11/28/2023 0 Comments Gray wolf yellowstoneNot everybody is pleased with the ruling, however. “We’re overjoyed at the national decision but … at the same time it only highlights what is only a deteriorating situation in the Northern Rockies, where three states have gone all out to reduce restriction and introduce new ways to kill wolves,” says Ben Scrimshaw, an associate attorney for Earthjustice, an environmental group. That’s just the official tally-the likely death toll is higher. Well over 500 wolves have been killed in these states alone since last spring, out of a total population of around 2,600, according to government figures. Moreover, in 2021, Idaho and Montana enacted laws to remove most restrictions on wolf hunting. Those animals will continue to be managed by the states and not the federal government. ![]() This is most relevant for the Great Lakes states, including Wisconsin, which authorized a controversial wolf hunt in February 2021 that killed 218 wolves in under three days.īut owing to previous legislation that wasn’t at issue in the current lawsuit, the ruling does not apply to wolves in the Northern Rockies, which includes Idaho, Montana, most of Wyoming, as well as parts of eastern Washington, eastern Oregon, and northern Utah. “It’s a good day for science, for wolves, for ecosystems, and for the people who value wolves,” says Adrian Treves, a wolf researcher and professor of environmental studies at the University of Wisconsin.įor instance, the court decision means that most forms of wolf-killing, such as hunting or trapping, will be illegal outside the Northern Rockies. Conservationists, scientists, and even some hunters have cheered the decision, with something of an asterisk. ![]() The new ruling amounts to a thorough and sweeping rebuke of the wildlife agency’s policy on gray wolves, experts say. This delisting decision has been upheld-and defended in court-by the Biden Administration. That decision, which went into effect in October 2020 toward the end of the Trump Administration, removed federal protections for the animals, arguing they had recovered within substantial parts of their range. Fish and Wildlife Service acted improperly in delisting wolves. District Court judge in Oakland, California, ruled on February 10 that the U.S. ![]() This Comment explores the legality of the Recovery Plan, ultimately endorsing a flexible reading of section 10(j) as it applies to the Yellowstone wolves, and offering such flexibility as a means of promoting future wildlife reintroduction programs.Gray wolves in most of the United States are once again protected under the Endangered Species Act, according to a new legal decision.Ī U.S. The danger, however, to this and other reintroduction programs is not over. The court ordered that the reintroduced wolves be allowed to stay in the recovery areas. On January 13, 2000, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals delivered a major blow to the farm bureau federations involved in the litigation by holding that the Recovery Plan was conducted in full compliance with section lOW. The major allegation of the farm bureau federations is that the Recovery Plan, as implemented, violated section 1O(j), and these organizations want the reintroduced wolves removed. The Recovery Plan has since been the subject of intense litigation by ranching groups over the last several years. Under the Recovery Plan, and pursuant to section 10(j) of the Endangered species Act, Canadian gray wolves were captured and released into Yellowstone National Park and central Idaho. ![]() In 1995, the Department of the Interior and the United States Fish and Wild-life Service implemented the Northern Rocky Mountain Gray Wolf Recovery Plan (Recovery Plan), which was designed to bolster the endangered wolf population. The gray wolf has been listed as an endangered species since 1973.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |