Time to Take Action
Our Klamath Basin Water Crisis
Upholding rural Americans' rights to grow food,
own property, and caretake our wildlife and natural resources.

The grey wolf and language deception
January 25, 2005
By Robert T. Fanning, Chairman and Founder, Friends of the Northern Yellowstone Elk Herd, Inc.

Nate Helm, executive director of Idaho Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife, says, "...delisting must be our focus" -- WHY?
Reclassification of the grey wolf, from "PREDATOR" to "BIG GAME", castrates the Secretary of Agriculture and the power vested in him under Title 7 of the U.S. Code http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode07/usc_sup_01_7.html -- and does the same for the Secretary of Interior, whose power is vested under Section 11(h) of the Endangered Species Act http://www.propertyrightsresearch.org/articles4/unspoken_issues_of_the_endangere.htm, which gives both Secretaries absolute power to order "PREDATOR" Control.
Bob Fithian, Executive Director of the Alaska Professional Hunters Association, said, "In twenty years in Alaska's bush, I have never once had the opportunity to
harvest the wolf, a nocturnal hunter."
What makes the people of Idaho think they will have any better luck or skills than Mr. Fithian?
What makes the people of Idaho think that wolves -- which reproduce at a 30%
annual rate -- will be culled by sport hunting at a rate equal to or greater than the rate of reproduction?
If you change the legal definition in your state code, you are not only going to
be hanged, but you will assist your executioners by kicking out the stool from
underneath yourself.
NEITHER *10 J http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/distr/others/recoprog/sect10j.htm NOR "DELISTING" has any money attached to it. Why would you want either?
The State of Montana bought into this scam -- which was foisted on us by Ted Turner and the Earth Justice League -- by passing S.B. 163 and revising our code to read "big game animal".
This error will be reversed in the Montana Legislative Session currently underway.
*10 J - [P]rovides for the designation of specific populations of species listed as "experimental populations." Under section l0(j), reintroduced populations of endangered or threatened species established outside the current range but within the species' historical range may be designated, at the discretion of the Service, as "experimental," lessening the Act's regulatory authority over such populations.

Thus, because these populations are not provided full Endangered Species Act protection, management flexibility is increased, local opposition is reduced, and more reintroductions are possible. Two types of experimental population designations exist: essential and nonessential. An essential experimental population is a reintroduced population whose loss would be likely to appreciably reduce the likelihood of the survival of the species in the wild. These populations are treated as threatened species (with special rules) for the purposes of section 9 of the Act. Therefore, they can be managed with greater flexibility with regard to incidental take and regulated take.

A nonessential experimental population is a reintroduced population whose loss would not be likely to appreciably reduce the likelihood of the survival of the species in the wild. These populations, besides being treated as threatened species, are treated as proposed species for the purposes of section 7. However, if the population occurs within the national park system or the national wildlife refuge system, it is still treated as if listed as threatened for the purposes of section 7.

The establishment of experimental populations is a valuable tool for use in the recovery of some listed species. Examples of experimental populations include the black-footed ferret in Wyoming, Guam rail on Rota, and red wolf in North Carolina.
Source: http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/distr/others/recoprog/sect10j.htm





Page Updated: Thursday May 07, 2009 09:15 AM  Pacific

Copyright klamathbasincrisis.org, 2005, All Rights Reserved