I didn’t know that about the wolf introductions - it is quite disturbing actually. How many freekin snow jobs are out there that we DON’T know about?

Well, we might not be the cause of all extinctions, but we do our best, no?

As for wildlife biologists, they’re a quirky bunch, for sure. Like everyone else, there’s possibly good and bad ones though. That’s cool that your dad was a wildlife ranger. And yes, camping out is the coolest - nothing like it.

Hey Mark,

Well, one of the good things about the internet and such is how possible it becomes to monitor things. And the number of groups around who watch this stuff closely is great. I’m not a big fan of folks like the NRDC and Sierra Club, etc, but it’s good to have environmentalists around who watch the law, and understand what these tricksters are up to. Like in the recent thread about the legislation up here in AK to change wildlife resource management to ‘assets’ - who’d have known the vast consequences of that kind of thing? But the wolf thing was reasonably open.

“In December of 1990, the issue was handed over to the Wolf Management Committee (WMC). The ten-member committee was comprised of individuals from FWS, NPS, Forest Service, the fish and game departments of Wyoming, Montana and Idaho, two environmentalists and two representatives of agriculture and economic interests. The WMC was charged with further research into the issues already mentioned in an effort to resolve the conflicting wolf bills. After lengthy debate, the WMC came to a similar conclusion as had Senator McClure. By an 8-2 vote, the committee recommended that wolves be reintroduced as “experimental, non-essential” populations in designated areas of Idaho, Montana and Wyoming. Wolf management outside these areas would be assumed by the state fish and game departments. The two environmentalists on the committee had cast the dissenting votes. “

Source.

By the way, you know who was the proponent of the bill for the reintroduction of wolves into Idaho? Jim McClure, from Idaho. You know who he was?

‘Direct contributions to Congresspeople: Between 1987 and 1995, Boise Cascade (timber company) contributed $150,000 directly to candidates; $133,500 of that went to Republican candidates. $15,000 went to Idaho Senator Larry Craig, who helped push through the salvage rider and has introduced forest health legislation to suspend environmental laws over the long-term. $10,500 went to Washington Senator Slade Gorton, who was the driving force behind the salvage rider in the Senate. Another $10,000 was divided evenly between Oregons timber senators, Mark Hatfield and Bob Packwood. Source: Center for Responsive Politics database, November 1995.

Senator McClure joins Boise Cascade board: Sen. James McClure was elected to Boise Cascades board of directors one month before his retirement from the Senate in January 1991. Before his retirement,
he was the ranking Republican on the Senate Energy & Natural Resources Committee. Between the years of 1973 and 1990, he received consistently low scores for environmental concern from the League of Conservation Voters, averaging only 9% (out of 100%), and scoring 0 for four consecutive years. He supported the nomination of James Watt for Secretary of Interior, consistently opposed funding for EPA and Superfund programs, and actively worked to provide funding for Forest Service roadbuilding. He also
supported protection for polluters from cleanup requirements and opposed funding for medical expenses for victims of Superfund site pollution. Source: McClure leaves Senate for Boise Cascade, Lewiston Tribune, 12/14/90; quoted in Transitions, Inland Empire Public Lands Council, Aug-Sep 1995; League of Conservation Voters Environmental Scorecards, 1975-1990. ‘

You wanna know more about “Boise Cascade”? Boise Cascae Rap Sheet’. Just thru 1995. These are bad people, bruh. Very bad people.

In a Time magazine article, ‘Carl Haywood, legislative assistant to Idaho Republican Senator James McClure, says voters fear that the wolf will be used as a surrogate by environmental extremists, whose real agenda is “getting ranchers, miners, loggers and motorized recreationists off public lands.”
Article.

The real threat posed was the land grab that would occur under the ESA listing, not wolves killing livestock. It wasn’t some kind of middle ground thing they claimed it to be. Wolves were returning on their own. Wolves had been spotted in parts of Idaho and Montana. If recognized as becoming established residents in the US, they’d have been listed under the ESA, and that would’ve meant monumental impact on land rights access for development. So McClure sponsors a bill that proposed bringing 3 breeding pairs of wolves into Idaho, simply so they wouldn’t be afford Endangered Species Protections, and his friends at Boise Cascade, and their ilk, could have their way with the land.

Cheers

Carl

(j) EXPERIMENTAL POPULATIONS.—(1) For purposes of this subsection,
the term ‘‘experimental population’’ means any population
(including any offspring arising solely therefrom) authorized by the
Secretary for release under paragraph (2), but only when, and at
such times as, the population is wholly separate geographically
from nonexperimental populations of the same species.
(2)(A) The Secretary may authorize the release (and the related
transportation) of any population (including eggs, propagules,
or individuals) of an endangered species or a threatened species
outside the current range of such species if the Secretary determines
that such release will further the conservation of such species.
(B) Before authorizing the release of any population under subparagraph
(A), the Secretary shall by regulation identify the population
and determine, on the basis of the best available information,
whether or not such population is essential to the continued
existence of an endangered species or a threatened species.
(C) For the purposes of this Act, each member of an experimental
population shall be treated as a threatened species; except
that—
(i) solely for purposes of section 7 (other than subsection
(a)(1) thereof), an experimental population determined under
subparagraph (B) to be not essential to the continued existence
of a species shall be treated, except when it occurs in an area
within the National Wildlife Refuge System or the National
Park System, as a species proposed to be listed under section
4; and
(ii) critical habitat shall not be designated under this Act
for any experimental population determined under subparagraph
(B) to be not essential to the continued existence of a
species.
(3) The Secretary, with respect to population of endangered
species or threatened species that the Secretary authorized, before
the date of the enactment of this subsection, for release in geographical
areas separate from the other populations of such species,
shall determine by regulation which of such populations are
an experimental population for the purposes of this subsection and
Q:\COMP\WILDLIFE\ESA73
January 24, 2002
259 ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT OF 1973 Sec. 11
whether or not each is essential to the continued existence of an
endangered species or a threatened species.

Thanks for your input, though I’m not sure exactly what your initial contention is. The piece you posted reiterates my comments that the ‘experimental population’ classification does not afford the same protection (i.e., doesn’t afford ANY )protection of critical habitat:

“(ii) critical habitat shall not be designated under this Act
for any experimental population …. “

Habitat was the primary concern of loggers, ranchers and mining interests. Ranchers, for example, were more concerned about the loss of access they might have to public for grazing their cattle than actual predation losses. The ‘boy who cried wolf’ most loudly in this situation was the collective corporate land-access interests, not a simple young shepherd worried about his flock. All of this is reasonably available information on the web if you seek further details. Citations, see Google is Your New Friend.

In other words, the wolves themselves may have been afforded some of the protections under the ESA, but the habitat they need to live within was not. It was snow job, and you know.

Regarding your ‘further musings’ post; Yes, it was a bad program. Particularly if you happen to be one of the wolves who’ve already been shot within the first few weeks of the delisting.

But, seriously, your premise hinges upon one primary platform, and that is that without the so-called ‘hard work of many wildlife biologists, concerned citizens and cattle interests’ the wolves would never have returned. A premise which is most likely incorrect. Wolves were already reinhabitating parts of Montana and Idaho - wolves were established in Glacier National Park in the mid 90’s, before the the GYE reintroduction. Given some time, patience, respect and legislative protections, wolves would once again have roamed the wilderness of the American West, on their own terms. This would’ve had vast repercussions for the timber, cattle and mining interests of the region, and that’s the only reason folks like Jim McClure stepped in early and decided a ‘reintroduction’ was a good idea.

But a greated subject here might be the ugly anthropocentric viewpoint expressed in your statement. how about the hard work of the wolves, or the elk, or the aspen groves or the mountains or the landscape. Why pat ourselves on the back as though we did the work. Honestly, all the biologists did is capture some wolves and let them go. The other people involved had a lot of meetings and read and wrote reports and had discussions.

You said:
‘Unlike most of the laws in our country which require a consideration through cost benefit analysis, the ESA is somewhat unique in that in making a decision to list a species the consideration is to be one based on biology,’

I presume you mean ‘market economic cost-benefit’, not merely ‘cost benefit’? Biological cost-benefits are probably even more important, something we tend to overlook. Rather than tout this part of the ESA as some wonderful gesture, why not hold it up as a sign of how ridiculous a culture is that consistently ignores non-financial economies, and ultimately gives sway to certain economic market implications every time a decision is made? ‘Hetch Hetchy’ ring a bell? A reasonably famous Cree Proverb starts includes the line ‘We can’t eat money’. Wise-words, eh?

Further, I understand there are exceptions to the ESA’s lack of cost-benefit analysis. The Ferruginous Pygmy Owl in the the SW deserts is an example. The infamous ‘God-Squad’ seem to find ways to incorporate (economic) cost-benefit data in their decision-making rationale, no? And how about the recent debacle of the Chukchi Sea oil leases and the still delayed decision on listing the polar bear populations? Or the wolverines not being listed in the US? And on and on.

You said:
‘Additionally, in announcing the de-listing, the FWS did note that it would take affect only once State’s provided guarantees on their management programs, which they subsequently did.’

Well, that’s an interesting way of phrasing it. Montana and Idaho had plans approved in what, 2003? Wyoming’s plan was rejected, and I believe it’s replacement plan also rejected, and nearly 5 years passed before they ventured a plan that was approved. The word ’subsequently’ implies a different process, no?

It’s ironic, is it not, that you might venture to support the ‘hard work of many wildlife biologists, concerned citizens, and cattle interests.’ in the return of the wolf to the GYE, when those same folks are also the ones responsible for the extirpation of the wolves in the Lower 48 States of the USA? There lies with those people probably more than a modicum of responsibility, wouldn’t you agree?

For a fantastic read on this subject (reintroductions, wildlife management, etc), do yourself a favor and check out Charles Bergman’s “Wild Echoes”. He posits that our meddling, such as is the case with wolves in the GYE is a loss in countless ways. I’m all for wolves running around the GYE - it’s great. But the reason why we do things has value, I believe, if for no other reason than that it becomes pattern-setting. The above mentioned examples (Hetch Hetchy, polar bears/Chukchi Sea, wolverines, owls, ad infinitum, follow the pattern to a ‘T’). And the only reason this reintroduction went forward is because it meant a lot of people would lose a lot money (the mining, timber and ranching industry) if it did not. Hardly what I’d call a ‘concession’ or ‘trade-off’ on their part.

Cheers

Carl

“Kaczynski-like”???/ Scuze me?

I read over most of the link you posted. Thanks. We’ll talk about it some more when I get to Anchorage, I’m sure.

you wrote:
‘as they were coming back through a natural dispersal anyway, might there populations have grown larger prior to a de-listing sure, but either argument comes to a similar end’

Well, for the wolves, perhaps, MAYBE, but not for the countless clearcuts, over-grazed public lands and mining leases that went forward that might (likely would) have otherwise been stopped.

Cheers

Carl