Groups file suit over wolverine protection. U.S. wolverines face threats from climate change, other factors, conservation groups say. By Cory Hatch. Jackson Hole News and Guide.

Once again the Bush Administration is arguing that the wolverine is not threatened everywhere, so it needs no ESA protection. They say that are wolverine in Canada.

We have discussed their probably illegal interpretation of a “signification portion of a [species] range” in a number of other ESA listings.

 
avatar
About The Author

Ralph Maughan

Dr. Ralph Maughan is professor emeritus of political science at Idaho State University with specialties in natural resource politics, public opinion, interest groups, political parties, voting and elections. Aside from academic publications, he is author or co-author of three hiking/backpacking guides, and he is President of the Western Watersheds Project.

19 Responses to Groups file suit over wolverine protection U.S. wolverines face threats from climate change, other factors, conservation groups say

  1. avatar Pronghorn says:

    Yes, then why did the U.S. list grizzlies and bald eagles? They live over the border in Canada too, right? I guess that was a mistake.

    At the June 12 Fish, Wildlife & Parks commission meeting in Helena (where “furbearer” regulations & quotas were set), one of the commissioners openly ridiculed global warming (it was presented by a commenting citizen as a factor in wolverine survival). All the trappers who showed up for the meeting cheered. Dumb and Dumber.

  2. Pronghorn,

    This is a recent interpretation of the of the ESA by the Bush Administration. Grizzlies and the bald eagle were listed a long time ago.

  3. avatar Pronghorn says:

    Yes, thanks, I know that. A failed attempt on my part to illustrate the backward logic and ethical bankruptcy of the Bush admin., not that anyone here needs to see that picture yet again. 194 days, 2-plus hours and counting.

  4. avatar Mike says:

    “Yes, then why did the U.S. list grizzlies and bald eagles? They live over the border in Canada too, right? I guess that was a mistake. ”

    Because the anti-conservationists hadn’t yet established the “they live in Canada too” meme.

  5. avatar Fox says:

    Now that Earthjustice has filed a 60-day notice to sue the feds for their failure of listing the wolverine as an ES is a good time to send comments in support of a (wolverine) trap ban to the Montana FWP commission; the public commenting period ends on July 18.
    In addition to tentatively approving for nine wolverines to be killed by recreational and commercial trappers, Montana’s FWP has proposed to increase bobcat quota by 125 more individuals available to be killed for fun. Also, the agency is going to establish a trophy hunting season on wolves and in a couple of years, when the public has gotten used to wolves getting killed by hunters, they will move on to a trapping season! Please write letters to the FWP commission at:
    FWP – Wildlife Division, Attn: Public Comment, POB 200701, Helena MT 59620-0701
    or send comments electronically to:
    Regarding furbearer trapping:
    http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=wXpDrAS9tz5BYvLVHusSpA_3d_3d
    Regarding the wolf hunt to:
    http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=4Ssq9zx9r5Ugq9SNFVrN0w_3d_3d
    Regarding the bison hunt:
    http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=2qclNo_2bC_2fpYkxAlq6kIeLA_3d_3d

    Thanks!

  6. avatar jerry b says:

    I also attended the hearing in Helena that Pronghorn references. I video taped the discussions on a hunting season for bison, wolf quotas, wolverine, swift fox and fisher trapping quotas. The tape is being edited and a few copies will be available.
    In my opinion, especially after reviewing portions of the hearing, little will change in Montana wildlife management with the present Game Commission that caters to “special interest groups”. ie…the livestock industry, trapping associations, outfitters etc. What’s needed is a “Wildlife Commission” made up of individuals with a background in the sciences and an interest in more than the consumptive aspect of wildlife.
    I would think that it would be an embarrasment to the Governor, who appoints these commissioners, to have them make statements openly ridiculing global warming.
    I urge anyone that can attend these hearings and meetings to video tape them and get the word out to the majority that doesn’t realize how “special interest” groups control our public lands.

  7. avatar Ryan says:

    “In my opinion, especially after reviewing portions of the hearing, little will change in Montana wildlife management with the present Game Commission that caters to “special interest groups”. ie…the livestock industry, trapping associations, outfitters etc. What’s needed is a “Wildlife Commission” made up of individuals with a background in the sciences and an interest in more than the consumptive aspect of wildlife.”

    Jerry B,

    Which groups directly pay for wildlife management?
    I’ll give you a hint, its not wildlife watchers….

  8. avatar Ryan says:

    http://fwp.mt.gov/budget/qanda.html

    Q: Where does Fish, Wildlife & Parks revenue come from?

    A: Approximately two-thirds of the revenue used to manage Montana’s fish and wildlife comes from hunting and fishing license fees of which nonresidents contribute about 70 percent. The remaining one-third comes primarily from federal revenue, excise taxes on sporting arms and ammunition, handguns, archery equipment, as well as an excise tax on fishing equipment and electronic trolling motors. FWP receives no general fund dollars.

    Hunters and fishermen now have to pick up the tab for expanded wolf management..

  9. avatar JB says:

    “Approximately two-thirds of the revenue used to manage Montana’s fish and wildlife comes from hunting and fishing license fees of which nonresidents contribute about 70 percent. ”

    Ryan,

    That’s not exactly true. Much of Montana’s wildlife resides on Federal lands managed by the Dept.s of Interior and Agriculture (i.e. the Forest Service, Park Service, BLM, and Fish & Wildlife Service). The management of these lands and, at least to some extent, the wildlife that roam on them, are paid for by U.S. taxpayers. Moreover, endangered species management is also funded through Federal tax dollars. I readily admit that sportsmen and women pay the lion’s share of the bill of state management, but states are not the only managers of wildlife in the West.

  10. avatar JB says:

    “Hunters and fishermen now have to pick up the tab for expanded wolf management..”

    As a follow-up; wolves have been managed by the USFWS (a Federal agency, paid for with Federal dollars) since their reintroduction. Most of us would prefer it stayed that way, at least until there is a reasonable management plan in place in all three states. Moreover, the most expensive part of wolf management is all the helicopter flights for “control” and collaring actions. Many of us would not object if the states deemed these actions (especially the “control” actions too expensive, and ceased controlling wolves. This would significantly reduce the state’s “tab” for wolf management. 😉

  11. avatar Ryan says:

    JB,

    Did you read the rest, it comes from the Pittman robertson act which also is paid for by taxes on items Hunters and Fisherman typically purchase.

    A portion of federal funding comes from the Pittman Robertson act and the Sale of duck stamps as well.

  12. avatar JB says:

    Yes, I’m aware of the Pittman Robertson Act. The majority of PR funds used by states (62%, according to FWS) are used “to buy, develop, maintain, and operate wildlife management areas…Various kinds of land have been acquired, including winter rangelands necessary for big game animals in the North and West, and wetlands, essential to ducks and geese for nesting, wintering, and stopover feeding and rest during migrations.” In other words, these funds are usually used to buy land to support game species. A lot of funds (26%) also go towards research into game species conducted by the state agencies.

    Again, I readily admit that much of the funding for the conservation of natural resources comes from hunters and anglers. However, you’re comments above are misleading; they suggest this number is a lot higher than it is. For instance, some states (i.e. Missouri) have actually passed a sales tax to fund NR conservation (through the state DNR) via the contribution of all citizens. Moreover, you fail to take into consideration that groups like the Nature Conservancy pay to protect lands that provide habitat for game animals and non-game animals alike.

    My point is, the equation is more complex than you make it out to be.

  13. avatar JEFF E says:

    JB,
    confusing people with the facts again? shame shame
    8*>

  14. avatar JB says:

    Ryan, Jeff E:

    Really, I’m not trying to be confrontational here. To reiterate, hunters and anglers DO pay more than their fair share; however, the reap the also reap the benefits, as is demonstrated by how responsive agencies are to the interests of hunters and ranchers when compared with other wildlife enthusiasts. In fact, you might want to think long and hard about what it might mean for wildlife management if other users did have to pay their fare share, and F&G agencies became beholden to non-game interests. 😉

  15. avatar JB says:

    Sorry, I meant to say “…however, they also reap the benefits…”

    I really need to learn to slow down and proofread!

  16. avatar JEFF E says:

    JB,
    I meant no offence.
    I have just always found the “sportsmen pay for everything ” argument somewhat hollow.
    The first clue is that here in Idaho, on the state income return there is a check box for a contribution for the management of “non-game” species. You will probably have an easier time pulling your own wisdom teeth than have the state tell you haw much money or if it actually goes for that purpose, but never the less it is there.
    There are any number of other examples of the public as a whole contributing to, knowingly or not, the oversight of public lands/wildlife.
    Anyone really invested in the topic can research it themselves.
    The biggest threat is the Government, as embodied in the present pile of dog feces in Washington slowly but surly moving public policy towards liquidating the vast if not all public lands for mining, licvestock, timber, oil, or you name it big business(the ones that “contribute the most to a politician’s lifestyle”)
    As for my self a recent decision I made in response to how Idaho views predators is to stop buying the Sportsman Package every year. I only used the Elk and Deer tags, and fished once in awhile, but figured that the rest was money well spent for the general benefit the outdoors as a whole.
    Not any more. I will only buy what I use.
    Piss on em.

  17. Those who don’t pay their fair share — the takers of both funds and wildlife habitat — are the public land livestock interests.

    It is so unfortunate that many hunters and anglers stand idly by and allow their wallets to be emptied, and the fish and game destroyed both directly and indirectly, by this powerful political interest.

  18. avatar Ryan says:

    “Those who don’t pay their fair share — the takers of both funds and wildlife habitat — are the public land livestock interests.”

    You will see no argument here.

    JB,

    For every group like the Nature Conservancy there are groups like RMEF, OHA, DU, Delta Waterfowl, just to name a few. A large portionof hunters dollars paid for out national wildlife refuge system.

    How do you propose to make non consumptive users pay there fair share?

  19. avatar JB says:

    Jeff E–

    No offense taken! I agree with you. Sportsmen definitely do not pay for everything–especially in the West where there is so much federal land (paid for by taxpayers) that provides habitat for many game species. On the other hand, Ryan is correct that sportsmen do pay a disproportionate amount. However, there’s an important distinction to be made here. Hunters pay for the opportunity to harvest a particular game animal. States then choose to use that revenue how they please (Utah specifically prohibits the use of hunting $$ for non-game species; see: http://wildlife.utah.gov/about/funding.php). Thus, hunters do NOT pay for habitat conservation–at least through the sale of hunting licenses. States (and again, this depends on the state) choose to use dollars generated from the sale of hunting license for various purposes, in SOME cases, this includes the management of non-game species.

    Ryan, if I had an answer to your question I would be a very popular guy with the state wildlife managers! Personally, I wouldn’t oppose a tax (similar to the Pittman-Robertson and Dingell-Johnson Acts) on the sale of field glasses, telephoto lenses, and other equipment used specifically to view of photograph wildlife (and I’ve been involved in wildlife photography for some years). However, you might want to think about what the likely effects of this would be; imagine what would happen when the revenue generated by wildlife photographers was greater than that generated by hunters!

Calendar

July 2008
S M T W T F S
« Jun   Aug »
 12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
2728293031  

Quote

‎"At some point we must draw a line across the ground of our home and our being, drive a spear into the land and say to the bulldozers, earthmovers, government and corporations, “thus far and no further.” If we do not, we shall later feel, instead of pride, the regret of Thoreau, that good but overly-bookish man, who wrote, near the end of his life, “If I repent of anything it is likely to be my good behaviour."

~ Edward Abbey

%d bloggers like this: