoming. U.S. District Judge Donald Molloy says in his ruling Thursday the government’s decision was a political solution and does not comply with the federal Endangered Species Act.

Molloy says the entire Rocky Mountain wolf population must be either listed or removed as an endangered species, but the protections can’t be separated by state.

The implication include:

* Wolf hunts in Idaho and Montana have been canceled. State fish and game departments are offering refunds on purchased wolf tags [here].

* Wyoming, Oregon, Washington, and Utah wolves are also now relisted [here].

* The USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service - Wildlife Services (APHIS-WS) proposed program to control wolves in Idaho is now moot [here].

Canadian wolves were (illegally) introduced into Yellowstone by the USFWS in the mid-1990’s. By 2002 wolf populations had exploded, leading the USFWS to recommend delisting (removal from the Endangered Species list). Despite numerous attempts to do so under two Administrations, all delisting efforts have been thwarted by Judge Molloy.

An estimated 5,000 to 6,000 wolves now roam the Northern Rockies in the U.S. Ungulate populations have fallen 90% or more as wolves have decimated deer and elk herds. Livestock losses to wolves have skyrocketed.

Judge Molloy’s decision is [here]. With flowery language (”stentorian agitprop”, “Talmudic disagreement”) Molloy ruled:

…[I]t is not necessarily the case that threatened or endangered status can be determined solely on the basis of scientific evidence alone. Beyond the question of risk is the issue of the acceptability of risk. kl at 73. The decision that a risk is acceptable regarding a specific species is, in turn, an ethical and policy judgment. That means, in many respects, the complications are political. …

…[T]he Court finds:

* The Endangered Species Act does not allow the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service to list only part of a “species” as endangered, or to protect a listed distinct population segment only in part as the Final Rule here does; and

* the legislative history of the Endangered Species Act does not support the Service’s new interpretation of the phrase “significant portion of its range.” To the contrary it supports the historical view that the Service has always held, the Endangered Species Act does not allow a distinct population segment to be subdivided.

Accordingly, the rule delisting the gray wolf must be set aside because, though it may be a pragmatic solution to a difficult biological issue, it is not a legal one. …

The plain language of the ESA does not allow the agency to divide a DPS into a smaller taxonomy. For this reason, the Rule delisting the northern Rocky Mountain gray wolf DPS must once again be vacated and set aside. …

Thus the ruling hinged on the way the USFWS subdivided the wolf population into “distinct populations segments” — illogical, unscientific, and political chicanery that the USFWS has indulged in with many species.

However, when seen as a whole, the introduced Canadian wolf population is in no way endangered of going extinct. The population of introduced wolves has exploded. There is no evidence that the wolf population has or will decline, and ample evidence that wolves are spreading into states hundreds of miles away from the original dumping ground.

But Judge Molloy did not rule on that point. Instead his ruling was based on a technical interpretation of certain specific language in the ESA.

The USFWS brought on this tragedy in so many ways. First they illegally dumped the Canadian wolves into Wyoming in 1995. Then they immediately declared the (illegal alien) population “endangered” based on no evidence. Then after the wolves multiplied, the USFWS decided to backtrack, but in a manner that twisted the ESA into knots never intended.

Meanwhile the States were cowed and subservient, with the exception of Wyoming and Utah. Idaho Dept. of Fish and Game welcomed wolves with open arms, a misguided gesture that eventually decimated Idaho elk herds and has cost the state hundreds of $millions in mitigation and lost hunting revenues. The IDFG is today under extreme duress from outraged citizens and is hugely disrespected by the taxpayers who fund it.

No informed observer, including Judge Molloy, the USFWS, IDFG, etc. still maintains that wolves are endangered. The USFWS, however, maintains that wolves are endangered in Wyoming but not elsewhere. That is a backhanded way to inflict special punishments on one state by power-drunk Federal civil servants. Judge Molloy ruled that the USFWS cannot hack off Wyoming wolves from the rest of the population, and that if Wyoming wolves are endangered, then they all are.

Further, in 2008 Judge Molloy ruled that Wyoming wolves are genetically isolated [here]. The lunacy of that ruling is that Wyoming (Yellowstone NP) is where the Canadian wolves were dumped in the first place. All the wolves in the Rockies came from wolf genes in Wyoming. Instead of being genetically isolated, Wyoming wolves are the infection pustule that spawned all the wolves.

For some reason Congress has not fired every last USFWS employee and shut the doors of that supremely incompetent and worthless agency.

One Congressman, Rep. Chet Edwards of Texas, has introduced H.R. 6028 which would prohibit treating wolves as an endangered species under the ESA:

H. R. 6028

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, JULY 30, 2010

A BILL — To amend the Endangered Species Act of 1973 to prohibit treatment of the Gray Wolf as an endangered species or threatened species.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. PROHIBITION ON TREATMENT OF GRAY WOLF AS AN ENDANGERED SPECIES OR THREATENED SPECIES.

Section 4(a) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1533(a)) is amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:

“(4) The Gray Wolf (Canis lupus) shall not be treated as an endangered species or threatened species for purposes of this Act.”

That would solve the wolf problem but not the USFWS problem.

Meanwhile, state fish and game departments and commissions should prepare for a thorough housecleaning as they have failed miserably to protect citizens from a Federal system gone mad.

Truth Coming to Light Re Grizzly Bear Fatal Attack

The facts are coming to light regarding the June 17 fatal attack by a grizzly bear on Erwin Evert, noted botanist.

For background see [here, here].

On July 16 the US Fish and Wildlife Service released the Investigation Team Report — Fatality of Erwin Evert from a bear attack in Kitty Creek on the Shoshone National Forests on June 17, 2010. [11.5 MB here].

Dave Smith, Bear Attack Examiner of Examiner.com, analyzed the Report:

Report incriminates feds in fatal bear mauling

by Dave Smith, Examiner.com, July 20, 2010 [here]

Ever since a grizzly bear near Yellowstone Park that had just been trapped, tranquilized and released by the Interagency Grizzly Bear Study Team killed Erwin Evert on June 17, agency representatives have told the media Evert had no one to blame but himself. They claimed the trap site was closed and posted with warnings.

On June 19, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service grizzly bear recovery coordinator Chris Servheen told the Billings Gazette, “We try to do everything we can to minimize the risks. But we can’t protect ourselves against people that ignore every warning we give, and we can’t protect people against themselves.”

On July 16, the U. S. Fish & Wildlife Service issued a 105-page report about Evert’s death that said, “There were no warning or closure signs at the incident location where Mr. Evert approached this site when he was killed.”

The Interagency Grizzly Bear Study Team (IGBST) had been trapping near Evert’s cabin on Kitty Creek in the Shoshone National Forest for about three weeks before his death. The IGBST failed to notify Evert, or 13 other cabin owners in the area, of it’s activities.

The IGBST did not do a news release so the local media could warn people about bear trapping at Kitty Creek.

The cabins along Kitty Creek are located on Forest Road #448. The road ends just beyond the cabins, where Kitty Creek Trail #756 begins. There were no warning signs at the trailhead.

Evert was killed about two miles up the trail. It was perfectly legal for Evert or anyone else to head up the trail.

The IGBST set bear traps at numerous sites in the Kitty Creek drainage over the course of three weeks. The trap sites were posted with signs that said, “closed.” Evert was well aware of bear trapping in the area, but never went beyond the closed signs.

The 430# male grizzly bear that killed Evert was released at trap site #3 at 12:30 p.m. “With the bear showing signs of recovering, the crew removed the snare equipment and closure signs in the area and left.”

It was noted that “the bear had a large open wound behind its left shoulder and numerous scars and fight wounds on its head and neck.” … [more]

The Interagency Grizzly Bear Study Team (IGBST) abandoned a wounded, drugged, male grizzly a mile from the Kitty Creek cabins and a Boy Scout camp, took all their signs down, and departed.

The only sign of a “dangerous bear” that Erwin Evert had seen was at a different site a week earlier. That sign did not mention trapping and drugging, nor did it mention the site where he was killed.

Following the fatal attack, the IGBST deliberately spread misinformation to discredit and disparage the victim, although IGBST employees were well aware that they had taken down all the warning signs before Erwin Evert had even left for his hike. IGBST knowingly lied to the media and falsely claimed that Evert ignored the removed signs. IGBST also told the media they has closed the trail (false), that Evert’s wife was their employee (false), that Evert had knowledge of bear trapping and sites (false), and other lies as part of a clear campaign to blame the victim.

The IGBST is administered by the USGS Biological Research Division. They are died-in-the-wool global warming alarmists [here]. They claim global warming is killing off grizzly bears, when in fact grizzly bear populations are expanding. They are allied with radical environmental groups who are suing the government to drive human beings off the land [here].

The IGBST operates in the shadows, with an extreme political agenda that taints any “science” they do. Hiding their shadowy existence is why they took the signs down. The IGBST had never informed the media that they were trapping grizzly bears in the area. They think they are the CIA of bears, and that the public should be kept in the dark as to their machinations. They also seek to hide their research data.

As a consequence of the IGBST’s clandestine operations, an innocent citizen and taxpayer has been cruelly killed.

It is imperative that the US Attorney investigate, indict, and prosecute IGBST officials for negligent homicide and for the attempted cover-up of their crimes.

See also: Bear researchers gamble with lives of citizens by Dave Smith [here]

Court suits involving bear researchers are inevitable by Dave Smith [here]

Attention All States: Prepare to be Sued Over Wolves

“If we don’t get some reform in federal laws very soon, we’re all going to be living in Jurassic Park.”

Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation News Release, July 21, 2010 [here]

MISSOULA, Mont.—With their latest petition to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, animal rights activists are preparing to sue for federally mandated release of wolves in every state, warn officials with the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation.

David Allen, RMEF president and CEO, says animal rights groups have learned that introducing wolves translates to major fundraising, and activists have found a way to exploit the Endangered Species Act—as well as taxpayer-funded programs that cover lawyer fees—to push their agenda and build revenue through the courts.

“There are now about 100,000 gray wolves in the U.S. and Canada, and over the past few years in Idaho, Montana and Wyoming, activists discovered that every wolf is also a cash cow,” said Allen. “If we don’t get some reform in federal laws very soon, we’re all going to be living in Jurassic Park. This is not about saving a lost species. It’s about money and special interest agendas.”

“Americans need to wake up,” he added, “because when you respond to those fundraising letters with photos of cute little wolf pups, you’re writing a check that our country’s rural and traditional lifestyles can’t cash. You’re eroding the fundamentals of America’s model for wildlife conservation.”

Allen said undermanaged wolf populations in the northern Rockies are compromising the health of other wildlife species—especially elk and other prey. In areas of Montana and Idaho where wolves share habitat with elk, calf survival rates now are too low to sustain herds for the future.

“How do animal rights groups who claim to defend wildlife justify elk calf survival rates below 10 percent? Clearly they have another agenda,” said Allen.

Participation in hunting and the funding it generates for conservation also are being negatively affected, as are local economies, livestock production and potentially even human safety.

Continuous lawsuits by activists have setback wolf control and management efforts, compounding problems and costs for states.

“Now imagine bringing these kinds of impacts to more populated states elsewhere in the U.S., and I think we’re looking at an unprecedented wildlife management disaster,” said Allen.

RMEF has helped to successfully restore elk populations in Kentucky, Tennessee, Wisconsin and other states where habitat is suitable and citizens support the effort. Elk restoration is being considered currently in Virginia and Missouri using these same criteria.

“There are two proven ways to restore a species,” said Allen. “Our way is offering to help with funding and expertise so long as the local public wants the species and the state can manage them. The other way is using lawsuits and loopholes to shove a project down people’s throats.”

Animal rights groups filed a petition July 20 complaining that wolves now inhabit just 5 percent of their former range in the U.S., and that wolf populations should be recovered in all significant portions of that range. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) responded by saying that it is reviewing “what is realistic and where the suitable habitat would be.” The agency’s review could be complete by late 2010 or early 2011.

“We urge USFWS to be very cautious in this evaluation and reject the rhetoric of the Center for Biological Diversity, Defenders of Wildlife, Earth Justice, Humane Society of the U.S. and other animal rights groups. Wolf re-introduction in the greater Yellowstone region was a classic example of ‘let’s get our foot in the door and then move the goal line,’ and should be warning enough. This is a fundraising strategy with anti-hunting, anti-ranching, anti-gun impacts, and the public needs to understand and see it for it is,” added Allen.

About the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation:

Snowy peaks, dark timber basins and grassy meadows. RMEF is leading an elk country initiative that has conserved or enhanced habitat on over 5.8 million acres—a land area equivalent to a swath three miles wide and stretching along the entire Continental Divide from Canada to Mexico. RMEF also works to open, secure and improve public access for hunting, fishing and other recreation. Get involved at www.rmef.org or 800-CALL ELK.

Deadly Government Bears

Another collared bear has killed an innocent citizen:

Grizzly kills man near Wyoming’s Yellowstone Park

By MEAD GRUVER - Associated Press Writer, June 18, 2010 [here]

A grizzly bear killed a Wyoming man outside Yellowstone National Park, apparently just hours after researchers trapped and tranquilized the animal.

The attack happened Thursday in the same place where two researchers with the Interagency Grizzly Bear Study Team [here] had examined a large adult male grizzly earlier that day, Park County Sheriff Scott Steward said Friday.

The suspect bear was wearing a radio collar. Authorities didn’t intend to venture into the woods to chase the animal, however. …

Shoshone National Forest officials closed off the Kitty Creek area, about six miles outside the Yellowstone East Entrance, until further notice.

“There have been Forest Service people in the area talking to people who live in those cabins, and at the lodges around there, letting them know what’s going on,” forest spokeswoman Susan Douglas said Friday. …

“My heart goes out for the victim and the family involved in this. Nobody would want anything like this to happen,” Chuck Schwartz, head of the Interagency Grizzly Bear Study Team based in Bozeman, Mont., said Friday.

The team is made up of federal and state biologists who monitor and study grizzlies in the Yellowstone ecosystem.

The researchers also had trapped and tranquilized another grizzly in the area Thursday.

Schwartz said there would be an investigation, including into whether required procedures were followed, such as posting warning signs about the grizzly research.

Schwartz said it wasn’t certain whether the trapped grizzly had mauled Evert. But Chris Servheen, grizzly bear recovery coordinator with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, said it’s unlikely that another grizzly would have been in the same area as the large adult male.

“There’s a very, very high probability that it was this bear,” Servheen said.

The Wyoming Game and Fish Department was working Friday to try to recapture the bear, agency spokesman Eric Keszler said.

Grizzly bears have been back on the federal list of threatened species since last year.

This is not the first case of negligence by wildlife biologists leading to the killing of innocent people. In 2007 an 11-year-old boy was killed in a bear attack, by an aggressive bear known to employees of the USFS and the Utah Division of Wildlife Services who failed to warn campers [here].

more »

Distinct Legal Confusion

There are plenty of wolves in the Lower Forty-Eight. There are thousands of wolves from Oregon to Wisconsin. The are tens of thousands more wolves in Canada and Alaska. Wolf populations are growing. The species is not in danger of going extinct.

Despite those obvious and agreed upon facts, and despite the fact that the US Fish and Wildlife Service has been attempting to delist wolves (remove the species from the Endangered Species list) since 2002, Federal judges have refused to allow a complete delisting.

In 2008 U.S. District Judge Donald Molloy overturned the delisting of gray wolves in the Northern Rockies and put them back on the Endangered Species list [here]. Then he partially lifted his injunction and in 2009 the USFWS delisted wolves in Idaho and Montana, but not Wyoming [here].

The USFWS also delisted Great Lakes wolves at that time, but later in 2009, under another court order, the USFWS was forced to re-listed wolves in Great Lake states [here].

Then the usual plaintiffs sued everybody, or intervened in someone else’s lawsuit, and the Rocky Mountain wolf delisting case went back to Judge Molloy. He listened to oral arguments yesterday from all factions — you need a scorecard to keep track of who is opposed to whom and why.

The latest case revolves around Wyoming and whether Wyoming wolves need to remain listed, and if so, why aren’t all Rocky Mountain wolves listed. Part of the legal arguments centered on the question of “distinct population segments” (DPS’s).

more »

ESA Not About Saving Species

It’s about spending taxpayer money and making some groups wealthy

by Karen Budd-Falen

To: Interested Parties
From:  Western Legacy Alliance [here]
Date:  May 26, 2010
Re: Endangered Species Act

Below please find some disappointing data regarding Endangered Species Act (”ESA”) and its cost to the American public.  ESA process and litigation are NOT about saving species, it is about spending American taxpayer money.  In an economic time where American jobs are scarce, private property rights are being taken and the federal deficit is trillions of dollars, certainly the federal government can find a better way to spend American taxpayer dollars than lining the pockets of radical environmental groups and their “pro bono” (i.e. allegedly free) attorneys and spending money on a program that by the federal government’s data is a complete failure.

The ESA was signed into law in 1978 with the best of intentions.  However, over the years it has become the battle cry to eliminate private property rights and property use, shut down agriculture and other industries and fund radical environmental groups and their attorneys.  There is not a single state within the United States that does not have listed, threatened or endangered species.  It would not be so bad if the original intent of the ESA was followed and species were listed, then recovered, then removed from the list, but that is not what is happening.

As of May 17, 2010, there are a total of 1,374 species listed as threatened or endangered.  This list includes everything, even bugs, worms, plants, snakes, spiders, bogs, moss, mice, rats and other species.  According to a 2009 report by Greenwire citing the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the average cost of listing a single species is $85,000 and the average cost of designating critical habitat is $515,000 per species.

Thus, the approximate cost to the American taxpayer of listing the 1,374 species is $116,790,000 and the approximate cost of designating critical habitat for those species is $707,610,000.

If it weren’t bad enough that America’s taxpayers are spending millions simply listing species, that is not the end of the story.  The ESA sets very specific time frames for species listing and critical habitat designation; time frames which the federal government cannot seem to meet.  Species are listed by a petition process, which means that anyone can send a letter to the federal government asking that a species, either plant or animal, be put on the ESA list.  The federal government has 90 days to respond to that petition, no matter how frivolous.  If the federal government fails to respond in 90 days, the petitioner — in the vast majority of cases, radical environmental groups — can file litigation against the federal government and get its attorneys fees paid.  The simple act of filing litigation does not mean the species will get listed or that it is warranted to be protected; this litigation is only over whether the federal government failed to respond to the petition in 90 days.  Between 2000 and 2009, in just 12 states and the District of Columbia, 14 environmental groups filed 180 federal court complaints to get species listed under the ESA and were paid $11,743,287 in attorneys fees and costs.

Again, there are listed ESA species in all 50 states, the District of Columbia and the U.S. Territories.  Consider how much in attorneys fees have been paid if all litigation in all states is considered.

And it doesn’t end there; the federal agencies have placed 341 more species on the candidate species list, meaning that they are under consideration for listing on the ESA threatened or endangered species list.  That is 341 species times the average cost of listing of $85,000 per species and $515,000 for each critical habitat designation for a total of $204,600,000 — all from America’s pocketbooks.

And it still doesn’t end there; certain radical environmental groups have petitioned for additional listings of even more species and critical habitat designations. In the last 8 months, the Center for Biological Diversity, the WildEarth Guardians and the Western Watersheds Project have threatened the federal government with litigation if the government fails to list 238 more species.  If the federal government does not respond to those listing petitions or Notices of Intent to Sue, federal court complaints will be filed and according to recent history, attorneys fees will be paid.

And with all this money — $116,790,000 for species listing; $707,610,000 for critical habitat designation; $11,743,287 in attorneys fees paid to some radical environmental groups because the federal government simply missed deadlines — only 47 species have been taken off the ESA list and of that 47 only 21 because they were recovered.  That is a 1.5% success rate!  The other 26 species were taken off the list because they either went extinct (9 species) or should never have been put on the list in the first place (17 species).  There is something wrong with this picture.

And while you are thinking about the ESA and its cost versus failure rate, consider the additional individual costs to American taxpayers and small businesses. The California red and yellow-legged frogs have cost the taxpayers $445,924 just in litigation attorneys fees.  Part of the reason that California farmers in the Central Valley have no water for their crops is because of Natural Resources Defense Council litigation over the delta smelt, a 2 to 3 inch long minnow.  Wolf litigation has cost American taxpayers $436,762 in attorney fees, all paid to environmental groups who sue the federal government.  Litigation over the desert tortoise, (a total of 11 cases) -– a species that only spends 5% of its life above ground -– has cost the American taxpayers $702,519 just in payment of attorneys fees.  In fact, in the last 10 years, the federal government has spent more than $93 million in taxpayer money on the desert tortoise.

And that is not counting the costs to American business, even “green business.” In California, Brightsource Energy will have to spend $20 million dollars to relocate 20 tortoises plus create a permanent tortoise trust fund so it can build its solar power plant. That is 1 million dollars plus per tortoise.  Other businesses that have been impacted or stopped by the desert tortoise include a wind farm that would supply electricity to Las Vegas.  Private landowners who wish to develop their own property are required to pay “mitigation fees” of between $370 and $550 per acre to develop private lands designated as desert tortoise critical habitat.  Once the money is paid, it does not matter how many desert tortoises are killed.  Hyundai car company had to buy 3000 acres of additional land for $5 million so that it could use its own private property for a car safety test track.

In addition to the $5 million, the company also agreed to pay $1.5 million into an endowment fund for the desert tortoise.  The National Military Training Center at Ft. Irwin has also been negatively impacted, agreeing to pay $6.9 million to relocate desert tortoises on the base so it can conduct its military training.  None of this counts the over 30 family ranches that were eliminated because they used to graze their cattle on desert tortoise critical habitat.

It is clear that the American taxpayers have a tremendous problem.  This wouldn’t be so hard to take if the ESA was successful or if the radical environmental groups that are getting taxpayer money to litigate over the ESA were spending money on species or their habitats.  However, there is no evidence that one single dime of the money the federal government pays to environmental groups to litigate over ESA species is spent on habitat or species research or mitigation projects — the money is just spent to get more taxpayer money and put more small businesses out of business or stop private landowners from using their properties.  Even those businesses that supply “green jobs” and “green technology” suffer.  This is a maddening state of affairs for America — somewhere the madness must stop!

Criminal Activities by Federal Bureaucrats Involved with Wolves

Former USFWS Wildlife Biologist Jim Beers has been on a speaking tour of late.

He spoke in in Bozeman, MT on May 16th at a meeting sponsored by Friends of the Northern Yellowstone Elk Herd.

He will be speaking at the upcoming wolf symposium, “Can Ranchers and Wolves Co-Exist?,” in La Grande at Eastern Oregon University’s Badgley Hall from 1- 4 p.m. on Saturday, May 22; and at The Wolving of America Event,Wednesday, May 26, 4 pm at Greyhound Park in Post Falls, Idaho.

Mr. Beers’ speech is based on a paper he wrote recently:

Beers, Jim. 2010. Criminal Activities by Federal Bureaucrats and Others Involved in the Introduction, Protection and Spread of Wolves in the Lower 48 States. Friends of the Northern Yellowstone Elk Herd, Bozeman, MT 16 May 2010.

We are pleased and honored to have placed that paper online at the W.I.S.E. Colloquium: Wildlife Sciences [here].

It’s a great speech and also a great read — if you can’t make it to one the above events and even if you can. Jim Beers knows his subject and he pulls no punches. Criminal Activities … is an indictment of corrupt practices by the US Fish and Wildlife Service, some of which date back 40 years and are still ongoing!

The story Mr. Beers relates is not pretty, but it is important to understanding how federal and state wildlife management tumbled down a slippery slope.

How we are going to pull them back up into compliance with the law is another story, but to do that we have to know how and why things fell apart in the first place. Please enjoy Jim’s skillful prose while you get an education in the politics of wildlife, wolves, and Homo sapiens.

Sage-Grouse and Predator Prey Relations

After years of hue and cry, and being carpet-bombed with lawsuits, last March the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service placed the greater sage-grouse on the candidate species list [here]. That didn’t halt the lawsuits, however [here, here].

The gist of the argle-bargle is that sage-grouse are in decline because their habitat is diminishing [here].

Nothing could be further from the truth. Sage-grouse population changes are governed by predator-prey relations, not habitat.

Sage-grouse do not eat sagebrush. They eat insects and seeds. They feed their chicks caterpillars. The insects and caterpillars that make up their diet also do not eat sagebrush. Principally, sage-grouse prey eat grass.

Sage-grouse can survive and even flourish where there is no sagebrush at all.

Sage-grouse, in turn, are prey to ravens, coyotes, cougars, eagles, hawks and other predators higher up the food chain. Sagebrush does not protect sage-grouse from their predators.

We reported these wildlife biology facts a year ago [here].

In a remarkable about-face, researchers have determined that sage grouse are NOT limited by “loss of habitat.” It turns out that sage grouse populations are governed by PREDATOR-PREY RELATIONS, just like all other animals. …

Idaho State University researchers found that ravens and badgers eat grouse eggs [here], but not ground squirrels. The clever scientists set up webcams near grouse nests and WATCHED as wild predators gobbled pre-hatched chicks. …

Real science, which is mainly concerned with reality, presents strong evidence that PREDATOR-PREY RELATIONS have everything to do with population dynamics, and that “loss of habitat” is a pile of bird crap.

more »

Judge “Grizzly” Molloy Scares Humans

U.S. District Judge Donald Molloy has banned aerial weed spraying on the Kootenai National Forest because the helicopters might scare grizzly bears.

The poor, frightened grizzly bears might be driven from their habitat according to the judge.

Judge nixes aerial weed spraying on Kootenai

By MATT VOLZ, helenair.com, April 8, 2010 [here]

A U.S. Forest Service plan to spray herbicide from helicopters over the Kootenai National Forest does not adequately protect dozens of grizzly bears and could drive them from their habitat, a federal judge has ruled.

U.S. District Judge Donald Molloy concluded the federal agency can’t conduct any aerial spraying in the 2.2-million acre forest in Montana’s northwestern corner until it addresses in its plan how often the flights would be allowed and what the effect would be on the endangered bears.

The Alliance for the Wild Rockies, a Helena-based environmental group, sued the Forest Service over the plan, saying multiple fly-overs would cause the bears to flee and permanently abandon any habitat that is subject to weed spraying.

“When the low-flying helicopters fly over grizzly habit, the grizzlies leave,” said Michael Garrity, executive director of the group. “They can’t just fly helicopters over endangered species habitat without looking at the effects on the endangered species.”

Molloy, affirming a magistrate judge’s earlier recommendations, sent the plan back to the Forest Service, saying the agency’s conclusion that low-altitude, high-frequency flights are not likely to adversely affect the grizzly bear was “arbitrary and capricious.”

Other aspects of the plan, including ground application of the herbicides, can go forward, Molloy said in the March 30 ruling.

The environmental group also claimed in the lawsuit that the chemical used in the herbicide could be harmful to animals and to people living in the Libby area, but the judge ruled for the Forest Service in those claims. … [more]

Judge Molloy also thinks grizzly bears are going extinct due to global warming [here].

We have a serious problem when Federal judges adopt pseuodscience mythologies and prescribe wildlife management from the bench. Crackpot theories are okay when held by crackpots without dictatorial powers, but when Federal judges pretend to know something about wildlife, they really muck things up.

How about wildfires, Judge Molloy? Shall the USFS stop fighting forest fires in “grizzly habitat” because those firefighting helicopters “scare the bears”?

more »

Grizzlies Relisted Due to Global Warming

The US Fish and Wildlife Service put grizzly bears in and around Yellowstone National Park back on the threatened species list on March 26th. The USFWS was forced to do so by a court decision that said global warming is causing the bears to go extinct.

Yellowstone grizzlies were first listed as endangered in 1975 when 200 bears roamed the park and surrounding areas. After $20 million was spent to recover the species, over 600 bears in Yellowstone constituted the densest population in North America and grizzlies had spread throughout the Northern Rockies.

The USFWS delisted Yellowstone grizzlies in 2007, as required under the Endangered Species Act, because determination was made that the Yellowstone grizzly bear population was no longer an endangered or threatened population.

The Greater Yellowstone Coalition brought suit, contending that whitebark pine was declining due to global warming, that grizzlies are dependent on whitebark pine nuts, and that therefore the bears were still endangered and likely to go extinct.

All those contentions are completely bogus, yet U.S. District Judge Donald Molloy ruled last September that, “There is a connection between whitebark pine and grizzly survival” [here].

Judge Molloy is the same judge who put Northern Rocky Mountain wolves back on the endangered species list because he determined the wolves capacity for “genetic exchange” was inadequate [here].

Judge Molloy thinks he is a wildlife biologist, but his theories are completely crackers. Judges who pretend to be scientists, who ignore the overwhelming testimony of real scientists and dream up their own crackpot theories, are a strain and burden to the American judicial system.

In this case Judge Molloy didn’t base his ruling on his pet “genetic exchange” theory, but instead ruled that “climate change” was going to make the bears go extinct. This is despite the fact that the grizzly bear population has grown steadily over the last 35 years, a period when climate alarmists claim we have experienced global warming.

Note: No one can prove that the climate anywhere has “changed”. No one can prove that it is going to. The entire global warming theory is a hoax and a scam.

But even if the climate changes, it will not affect grizzly bears who once roamed regions far to the south of Yellowstone. Heck, grizzly bears once roamed California where they are the Official State Animal. Grizzly bears are not restricted ecologically to any particular climate.

Nor are whitebark pine nuts the principal food of grizzly bears. They are a minor snack, and in most places where grizzly bears live there are no whitebark pine trees at all!

Nor are whitebark pines dying out, nor will they even if the climate changes, which it is not going to.

The entire theory is complete eco-babble nonsense and bogosity. But Judge Molloy is all-powerful, no matter how loony he his. The system is truly broken when lunatics run the asylum, and that is exactly the case in America today. Justice is not only blind, she is mad as a hatter.

Extracts from the grizzly bear relisiting Final Rule follow:

more »

PBS Poll Results Favor Wolf Control

The extremely liberal TV “news” show NOW on public television aired an hour-long pro-wolf report in February entitled “Hunting Wolves, Saving Wolves.”

The one-sided report fawned all over eco-litigious wolf loving groups and poked Obama in the eye for allowing the US Fish and Wildlife Service to delist wolves [here]:

Last year the Obama Administration removed federal protection from some of the wolves that had been restored to the northern Rockies under the Endangered Species Act. The move paved the way for controversial state-regulated wolf hunts.

Wolf advocates strongly oppose the administrations decision saying the three states in the region, Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming need a cohesive management plan that allows for a much larger wolf population. “It was very disappointing when Secretary Salazar in the Obama Administration, signed off on this rushed-through Bush administration delisting package for wolves,” said Doug Honnold, a lawyer with Earthjustice, who is representing conservation groups challenging the government’s decision. …

More than a dozen conversation groups have sued the Interior Department to return federal protection to the northern Rockies wolves. Some believe the result of this legal debate is a litmus test for the Obama Administration’s overall approach to wildlife issues and the Endangered Species Act.

Wolf delisting is required by law, since wolves are in no way endangered. Efforts by the USFWS to delist have been going on for six years or more, but have been repeatedly thwarted by lawsuits from lobby groups (that collect $billions in EAJA monies for their monkey wrenching efforts).

Despite the puerile propaganda aired by PBS, viewers see things differently. In a poll accompanying the web article about the NOW report, 74% of voters believe delisting is the right thing to do.

The Weekly Q

Do you believe wolves in the Northern Rockies require federal protection?

Evidently people are not quite as gullible as the producers of NOW. Note that the poll voters are PBS viewers. It’s not a balanced sampling, but one biased toward the liberal side. Yet even the liberals are not persuaded. Had the poll been a fair sampling across all the citizenry, the numbers would have been 90% or more in favor of delisting.

Wolves are not endangered. Elk are — and deer, and livestock, and pets, and children waiting for the school bus, and teachers out jogging. They are all threatened by exotic wolves dumped in their midst by an overreaching Federal Government 15 years ago. The dozen or so Canadian wolves inflicted on the Northern Rockies have multiplied and now number more than 5,000.

Next up for NOW, a report on the virtues of plague rats, and how spreading bubonic plague via wildlife is just what the liberal doctors ordered.

Calamity Jane Lists Pacific Smelt

Lunatic NOAA Admin Jane Lysenko freaked out and put the common Pacific smelt on the Endangered Species last week.

You ask, can Calamity Jane do such a thing? The answer is yes. Only in America, and only when the Commies run the zoo, but yes, yes they can.

The common, abundant Pacific smelt was listed as “threatened” on March 16th by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMS), a vassal sub-sect of NOAA [here].

[T]he ESA requires federal agencies to ensure that activities they authorize, fund or conduct are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species. Prohibitions against harming them would apply only to Pacific smelt in U.S. waters or to U.S. citizens on the high seas, even though the population extends into Canada.

No more smelt dipping under penalty of 5 to life in Leavenworth. The super-abundant, NMS-protected sea lions can have all they want however.

The Pacific smelt or eulachon (Thaleichthys pacificus) is abundant, has high fecundity, and a demonstrated ability to rebound from periods of low abundance. Even the smelt-brains at NMS know that. But the facts don’t matter with “our” feral gooberment.

The NMS created a “distinct population segment” out of thin air, declared it in danger of going extinct, and slapped a new Law of the Land on an astounded human population, caught unaware and blindsided by the smelt-brains.

more »

Environmental Groups Net $91,000 on Jaguar Habitat Litigation

For Immediate Release / March 22, 2010

From the New Mexico Cattle Growers’ Association

The federal government paid a total of $91,000 to environmental groups as part of settlement agreements in two lawsuits filed regarding designation of critical habitat for the jaguar.

“The amount of money — our tax dollars — that has gone and continues to go to these groups is unbelievable,” said Bert Ancell, New Mexico Cattle Growers Association (NMCGA) President, Bell Ranch. “How the government can continue to make these agreements, knowing that money will be used to fund yet another lawsuit against the federal government, is beyond me.”

The Center for Biological Diversity received $53,000 and the Defenders of Wildlife received $38,000 in settlement of a case they filed in 2008 to force the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service to designate critical habitat for the jaguar. The groups are pushing for the designation of 53 million acres of habitat in southern New Mexico and Arizona, for a species that is rarely seen north of the Mexican border.

Ancell is concerned about the impacts a critical habitat designation could have on natural resource users, including ranchers. “These designations are far-reaching, and could seriously impact ranching operations and rural economies in southern New Mexico and Arizona.”

“The cost of these lawsuits is staggering,” Ancell continued, “with no actual benefit to the species in question. These environmental groups file hundreds of lawsuits every year, forcing agencies to dedicate time, money and resources that could go to species benefit, instead it goes into the courtroom. Our tax dollars are used to defend the case, our tax dollars are used to settle the case and the environmental groups go out and file more lawsuits. None of this impacts the jaguar one way or the other – the species continues to do just fine in natural range — which does not include the southwestern United States. Jaguars need running water and a humid climate.”

Groups are able to ask for attorneys’ fees as part of the settlement of a lawsuit with the federal government under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA) and other fee shifting statutes. EAJA was passed in the 1980s to ensure that private citizens’ and non-profits’ rights were protected. Today, however, well-funded environmental groups are using the legislation for profit, Ancell concluded.

The NMCGA has represented the beef industry in New Mexico and the West since 1914 and has members in all 33 of the state’s counties as well as some 14 other states. The Association participates in venues necessary to protect beef producers and private property rights including litigation, state and federal legislation and regulatory affairs.

-30-