Latest: Gray wolves delisted in Wyoming

http://www.hcn.org/articles/latest-gray-wolves-are-no-longer-endangered

  • A gray wolf in Wyoming’s upper Gros Ventre drainage.

    Mark Gocke/Wyoming Game and Fish Department

BACKSTORY
In 1995, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service reintroduced endangered gray wolves in Yellowstone National Park and central Idaho, and they soon spread throughout the Northern Rockies. After a series of lawsuits, in 2011 Congress delisted wolves in Montana, Idaho and parts of Washington, Oregon and Utah. (“How the gray wolf lost its endangered status— and how enviros helped,” HCN, 6/6/11). In Wyoming, wolves remained listed until 2012, when they came under state management. Conservation groups sued, and federal protection was restored in 2014.

FOLLOWUP
In a March 3 ruling, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed that decision. Wyoming’s wolves will again be placed under state management, and Wyoming will implement its 2012 plan, which allows wolves to be shot on sight across most of the state. “This decision highlights that Congress should not step in to block judicial review under the Endangered Species Act,” wrote Earthjustice attorney Timothy Preso in a statement. Plaintiffs say they may ask for a rehearing.

Border Wall May Negatively Affect 111 Endangered Species

http://www.wildlifelandtrust.org/news/press-releases/border-wall-may-negatively-2017.html
Ben Callison, president of the Humane Society Wildlife Land Trust

No matter where you stand on the issue of the border wall between the United States and Mexico, we can all agree that the deleterious harms a border wall could have on wildlife is not getting the attention it should. Barriers currently cut across roughly 40 percent of the nearly 2,000-mile long border. The Secure Fence Act of 2006 precipitated the addition of a variety of fencing types, concrete vehicle barriers and sensors.

Researchers found that where barriers are already in place, wildlife is impaired. Impacts include disrupting their migration patterns and limiting the dispersal of populations, which promotes inbreeding between subpopulations of a species.  The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service predicts a wall may negatively affect 111 endangered species, such as jaguars, ocelots, jaguarundi and Mexican wolves, and 108 migratory bird species, including sparrows, warblers and hummingbirds. Four wildlife refuges, such as Lower Rio Grande Valley, Buenos Aires and Santa Ana National Wildlife Refuges, and fish hatcheries could all be negatively impacted.

These protected species and all animals should be able to access food, water and safe habitat. Walls and fences already in place are destroying the habitat connectivity that wild animals depend upon to fulfill these basic needs. Essential migratory routes may span from country to country, as a means for animals to access appropriate habitats in different seasons. A herd of bison, for example, is known to visit a pond on Mexico’s side of a barrier—as it is the only year-round water in the area—and cross into the U.S. to feed on native grasses.

The ability to roam is important since access to mates and a healthy-sized population maintains genetic diversity. Walls and fences prevent animals from following natural migration patterns and divide healthy-sized populations, leading to inbreeding and a loss of genetic diversity. Resulting mutations can eventually weaken species, making them more vulnerable to diseases and disasters such as floods, fires and climate change.

North America’s cat species are among the species most imperiled by current and future barriers. Any hope for jaguars to repatriate part of their former U.S. range depends upon any remaining jaguars in the U.S. having access to jaguars in Mexico. Few ocelots still reside in the U.S., and a fence separates them from a larger, more genetically diverse population in Mexico. Jaguarundis have been protected in the U.S. since 1976, but the last known individual died on a Texas road in 1986. A population south of the border is the only hope for this species to again flourish in its former U.S. range.

Only around 100 Mexican gray wolves remain north of the border and a few dozen south of the border. Passing across the border is essential for the two populations to maintain genetic diversity. The ferruginous pygmy owl depends upon mating between populations in Arizona and Mexico, but only flies as high as 4.5 feet. The proposed height for a new wall would be impassable for many species.

Much is at stake for wildlife as well as the integrity and health of habitats situated on the borderlands. If it is decided that the expansion of the wall must happen, wildlife biologists and others must be consulted to guide the process so that any foreseeable harms to wildlife are minimal and habitat connectivity is preserved and restored wherever feasible. We need to explore creative options such as designing wildlife crossings, leaving gaps in barriers for small animals, and having removal barriers to allow for migration or breeding seasons.

When constructing national policy, there are many important issues facing decision makers, but we should take the needs of animals and conservation into account as well. Congress and President Nixon did as much in enacting the Endangered Species Act in 1973. “We abuse land because we regard it as a commodity belonging to us,” wrote Aldo Leopold. “When we see land as a community to which we belong, we may begin to use it with love and respect.”

SAVE THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT FROM EXTINCTION

Earthjustice
The Endangered Species Act is one of the strongest, most effective wildlife protection laws in the world. It was passed with overwhelming bipartisan support more than 40 years ago to provide a legal safety net for wildlife, fish and plant species that are in danger of extinction. Now this Congress—which is shaping up to be the most anti-wildlife Congress we have ever seen—wants to slash the Endangered Species Act, threatening the very existence of the imperiled wildlife and ecosystems the Act protects.

We cannot allow this bedrock environmental law to be undermined by lawmakers who are in the pocket of polluting industries. Tell your representative to stand up for the Endangered Species Act now!

Biologists warn that our planet is facing a sixth wave of mass extinction. The Endangered Species Act, which has prevented 99 percent of the species under its care from vanishing, is precisely the kind of effective tool we need today. It has revived the bald eagle, the American alligator, the California condor and many others.

Yet anti-environment interests in the House and Senate are currently orchestrating some of the most serious threats ever posed to the Endangered Species Act. Some of the legislative proposals put specific imperiled wildlife species on the chopping block, while others attack core provisions of the Endangered Species Act itself.

House Natural Resources Chairman Rob Bishop (R-UT) has said he wants to “repeal and replace” the Endangered Species Act. Others are supporting legislative proposals that would make it harder for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to resolve Endangered Species Act lawsuits.

Take action now to ensure this landmark law is not weakened by political attacks.

During the previous (114th) Congress, anti-wildlife representatives authored more than 100 bills and amendments to undermine the Endangered Species Act. Similar legislative attacks are already being introduced in the current (115th) Congress. These proposals would put imperiled species at greater risk by:

  • Establishing arbitrary land boundaries where species protections would not apply
  • Imposing limitations on the ability of citizens to help enforce the Endangered Species Act
  • Undermining the use of science under the Endangered Species Act
  • Declaring open season on individual species, including wolves and sage grouse, by blocking federal protections or denying existing protections

If anti-environment members of Congress get their way, the Endangered Species Act’s vital protections will be cast aside. Tell your congressional representatives and senators to oppose any legislation that hurts imperiled wildlife!

Earthjustice and supporters like you have been fighting to stop political attacks on the Endangered Species Act for decades. We can’t do it without you—we need your help to defend this important law.

TAKE ACTION! Don’t let anti-environment members of Congress cast aside the Endangered Species Act’s vital protections.
TAKE ACTION

 

The Endangered Species Act is one of the strongest, most effective wildlife protection laws in the world. It was passed with overwhelming bipartisan support more than 40 years ago to provide a legal safety net for wildlife, fish and plant species that are in danger of extinction. Now this Congress—which is shaping up to be the most anti-wildlife Congress we have ever seen—wants to slash the Endangered Species Act, threatening the very existence of the imperiled wildlife and ecosystems the Act protects.
Biologists warn that our planet is facing a sixth wave of mass extinction. The Endangered Species Act, which has prevented 99 percent of the species under its care from vanishing, is precisely the kind of effective tool we need today. It has revived the bald eagle, the American alligator, the California condor and many others.
Yet anti-environment interests in the House and Senate are currently orchestrating some of the most serious threats ever posed to the Endangered Species Act. Some of the legislative proposals put specific imperiled wildlife species on the chopping block, while others attack core provisions of the Endangered Species Act itself.
House Natural Resources Chairman Rob Bishop (R-UT) has said he wants to “repeal and replace” the Endangered Species Act. Others are supporting legislative proposals that would make it harder for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to resolve Endangered Species Act lawsuits.
During the previous (114th) Congress, anti-wildlife representatives authored more than 100 bills and amendments to undermine the Endangered Species Act. Similar legislative attacks are already being introduced in the current (115th) Congress. These proposals would put imperiled species at greater risk by:
  • Establishing arbitrary land boundaries where species protections would not apply
  • Imposing limitations on the ability of citizens to help enforce the Endangered Species Act
  • Undermining the use of science under the Endangered Species Act
  • Declaring open season on individual species, including wolves and sage grouse, by blocking federal protections or denying existing protections
If anti-environment members of Congress get their way, the Endangered Species Act’s vital protections will be cast aside. Tell your congressional representatives and senators to oppose any legislation that hurts imperiled wildlife!
Earthjustice and supporters like you have been fighting to stop political attacks on the Endangered Species Act for decades. We can’t do it without you—we need your help to defend this important law.
Mother Grizzly Bear with cub feeding on clamps. Katmai National Park, Alaska (Andre Anita/Shutterstock)
The Endangered Species Act has prevented 99 percent of the species under its care from going extinct.

Demand that your elected officials oppose all efforts to weaken the Endangered Species Act now.

Why Destroy What We Most Need?

http://www.bornfreeusa.org/weblog_canada.php?p=5980&more=1

by Barry Kent MacKay,
Senior Program Associate

Born Free USA’s Canadian Representative

Published 02/17/17

Wolf© Wisconsin Department of
Natural Resources

When I was young, the world’s wealthiest man was reportedly Aristotle Onassis (1906-1975), who “earned” staggering wealth partly from owning shipping lines, from whaling, and from getting a start in business by selling tobacco. Like most billionaires, he ultimately had diverse business interests. The great whales whose deaths generated such fortunes are largely gone, but their destruction certainly contributed to his and others’ fortunes (and to the employment of sailors and whalers).

But now, far more than whales are at risk. There’s a growing number of American species that require protection—protection that was provided, until now, by the Endangered Species Act. Some legislators seem to think that making money is more important than protecting the environment, although nothing could be less true.

In fact, all wealth springs from the natural environment. From the steel of ships, trains, and aircraft, to the fossil fuels that drive them, to tobacco and whales, we see the products of nature: of natural geological and biological processes accessed through the technological innovation and the physical endeavors of workers. They transfer the raw produce of the planet into wealth that tends to accumulate up the economic pyramid to those at the top.

Taking any wealth without regard for the wolves, pupfish, bald eagles, jaguars, and other species that are rare, threatened, or endangered comes at costs that are shared by everyone. We all, more or less, equally need fresh water, productive oceans, and clean air to breathe. We also need our fellow plants and animals. However, they are in rapid decline now that we are changing the planet hundreds of times faster than in primal times.

And now, in 2017, I worry that the American government may dismantle the Environmental Protection Agency: an agency that protects not only Americans, but Canadians, too (as well as the migrating wildlife that doesn’t recognize human-imposed borders).

Yes, workers at the economic pyramid’s broad base may benefit in the short term—but we can’t eat, drink, or breathe money. We must focus on protecting the natural environment that makes this planet so rich.

Political shots fired as American lawmakers renew war on wolves

image

http://blog.humanesociety.org/wayne/2017/01/political-shots-fired-american-lawmakers-renew-war-wolves.html

by Wayne Pacelle     January 19, 2017

Just days after the newly constituted Congress commenced its work in the new year, some legislators from the West and the Great Lakes region showed that they have their fangs out for wolves and other animals. They are threatening not just to enable a massive kill of the ecologically and economically beneficial native carnivores, but also to open the floodgates for a host of bills and riders to target other endangered species in the crosshairs of special interests. These legislators have introduced two bills, H.R. 424 and S. 164, dubbed the “War on Wolves Act,” designed to remove federal Endangered Species Act protections for gray wolves in Wyoming and the northern Great Lakes states of Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin, and to prevent federal courts from intervening to ensure wolf management is consistent with principles of sound conservation science. They will almost certainly deliver on that promise if Congress passes them and President Donald Trump signs a final bill.

The War on Wolves Act strips the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service of its management authority over wolves and hands it off to state agencies whose past actions have shown a bias toward the bloodthirsty. These agencies have treated non-lethal co-existence measures as a sort of management oddity rather than the core of a sound strategy that balances the needs of wolves with the interests of wolf-country residents.

Lawmakers, quick to cater to the vocal minority that wants to hunt and trap wolves, are ignoring the best available science, which reveals that these apex carnivores occupy just a fraction of their original range and number only 5,000 across the entire lower 48 states. That science also shows that random killing of wolves – by trophy hunters and trappers – may actually lead to conflicts between wolves and livestock by disrupting and dispersing stable packs.

When the federal government delisted wolves in 2012 — and before federal lawsuits from The HSUS restored protections — trophy hunters and trappers, along with other causes of mortality, killed nearly a quarter of Minnesota’s wolves. Humans killed nearly one in every five wolves in Wisconsin that same year, including 17 entire family units, and half of the wolves killed in that state’s first season were pups. Michigan also conducted an ill-advised hunt, over the objections of the state’s own voters, in areas where common-sense measures would have prevented the few conflicts that had occurred with livestock and hunting dogs. In fact, between 2012 and 2014, 500 wolves had been killed in the Great Lakes states alone. Wyoming declared that over 80 percent of the state was a wolf “predator zone” — meaning that trophy hunters, trappers, and wildlife services agents had no restrictions on the manner of take, season for the killing, or even the age of pups or yearling animals. That policy is a prescription for local extinction.

This is not a sensible or conservation-minded plan and most definitely not a humane one – it is an all-out, barbaric assault on the forebears of the domesticated dog.

In 2014, two separate federal court decisions returned wolves in the Great Lakes region and Wyoming to protections afforded to them under the ESA. Because of this, the sponsors of the War on Wolves Act included an insidious provision that would prevent citizens from challenging wolf protections through the courts, removing judicial review and putting Congress squarely in charge of making a listing decision. As the Chicago Tribune pointedly remarked when this same attempt was made in 2016: “The only reason to bar court challenges, of course, is to avoid having the legal weakness of your case exposed.”

A study last year showed that most Americans hold positive or even “very positive” associations with wolves. A 2014 statewide survey of nearly 9,000 Wisconsin residents showed most residents believe that wolves are important members of the ecological community who keep deer in balance and should be enjoyed by future generations. Wisconsinites surveyed said they were proud they were “one of the few places in the United States with wolves” and most did not want to see their wolves hunted or trapped.

Upon their reintroduction to Yellowstone, wolves moderated elk from congregating and stripping away vegetation from life-bearing riparian areas. These effects are documented in a popular video called “How Wolves Change Rivers,” based on a lecture by journalist and environmental advocate George Monbiot. The video has attracted more than 31 million views on YouTube. Wolves are also an enormous draw in the Upper Great Lakes, generating millions in commerce, while providing ecological benefits that are incalculable.

If Democrats in Congress, such as Sens. Tammy Baldwin and Amy Klobuchar, continue to align with Republicans on this issue, they will not only destroy wolf families and produce enormous pain and suffering for individual wolves, but they will also cripple defensive efforts to protect other endangered species targeted by special interests who want to remove federal protections for them. This is dangerous stuff, at a time when the ESA is likely to face its most serious and sustained assault ever because of Republican majorities in both chambers and now with Trump in the White House.

Democrats should come to their senses, embrace active management of the occasional problem wolf, and defend both the decisions by scientists and judges to honor the provisions of the ESA. If they do not, we’ll see an emptying of the ark in the United States in this Congress, starting with wolves. We need to send a signal that the American public won’t go for this species-by-species gutting of our nation’s most important wildlife protection law.

Hillary Clinton taps former Colorado Sen. Ken Salazar to lead White House transition team

WASHINGTON — Hillary Clinton on Tuesday named former U.S. Sen. Ken Salazar of Colorado as the chairman of her White House transition team — a job that puts him in prime position to join Clinton’s administration if she wins the election.

As head of a lineup that includes former Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm and former National Security Adviser Tom Donilon, Salazar will be in charge of vetting potential agency leaders and officials, as well as consulting with President Barack Obama’s administration on issues ranging from the economy to national security.

“Once Hillary Clinton makes history by being elected as the nation’s first woman president, we want to have a turnkey operation in place so she can hit the ground running right away,” Salazar, a Democrat, said in a statement released Tuesday by the Clinton campaign.

While transition teams are nothing new, their role has become increasingly official in recent years. Salazar’s team will meet regularly with the administration and use work space provided by the General Services Administration. New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie was tapped in May by Donald Trump for a similar assignment.

Clinton’s selection of Salazar is not a complete surprise, said Colorado Democrats who know both politicians. Salazar has been a longtime Clinton supporter — hosting a campaign event for her last fall — and he was mentioned as a possible running mate in the early months of the 2016 presidential campaign.

Clinton and Salazar have a history, too. Not only did they serve together in the U.S. Senate, the two politicians both were Cabinet officials under Obama: She with the State Department and he with the U.S. Department of the Interior.

“My perception is that Secretary Clinton and Secretary Salazar built a strong relationship when they both were serving in the Cabinet,” said Steve Bachar, a member of Clinton’s National Finance Committee. “They gained a lot of mutual respect and when Secretary Clinton announced her candidacy for president, Ken stepped in to be as helpful as he could in every way he could.”

Although Clinton ultimately selected U.S. Sen. Tim Kaine of Virginia as her pick for vice president — over Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper — the transition team could provide Salazar a road back to Washington if he wants it.

More: http://www.denverpost.com/2016/08/16/ken-salazar-hillary-clinton-white-house-transition-team/

“Beast Feast” etc., from AR News…

Big Win for Animal Rights: Navy Sonars Are Killing Whales, US Court Rules
http://www.natureworldnews.com/articles/25630/20160723/big-win-animal-rights-navy-sonars-killing-whales-united-states-court-rules.htm
“Blue whales can now live in peace and relative quiet after the Ninth
U.S. Circuit Court of San Francisco ruled out the U.S. Navy’s request
to use low-frequency sonar due to its potential harm to marine
animals.
“The U.S. Navy sought the approval from the National Marine Fisheries
Service to use the said sonar under the Marine Mammal Protection Act.
However, groups urged the Service to reassess, which led to their
decision not to give the go signal to the Navy’s request.”

Judge will allow animal rights’ vet to examine Cricket Hollow Zoo lions
http://www.thegazette.com/subject/news/public-safety/judge-will-allow-animal-rights-vet-to-examine-cricket-hollow-zoo-lions-20160722
“Animal Legal Defense Fund granted part of injunction”
“CEDAR RAPIDS — A federal judge Friday ordered owners of the Cricket
Hollow Zoo in Manchester to let a veterinarian examine two African
lions they are being sued over.”

A/w local OKC outdoor news:

Crossing Community Church, located in OKC, is having its annual “Beast
Feast” on Tuesday night.
Tickets are $15 each and there is a smoked pork dinner.
The guest speaker is a co-host of Inside Outdoors TV, based in Tulsa.
This show began their 10th season this month.
The “Beast Feast” includes a hunting and fishing expo with numerous
prizes to be given away.
This includes hunting trips, fishing trips, guns, rod and reels, knives and
gift cards.

Facing an uphill court fight, the US Fish and Wildlife Service announced
last week it was formally
removing the lesser prairie chicken from a federal protection list under
the Endangered Species Act.
This move follows recent court rulings in Texas that stripped the lesser
prairie chicken of federal
protection. However, federal officials say the removal doesn’t mean
authorities had concluded the
lesser prairie chicken didn’t warrant protection for biological reasons.
The agency stated “The service is undertaking a thorough re-evaluation
of the bird’s status and
the threats it faces using the best available scientific information to
determine anew whether listing
under the ESA is warranted.”
The previous rulings found that the Fish and Wildlife Service failed to
make a proper evaluation
of a multi-state conservation plan when it listed the lesser prairie
chicken as threatened.
Oil and gas groups had strongly opposed the threatened listing and
ranchers also opposed the
listing.
The lesser prairie chicken’s Great Plains habitat has shrunk by more
than 80 percent since
the 1800s and its population by 99 percent.
It lives primarily in Kansas. However, it also lives in Texas, New
Mexico, Okla. and Colorado.
To keep the birds off the endangered species list, these five states
organized their own
conservation program. It offers economic incentives to landowners and
companies who set
aside land to protect the birds.

 

13533278_1489665091056950_3215226751240158290_n

Delisting wolves was a mistake (OPINION)

http://www.projectcoyote.org/delisting-wolves-was-a-mistake/

by | Nov 24, 2015 | Notes From the Field |

The decision by the Oregon Fish and Wildlife Commission to delist wolves from the state’s Endangered Species Act protection was based on faulty science and political expediency. The biggest problem is with the department’s criteria for delisting — more than four breeding pairs of wolves for three years in a row— is that it fails to ensure full restoration of the wolf across the state. Many outside scientists, including myself, feel the small population of 80 to perhaps as many as 100 wolves statewide is hardily sufficient to guarantee a robust and speedy restoration of the species.

A hundred or fewer wolves may preclude the extinction of the species, but it does not restore the ecological function of the wolf. And restoring the ecological function of the species should be the prime goal of any conservation effort. Precluding extinction is a very low bar and does not serve the people of Oregon, the wolf or our ecosystems.

I did an analysis of the potential for wolf restoration in Oregon back in the 1990s and concluded that the state could easily support 1,500 to 2,000 wolves. Others have reached similar conclusions. Restoring wolves across the state so that they are functional members of the wildlife community should be the goal of the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife.

If, hypothetically, elk were the species under consideration and were protected under the state’s Endangered Species Act, I can almost guarantee you ODFW would want way more than 100 individuals before they would recommend delisting. They would want to see elk restored across the state.

Wolves are in a sense a “keystone” species that influences ecosystem health. Having a token population of wolves is not the same as having a functioning ecosystem member. Wolves not only eliminate weaker prey individuals but can shift habitat use; for instance they can reduce elk and deer foraging on aspen, willows and other browse species in riparian areas. Wolves can also affect the distribution and numbers of other species. Where wolves are present, there are often fewer coyotes. Coyotes kill the smaller Sierra Nevada red fox that is just hanging on in the Cascades. Restoration of wolves could thus assist the recovery of the red fox.

The rush to delist wolves is driven by false perceptions of wolf impacts on livestock and big game populations. Out of 1.3 million cattle and 195,000 sheep in the state, only 114 domestic livestock have been confirmed killed by wolves since the first wolves appeared in the early 2000s. Comparisons between Montana and Oregon are often made by ODFW. Using Montana, in 2014, the state’s 600 or so wolves killed 35 cattle and six sheep out of a total of 2.5 million cattle and 220,000 sheep respectively, By comparison, non-wolf losses accounted for 89,000 deaths. And though six sheep were killed by wolves, some 7,800 sheep died from other causes, like weather.

Wolves are simply not a threat, or even barely a factor, in the economic viability of the livestock industry.

The idea that hunting will be negatively affected across any significant portion of the state is also unlikely. Between 2009 and 2014, all wildlife management units (WMUs) of northeastern Oregon with established wolf packs had increasing elk populations, and two of the four (Imnaha and Snake River) were above the established management objectives for elk since wolves became established (ODFW data).

A similar situation exists in Montana, where elk numbers grew from an estimated 89,000 animals in 1992 (Montana Elk Plan) to 167,000 elk today (Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks, 2015). If this is what you get with wolf predation, I think most reasonable hunters would agree we could use more wolves in Oregon!

In the end, ODFW capitulated to mythology and false fears of hunters and ranchers without providing context and did not meet its wildlife responsibilities under the public trust doctrine to work diligently for full restoration of the ecological function of the wolf.

George Wuerthner lives in Bend.

Comments regarding the proposed delisting of gray wolves in Oregon from Adrian TrevesProject Coyote Science Advisory Board member

Anti-wildlife, pro-hunting act reaches U.S. Senate; you can help stop it

These are some of the animals who will be affected - you can help stop this!

These are some of the animals who will be affected – you can help stop this!
Courtesy: Mark Kolbe, John Moore, Bill Pugliano/Getty Images

Wolf and Bear

from Defenders of Wildlife:

It’s supposedly an energy bill, but the “North American Energy Infrastructure Act of 2016” contains a lethal dose of anti-wildlife amendments that will lead to dead wolves, dead bears and the destruction of many important wildlife protections.

And while the pro-oil, pro-coal, climate change-denying provisions of the bill are despicable, the anti-wildlife measures are equally catastrophic.

Tell your senators to oppose this bill’s wide array of anti-wildlife provisions.

This bill has incorporated the so-called “Sportsmen’s Heritage and Recreational Opportunity Act,” with all of its horrific attacks on wildlife and public lands that we have spoken about before.

The deadly wildlife provisions include:

  • Forced delisting of Wyoming and Great Lakes gray wolves – you might recall that before the federal courts reversed a premature delisting of Wyoming wolves, over 85 percent of the state had been declared a “predator zone,” where anyone could kill a wolf, at any time and for any reason;
  • Gun lobby-endorsed language that would hasten the extinction of African elephants by hindering U.S. efforts to crack down on the illegal ivory trade;
  • Provisions that would allow the most extreme forms of wolf and bear hunting on over 100 million acres of federally-protected wildlife habitat in Alaska, including baiting, snaring and killing mothers and young; and
  • Language that would severely undermine wildlife safeguards and encourage increased logging in the national forests that millions of creatures rely on for survival.

The anti-wildlife forces just won’t give up. It’s up to you and me to stop them.

Tell your senators to protect wildlife by opposing this harmful House Energy Bill!

Thanks for your tireless help on behalf of the wildlife we love.