Why Did Salazar do this?????

[Bobbieo]

I have some terrible news. Today, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar announced that he would follow the discredited path of the Bush Administration and delist wolves in the Northern Rockies and Greater Yellowstone region.

This is a stunning development, just six weeks into the Obama Administration. This delisting paves the way for almost 1000 wolves to be killed under deadly state management plans in Idaho and Montana.

The killing could begin in just weeks.

[ananda]

1. corrupted

Some ways somehow he was corrupted.

[moundsview]

2. Maybe the Obama Administration carefully

considered it and decided that the wolves weren't in fact endangered?

[mckara]

3. Wasn't He a Rancher?

Maybe this can be appealed directly to the President.

[villager]

4. he is, exactly, a rancher, and thus will always favor livestock over wildlife

n/t

[glinda]

8. The stupidity about ranchers and farmers is that they REFUSE to spend any

money on fences, guard dogs or anything. They do this in part because they DO like the opportunity to live out the old old west and kill them. There are things that can be done and they rarely do them. They are lazy ass idiots.

[malakai2]

Somewhat true

But Ed Bangs, the longtime FWS wolf recovery coordinator, has said that the DPS as it's currently defined is ready to be delisted because it exceeds the recovery goals. He's the authority to trust on this one. The FWS caving to Wyoming's plan to kill a lot of wolves, that wasn't Bangs, that was a senior manager in the Denver office, above Bangs. The FWS redefining the concept of a DPS, and reclassifying the wolf DPS's, that happened in the Washington office. Both situations happened as a result of the Bush administration. However, there is a threshold at which FWS would take control of the Northern Rockies DPS back from the states, and from what I've seen, Idaho and Wyoming seem hellbent on kicking some sand right over that line. I think, with the adults back in charge, that should the states play the game they are threatening to play, the NR DPS will be relisted and the recovery goal revised upward.

Just some things to think about.

[villager]

11. and those that graze on public lands are the real "Welfare queens," too...

n/t

[Kali]

14. and the label is just about as acurate

spouted off by bigots that know very little about the realities of the situations

think about it

[Kali]

15. wow, and to think my son just spent a bunch of his spare time over the last year

hiking an hour up a steep rocky mountain to pound t-posts into solid rock to repair a fence built many years ago with cedar posts (I can't even begin to imagine the work that entailed!) No, ranchers are too lazy to build fence or use dogs. Where the FUCK did you get the idea ranchers are lazy? Even the most rightwing, redneck, xenophobes that I know sure as hell aren't LAZY! Fuck, that is offensive. I doubt if you could last two days with any of my neighbors.

And guess what, asshole, we aren't all a bunch of predator hunters either. Some of us are even on the left end of the political spectrum. Many are for some important issues. If you want to continue to alienate the very folks you NEED to convince to help protect these species and ecologies you sure are doing it correctly by calling them (US!) lazy.

[Bobbieo]

5. Misgivings about Salazar from the first - I'm sorry Obama didn't choose

Raul Grijalva!!!!

[glinda]

6. Big rancher thinking. What an idiot. Bad choice Obama!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[vinylsolution]

7. And Salazar has always been....

.... a corporate shill. This action was on some lobbyist's wishlist, and Ken is dutifully grabbing his ankles.

People and wildlife have been getting the sh*tty end of Ken's decisions for years.

His record of trashing Colorado on behalf of oil & gas companies is absolutely horrifying.

[librechik]

9. dyed in the wool Blue Dog

my heart sank at that appointment. Couldn't Obama find a vertebrate for that job?

[Bobbieo]

10. He had one - a true conservationist - Raul Grijalva, This was a bad mistake by Obama!!!

[XemaSab]

12. A species can be delisted and still be fully protected

The ESA provides for critical habitat and a recovery plan. If the species is considered fully recovered, then it is delisted.

This is not a call for open season on wolves.

[Big Blue Marble]

13. But it is open season on wolves in Idaho and Montana.

They are both ready to begin the killing as soon as possible.

http://www.newwest.net/topic/article/salazar_approves_wolf_delisting/C41/L41/

[Kali]

17. Do you even know what "open season" means?

[Big Blue Marble]

20. Yes I know what open season means.

I was raised in Northern Idaho. I know that when the killing begins, it will not only be the licensed killing that will occur.
There is no respect for the wolf or its recovery. The wolves are hated in these states. There is only the desire to kill them legally or illegally.

Once the federal government is out of the way, the wolves will be slaughtered until if will be necessary to once again
put them back on the EDL.

[Kali]

25. You think the feds are holding any of those types back from killing them now?

[Vanje]

26. Yes

I know your question wasnt directed at me, but I'm also familiar wiith Idaho and its wildlife management.

There's some poaching now to be sure, but its done in secret and under cover of darkness. Its very limited.

De-listing the wolf will legalize wolf shooting ,but more importantly ,wolf shooting will have the full voiced approval from Idahos state government.

There are many principled men and women working for Idaho Fish and Game , but these state employees answer to a state legislature and governor who is owned by interests who are not shy about expressing desire for the extinction of the wolf in Idaho.

Asking Idaho to manage wolves is putting the fox in charge of the hen house.

[Vanje]

23. The government of the state of Idaho

will never never operate in the interest of maintaining a viable wolf population.
Without federal protection, Idahos wolf population faces peril.
The government is owned by the cattle and feedlot industries.

Even now, the Idaho legislature is trying to nulify a US Forest service Big Horn Sheep management plan. The Forest service plan excludes domestic sheep (belonging to ONE rancher) from the Payette National Forest, because of concerns about disease transmisson from domestic sheep to wild bighorns.
The state Leg and governor (even his side admits he's stupid. But he does have great hair) will certainly nulify the USFS forest plan, thus dictating to the feds what land management will occur on a national forest.
http://voices.idahostatesman.com/2009/02/24/rockybarker/idaho_bighorn_bills_would_make_sheep_transplants_nearly_impossib


The state government of Idaho demonstrates why we NEED federal laws and protections.
Idaho is not up to the task of wolf management.

[Kali]

16. So are they recovered to the numbers in the original planning or not?

[malakai2]

18. Yes

But Idaho and Wyoming have not given great assurance that they will maintain wolf populations above a re-listing threshold. If numbers stay where they are now, or even decline some small percentage, they DPS would be fine. It's when states want to take the entire population back down to the recovery goal, and absolutely no more, that scientists familiar with stochasticity start questioning delisting policy.

Biologically, the NR DPS is fine as it stands right now. On that point, Ed Bangs will say there is no problem with delisting. Administratively, Idaho and Wyoming state policy presents a threat to the DPS post-recovery. If delisting happens, the states involved do go ahead and drop wolf numbers to the bare minimum, and a disease outbreak drops the population below the re-listing threshold, that delisting threshold can be revised upward. Maybe even greatly upward. The recovery goal can be revised any time there is proof that the number identified in the recovery plan is wrong, the only requirements are proper consideration of the evidence and publication of the change in the Federal Register.

[Kali]

19. one of the criticisms of the effectiveness of the ESA is the low numbers of delistings

you would think a recovery/delisting would be celebrated. Proof of success. :shrug:

[Big Blue Marble]

21. This de-listing in not about the science.

It is about the politics. The Sierra Club is fighting this de-listing based on the science. If they thought
it was a fully and effective recovery, they would not be using vital resources to fight this battle in court.

I ask you to explain your agenda in supporting this policy, when environmental groups vehemently disagree
with your position?

[Kali]

24. where did you get that I support any policy?

I know what a load of crap most "policy" about anything really is, I resent being called a lazy welfare queen and I have some experience and thoughts about how one goes about talking to the people that actually have an impact on these situations and perhaps more importantly (if you care at all about people, even those you may disagree with) are impacted directly by them.

Of course much of this is politics - (on all sides, let's be honest), but if the numbers have been reached or exceeded one is sort of obligated to follow the regulations - if not then how will you EVER get support for them again?

[malakai2]

27. Oh, I know many of the criticisms of ESA

If you knew how some of the downlisting/delisting figures are decided, whether you think the law is too strong or not strong enough, you'd be pissed. For example, the black-footed ferret downlisting goal is half of the delisting goal because a committee of administrators and field biologists decided it was a nice round number. I'm not as familiar with the wolf numbers, but the 10 breeding pairs per state target sounds similarly arbitrary...and unless DoW or another plaintiff can prove that it is an arbitrary goal with little or no biological support, FWS will probably be granted deference anyway.

[Vanje]

22. Reaching across the aisle. Its the math

There are more Conservatives than Conservationists.

The Obama administration is trying to buy them some red state love.