#KEEPWOLVESLISTED TWEETSTORM – Tuesday, March 25 @ 2pm PST/9pm GST

KEEPWOLVESLISTED

UPDATE: March 25 – Thanks to all who participated!!

===

ERIPE LUPUS

 
#KEEPWOLVESLISTED TWEETSTORM
FINAL TWEETSTORM FOR #KEEPWOLVESLISTED
MARCH 25. 2014 
2 PM PST/ 9 PM GMT
PLEASE REMEMBER THAT RETWEETS  ( RT ) DO NOT HELP US!
JUST STEAL THE TWEET, 
DO NOT RETWEET . PLEASE 

http://keepwolveslisted.blogspot.co.uk/p/keepwolveslisted.html

===

Please participate if you have a Twitter account!  Spread the word! This is our last chance to protest against the horrible USFWS national wolf delisting proposal.

If you haven’t commented yet please do. Click HERE to comment.

===

Photo: Courtesy ERIPE LUPUS

Posted in: Action Alerts, Activism, Wolf Wars

Tags: TWEETSTORM, #KEEPWOLVESLISTED, March 25 @ 2pm PST,  USFWS, national wolf delisting proposal, fight for the wolves

Embarrassing Press Coverage Continues For USFWS National Wolf Delisting Push…..

Wolf Pups Snoozing

Wolf Pups Snoozing

February 26, 2014

USFWS  continues to take heat over their politically transparent push to nationally delist gray wolves. They’ve never looked more inept or disingenuous as they attempt to twist the ESA into silly putty to suit their agenda.

PLEASE COMMENT!!!

Deadline Midnight March 27, 2014

http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=FWS-HQ-ES-2013-0073

===

Feds’ postponement of wolf delisting follows embarrassing scientific review

 February 26, 2014 Earth Journal
By Ron Meador | 02/25/14
It’s too soon to tell, I guess, whether this month’s decision to take more public comment on federal wolf protections will change the policy eventually adopted by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

But if you’re inclined to believe, or even just to hope, that sound science still has a role in such decisions — well, this embarrassing episode may be worth a closer look. The picture you’ll see is not pretty.

It’s probably fair to say that wolves are by far the biggest headache that Fish and Wildlife has been handed under the Endangered Species Act. Wolves have had ESA protections for four decades now, and for more than half that time the service has been working actively to shed its responsibilities for these worshipped and detested predators, battling an assortment of national groups at every turn.

What looked like maybe the last of those turns came in June, when FWS announced its plan to end protection of gray wolves throughout the remainder of the lower 48 where authority hadn’t already been turned back to the states.

However, such delisting decisions are legally required to be rooted in the “best available science,” and here the service had a problem: Its primary foundation for this delisting was a single paper laying out a fairly controversial re-classification of wolf species.

One species or two?

That paper, by Steven M. Chambers and three others, came down squarely in favor of seeing North American gray wolves as being of two types:

  • Those that have been recovering in the western U.S., with two populations sufficiently robust to justify their delisting in a zone of the northern Rockies and the region covering Minnesota, Wisconsin and Michigan.
  • Others of a separate “eastern” species that supposedly was native to but is now essentially extinct in 29 states west of the Mississippi.

Plenty of other wolf biologists and animal geneticists think that question is far from settled — and more than a few actually think it has been settled in the opposite direction of Chambers’ conclusion, with all gray wolves belonging to just one species.

The science of these things is complex and technical, as you might expect, rooted in DNA mapping and requiring judgments as to whether DNA differences detected among wolves are permanent or temporary, results of evolutionary divergence or interbreeding convergence, and so on.

But if the differences at the molecular level are tiny, at the policy level they could hardly be larger.

The gray wolf has Endangered Species Act protection until FWS can prove it’s no longer needed; “eastern gray wolves,” if they exist, have never been protected and presumably never will be, since virtually all of the territory that would be considered their natural range has been wolfless for a long, long time.

In another policy decision that has brought sharp criticism recently, FWS has chosen to define the “natural and historic range” of a threatened species as whatever territory it occupied at the time of being listed for protection — not its historic territory. Some critics see this as an effort to rewrite the ESA by recasting its most important definition.

In-house research project

There were some other problems with the Chambers paper, too:

  • Chambers is an FWS employee. So are his three collaborators. Their work was published in an FWS journal,  “North American Fauna” without peer review. (The paper can be found here.)
  • In forming a peer review panel after publication, a private contractor hired by FWS first selected and then de-selected three national wolf experts who had signed a letter to Interior Secretary Sally Jewell expressing doubts about the service’s move toward delisting. (Among the three was John Vucetich, known to MinnPost readers as director of the Isle Royale study of wolf/moose population dynamics.)

FWS claimed at the time that it had no role in the picking and unpicking, but a reporter for MSN News turned up an email in which the three were told by the contractor that, “I understand how frustrating it must be, but we have to go with what the service wants.”

The only way out of the ensuing embarrassment was to halt that review and arrange for a second, this one to be undertaken by five scientists chosen without the service’s knowledge or involvement, and their work was released earlier this month.

It happens that one of the five, Robert Wayne of UCLA, was also among the three bounced from the first panel. But as the panel’s report puts it:

[W]e did not avoid selecting reviewers who had previously made known their personal (as opposed to scientific) opinions on the issue. This distinction is important; it is entirely possible for a scientist to have a strong opinion on policy or a proposed action, but also for that scientist to make an impartial assessment on (for instance) the precise genetics or taxonomic techniques and data that were used.

In any case, the five were assigned to give no thought to the policy aspects of the delisting proposed by FWS but to consider only its scientific basis for making them. And its conclusions are rather stark:

  • There was unanimity among the panelists that, although there was much good scientific work in the Proposed Rule, the rule is heavily dependent upon the analysis of Chambers et al.

  • There was unanimity among the panelists that Chambers et al was not universally accepted and that the issue was “not settled.” The issues raised by Chambers et al could be definitively answered relatively soon

  • There was unanimity among the panel that the rule does not currently represent the “best available science.”

  • READ MORE: http://www.minnpost.com/earth-journal/2014/02/feds-postponement-wolf-delisting-follows-embarrassing-scientific-review

===

Photo: wolf-pups_mythwallpaper-com

Posted in: Wolf Wars, Endangered Species Act

Tags gray wolf, shaky science, USFWS, national wolf delisting proposal, please comment, March 27, 2014 deadline, wolf persecution

Action Alert: Comment NOW On USFWS Bogus Push For National Wolf Delisting!

Photo by Scott Flaherty

Update:  February 25, 2014

Have you commented yet? I’m going to keep this post up for a while to remind everyone!

PLEASE COMMENT!!!

http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=FWS-HQ-ES-2013-0073

===

February 22, 2014

I can’t say this enough, we must stop USFWS from delisting wolves nationally, it will be the final nail in their coffin.  Please act now and voice your disdain over the political  “not based on the best available science” campaign the service is waging against America’s wolves.

“This month, following a brief hiatus, arguments have reignited with the release of an independent review paper from the National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis at the University of California-Santa Barbara. It finds that the delisting proposal is not, in fact, based on the “best available science.”

The review vindicates critics who say the Fish and Wildlife Service is trying to de-list the wolves prematurely, finding “problematic conclusions” in the proposal that treat contentious genetic and ecological theories as fact.

The review got at least one big result: the Fish and Wildlife Service responded by reopening its proposal to public comment. You now have until March 27 to weigh in on wolves’ future. (Last year the proposal attracted more than 30,000 comments, ranging from passionate personal pleas to analytical legal responses.) The Fish and Wildlife Service has indicated it will make a final determination on the proposal by the end of the year….Slate

(Actually there are over a million comments concerning the proposal, not 30,000. Click on image to enlarge)

Comments on national wolf delisting 1 jpg

American gray wolves are barely hanging on, hunted in six states, they need you and every wolf and wildlife advocate to speak for them RIGHT NOW!!

In August 2013 the New York Times stated: “the Fish and Wildlife Service prematurely proposed to end federal protection for gray wolves in the lower 48 states in the belief that wolves had fully recovered from near eradication in the early 20th century. This was politics masquerading as science.”

“I think probably over the decades at least a few of us were lulled into this sense of acceptance, that everything was getting better and that people now understood the importance of predators like wolves,” Don Barry said. But the debate over the delisting proposals has been a reminder of the residual anger towards wolves in the rural West, where influential ranchers have long fought wolves for depredating livestock. “Merge that in with the whole Tea Party fervor against government, and what you end up with in the state legislatures is this race to the bottom to see who can be more anti-wolf. The biology of the thing gets thrown right out the window.”….Slate

I agree with everything stated in the above paragraph except  “influential ranchers have long fought wolves for depredating livestock”. It’s not about wolf depredation on livestock, ranchers lose tens of thousands of cows and sheep every year to non-predation. “In 2009, sheep producers reported losing 56,000 animals for reasons other than predators, such as disease and weather.”

The wolf predation  argument is a red herring and one I wish wildlife advocates would stop repeating. The war against wolves has nothing to do with predation. Wolves are scapegoats for anti-government sentiment that dominates the Northern Rockies and to some extent the Great Lakes region.

For example, in 2005  Montana ranchers lost a total of  63,000 cattle to non-predation, which includes respiratory problems, mastitis, lameness/injury, other diseases, weather, poisoning and theft. 10,200 calves died due to  weather alone in the state that year.  In 2010 Montana ranchers lost 74,800 cows to non-predation with just 87 wolf related losses and I wouldn’t trust even those small numbers since they have to be confirmed by Wildlife Services and you know that agency is no friend to the wolf. To add insult to injury ranchers are actually compensated for tiny wolf livestock losses and they’re still complaining.  All the hype surrounding wolf predation is just that, HYPE. It’s used to divert attention away from the real issue, which is the undue influence ranchers, hunters and anti-government forces have on wolf recovery in the lower forty-eight. Their voices are the only voices listened to and most want wolves eradicated from the continental US AGAIN! We cannot allow wolf hating groups to dictate wolf recovery, no matter how much USFWS trys to accommodate them by pushing to nationally delist wolves with questionable science.

So please, drop whatever you’re doing and comment before the USFWS  midnight deadline on March 27, 2014.

Do it for truth, do it for what’s right, do it for the wolves before it’s too late!

PLEASE COMMENT!!!

http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=FWS-HQ-ES-2013-0073

===

Wolves May Be Losing a Nasty Political Battle

Feb. 21 2014 1:48 PM
By Lance Richardson
http://www.slate.com/blogs/wild_things/2014/02/21/gray_wolf_endangered_species_act_conflict_should_fish_and_wildlife_service.html?wpisrc=burger_bar
===

USFWS Using Jedi Mind Tricks In Place Of Science

September 10, 2013

Confused you are?  Worried you are?

Is Yoda working for USFWS, have they hired him to play Jedi mind tricks on us? Don’t they know we’ve all seen Star Wars?

Does USFWS believe Yoda can hypnotize us? We’re not “weak-minded fools” falling for the BS they routinely dish out about wolves!

We’re on to you USFWS and your wolf hating friends in high places. You’d like nothing better than to see wolves gone from the lower 48 as you plan to remove the grizzly bear’s protections. C’mon, stop pretending your wolf delisting nonsense is based on science.  Isn’t your real goal a predator free landscape for Agribusiness?

https://howlingforjustice.wordpress.com/2013/09/10/usfws-using-jedi-mind-tricks-in-place-of-science/?preview=true&preview_id=24189&preview_nonce=d95f0360a7

===

Photos: USFWS, Regulationsdotgov

Posted in: Wolf Wars, Action Alerts

Tags: USFWS War on Wolves, Ranchers influence, Hunters influence, Tea Party influence, twisting ESA into a pretzel, dirty pool, Comment USFWS , national wolf delisting proposal

%d bloggers like this: