My personal opinion is that moderate groups could sit down and work out a new wolf delisting plan. Of course, this would require the state governments to change their wolf management plans if they want to participate in wolf management. Unfortunately, state politicians are probably not among moderates, especially with an election coming up.
Print Friendly
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.
If you enjoyed this article, please consider sharing it!
“Probably not among moderates”?
An understatement, Ralph. 😉
If anybody has a minute to educate me, how big of a role do contract biologists play in the USFWS? Are they heavily utilized? What criteria are they contracted under?
In other words Judge Malloy was rock solid on the legal aspects, covered all his bases, and ruled according to the law.
More importantly, his finding of facts was meticulous, will make it very hard to appeal.
What is difficult for me to understand, is how Wildlife Services can move ahead with their EA in light of Judge Molloy’s decision? Cananyone enlighten me?
Rick Hammel,
I think they believe their EA has not been made moot and will be even more relevant under subsequent 10j actions.
Based on the current 10(j) the ruling by the Judge, is pretty much moot when it comes to Enforcement Actions, that is addressed in a completely different lawsuit, remember the majority of wolves affected by this ruling are classified as non-essential and experimental..
That is what I was saying all along, and of course, Ralph you were of the same belief..as long as 10(j) stands, there really is not a whole lot that can be done..
Virtually all of the various strategies being proposed are under the current 10(j) rule…