SCI Files an Appeal in the Wyoming Wolf Delisting Lawsuit

wolfinwoodsfirstforhunters012914In October, a federal court in D.C. returned Wyoming’s wolves to the endangered species list. The court rejected the delisting of Wyoming’s wolves based on the fact that Wyoming’s commitment to manage wolves above minimum population levels was not part of a legally binding regulation or statute. Considering Wyoming’s plans to be merely “voluntary,” and therefore not sufficient to meet Endangered Species Act delisting requirements, the court sent the delisting decision back to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS).

Wyoming attempted to prevent the return of its wolves to endangered status by promptly addressing the court’s concerns and immediately adopting the population commitment as a state regulation. The FWS, Wyoming, and SCI, together with the NRA and Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation (RMEF), all filed motions with the court, asking that the ruling be amended to recognize Wyoming’s efforts. The court denied all motions, insisting that the FWS initiate a new delisting process. Read more

Court Vacates Western Great Lakes Wolf Delisting Rule — Puts WGL Wolves Back on the Endangered Species List

wolvesfirstforhunters012014A D.C. federal district court judge has returned the wolves of the Western Great Lakes (WGL) to the endangered species list.  This was the fourth time that a delisting of the WGL wolves has been overturned in court.  In a 111 page opinion, the judge ruled that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) violated the Endangered Species Act by illegally creating the Western Great Lakes Distinct Population Segment of wolves.  The court decided that the FWS lacks authority to delist anything less than what they originally listed.  Since the FWS had originally listed gray wolves throughout the lower 48 states, the court held that the FWS lacked the authority to delist any population segment smaller than the species as a whole.  The court rejected the argument that the wolves of Minnesota, which the FWS had designated as “threatened” in 1978, qualified as a DPS that the FWS could later delist.

The court also had problems with many other aspects of the delisting rule.  The court found the FWS’s explanation of certain issues lacking, such as the significance of the wolves’ absence from areas of their historic range, the absence of regulatory protections of wolves in many of the states – those other than Michigan, Wisconsin and Minnesota — that had been included in the DPS, and the existence of risks to the wolves from multiple sources of mortality.

The court rejected arguments submitted by the FWS, the states of Michigan, Wisconsin and Minnesota as well as SCI’s intervenor group (also including the U.S. Sportsmen’s Alliance Foundation, the National Rifle Association, the Wisconsin Bear Hunters Association, the Michigan United Conservation Clubs, the Wisconsin Bowhunters Association, the Upper Peninsula Bear Houndsmen Association, the Michigan Hunting Dog Federation, and the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation) that recommended that the judge not invalidate the delisting rule and instead simply remand the rule to the FWS for further correction and explanation.  The judge was unconvinced that the relisting would cause disruption in the management of the species.  The judge chose instead to vacate the delisting rule and restored the wolves to federal protection.

SCI’s Litigation Team is studying this ruling and in the next few days will be analyzing its impact, not only on the future of WGL wolves, but also on other species potentially poised to be delisted.  SCI will also be consulting with attorneys for the FWS, states and other defendant-intervenors to discuss a potential appeal of this ruling.

Federal court order returns wolves to endangered species list

Ruling suspends Michigan’s lethal control laws and permits

A federal court judge has ordered the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to immediately return wolves in the Great Lakes region to the federal endangered species list, making it illegal for Michigan citizens to kill wolves attacking livestock or dogs.

Under endangered species status, wolves may be killed only in the immediate defense of human life.

Two state laws allowing livestock or dog owners to kill wolves in the act of depredation are suspended by the ruling.

Additionally, lethal control permits previously issued by the Michigan Department of Natural Resources to livestock farmers to address ongoing conflicts with wolves are no longer valid; permit holders have been contacted regarding this change.

The return to federal endangered species status also means DNR wildlife and law enforcement officials no longer have the authority to use lethal control methods to manage wolf conflict.

However, non-lethal methods – such as flagging, fencing, flashing lights and guard animals – may still be used and are encouraged. Compensation for livestock lost to wolves continues to be available through the DNR and Department of Agriculture and Rural Development.

Citizens in need of assistance with problem wolves should contact their local DNR wildlife biologist or DNR wolf program coordinator Kevin Swanson at 906-228-6561.

Friday’s federal court order came in response to a lawsuit filed by the Humane Society of the United States challenging the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s decision to remove wolves in the Great Lakes Distinct Population Segment from the federal endangered species list in January 2012. The ruling affects wolves in Michigan, Minnesota and Wisconsin.

“The federal court decision is surprising and disappointing,” said Russ Mason, DNR Wildlife Division Chief. “Wolves in Michigan have exceeded recovery goals for 15 years and have no business being on the endangered species list, which is designed to help fragile populations recover – not to halt the use of effective wildlife management techniques.”

The DNR will work closely with the Michigan Attorney General’s office and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to determine the full impact of this ruling on the state’s wolf management program and identify next steps.

“In the meantime, the Wildlife Division will continue updating the state’s wolf management plan, which includes the use of hunting and other forms of lethal control to minimize conflict with wolves,” Mason said. “Although the federal court’s ruling prevents the use of these management tools for the time-being, the Department will be prepared for any future changes that would return wolves to state management authority.”

For more information about Michigan’s wolf population and management plan, visit www.michigan.gov/wolves.

Great Lakes Wolves Protected by Obama-Appointed Judge

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
HUMANE SOCIETY OF THE UNITED STATES,
et al.
,Plaintiffs,v.SALLY JEWELL,
Secretary of the Interior 
,
et al.
,1Defendants,v.STATE OF WISCONSIN,
et al.
Intervenor-Defendants.Civil Action No.13-186(BAH)
ORDER
Upon consideration of the plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment,ECF No. 24,the defendants’ Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 27,defendant-intervenor Hunter Conservation Coalition’s Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 33,thesubmissions of defendant-intervenors, the States of Wisconsin and Michigan, ECF Nos. 29 and 30, the submissions of amici curiae the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources and the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, ECF Nos. 31 and 38,the Administrative Record submittedby the defendants, ECF No. 45,the related legal memorandain support and in opposition,the exhibits,declarations, and affidavitsattached thereto,and the entire record herein, for the reasons set forth in the accompanying Memorandum Opinion,the Court finds that “there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact,” F
ED
.R.C
IV
.P.56(a), and it ishereby
ORDERED
that, because the plaintiffs areentitled to judgment as a matter of law,the
1
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25(d), Sally Jewell, Secretary of the Interior, is automatically substituted for her predecessor in office.
Case 1:13-cv-00186-BAH Document 53 Filed 12/19/14 Page 1 of 2
2 plaintiffs’Motion for Summary Judgment,is GRANTED; and it is further 
ORDERED
thatthedefendants’ and defendant-intervenor’s Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment are DENIED; and it is further 
ORDERED
that, because therule Revising the Listing of the Gray Wolf (Canis lupus) in the Western Great Lakes(the “Final Rule”), 76 Fed. Reg. 81,666 (Dec. 28, 2011), isarbitrary and capricious and violates the Endangered Species Act of 1973,as amended, 16 U.S.C. §§ 1531
et seq.
, the Final Rule is VACATEDand SET ASIDE; and it is further
ORDERED
that therule in effect prior to the Final Rule vacated by this Order, namely, the rule regarding Reclassification of the Gray Wolf in the United States and Mexico, with Determination of Critical Habitat in Michigan and Minnesota, 43 Fed. Reg. 9607(Mar. 9, 1978), is REINSTATED to govern management of gray wolves in the nine states affected by the vacated Final Rule, pursuant to the Endangered Species Act;and it is further 
ORDERED
that theClerk of the Court close this case.
SO ORDERED
Date: December 19, 2014
This is a final and appealable Order.See F  ED.R.APP.P.4(a).
 __________________________ BERYL A. HOWELLUnited States District Judge
Case 1:13-cv-00186-BAH Document 53 Filed 12/19/14 Page 2 of 2
Digitally signed by Beryl A. Howell DN: cn=Beryl A. Howell, o=District Court for the District of Columbia,
ou=District Court Judge, email=howell_chambers@dcd.uscourts.gov, c=US Date: 2014.12.19 14:38:35 -05’00’

RMEF Joins Wyoming, Feds in Next Step Toward Possible Wolf Appeal

RMEF Joins Wyoming, Feds in Next Step toward Possible Wolf Appeal MISSOULA, Mont. -The Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, along with the U. S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the State of Wyoming, filed a notice of appeal in the Wyoming wolf case issued by the District Court of the District of Columbia. In essence, the legal move preserves RMEF’s ability to go forward with an appeal, if it is decided to do so.

“We maintain that state agencies, not the federal government, are in the best position to manage our wildlife-that includes wolves in Wyoming,” said David Allen, RMEF president and CEO. “The judge removed that responsibility from Wyoming wildlife managers on a technicality that has since been addressed.”

U. S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson recently disagreed with most of the environmentalists’ claims. She ruled that wolves in Wyoming are not endangered, are recovered as a species and that there is plenty of genetic connectivity. However, she rejected Wyoming’s wolf management plan that took effect in 2012 by stating the USFWS should not have accepted Wyoming’s nonbinding promise to maintain a population of at least 100 wolves and 10 breeding pairs outside Yellowstone Park and the Wind River Indian Reservation.

Read more

Humane Society Legislative Fund Goes All In on Landrieu’s Losing Campaign

This from www.Humanewatch.org

The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) spends less than 1 percent of its budget on grants to help local organizations care for pets. So we already know what HSUS doesn’t spend its money on—but where exactly does it all go?

Lately, a lot has gone into losing campaigns.

The lobbying arm of HSUS, Humane Society Legislative Fund, poured $132,000 into Sen. Mary Landrieu’s (D-La.) Louisiana Senate runoff election, which she officially lost over the weekend. For context, that’s the highest spending from any liberal group supporting Landrieu—and more than twice the $53,000 donated by the Democratic State Central Committee.

This sizable expenditure is particularly startling in light of the forecasts (correctly) predicting Landrieu’s loss. Polls showed Landrieu’s running mate, Bill Cassidy (R.-La.), ahead by as many as 26 points preceding their runoff race. (He ended up winning by 12 points.) Read more

SCI: Thanks to NJDEP for Continuing Bear Hunt Despite Interference by Anti-Hunting Groups

Washington – Special to The Outdoor Wire – With New Jersey’s weeklong black bear hunting season now under way, Safari Club International (SCI) again thanks the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) for continuing with the hunt, despite incessant cries from anti-hunting zealots for its cancellation. For several years, SCI has fought successfully in court to protect the annual bear hunt, defeating the anti-hunting groups repeatedly.

Black bears are the largest land mammal in New Jersey. As the NJDEP has found, they are an integral part of the state’s natural heritage and a vital component of healthy ecosystems. However, for NJDEP to properly manage New Jersey’s ecosystems, they need to manage the number of black bears at a sustainable population in the northwest region of the state.

Controlling black bear numbers improves public safety by reducing the number of bear encounters with humans. The citizens of New Jersey this year became keenly attuned to the need to intensify such management when a college student hiking in a nature preserve was fatally mauled by a black bear in September. Read more

Humane Society of the U.S. Racketeering Payment: $5.7 Million

GW:  This from www.humanewatch.org

We’ve solved a little mystery about the $15.75 million settlement in May of a federal racketeering and bribery lawsuit against the Humane Society of the United States and other activists. When the settlement was announced, HSUS declined to say how much it paid. Now we know: HSUS and its affiliate the Fund for Animals paid nearly $6 million, according to their consolidated financial statement.

On its tax return for 2013, HSUS declares $4.4 million in settlement expenses and the Fund for Animals declares $1.2 million—making up almost all of the $5.675 million settlement. Amusingly, the vast majority of the settlement is characterized as a “program” expense—but somehow we don’t think it will make it into HSUS’s next annual report.

This is donor money—HSUS’s insurance provider denied HSUS coverage for the litigation. That’s a fact HSUS danced around and omitted when it commented on the settlement, saying things like it expected insurance would cover most of all of the settlement and “in the end, that no donor dollars from the HSUS will go to Feld [Entertainment],” the plaintiff. Considering the settlement was paid in May, donor dollars already went to pay the racketeering settlement.

Fortunately, HSUS didn’t escape scrutiny from third parties. In fact, Charity Navigator yanked its rating of HSUS and replaced it with a “Donor Advisory” to the public. HSUS can pay a witness, but it can’t buy itself out of that jam.

What the Humane Society of the U.S. does with Donor Money

The deceptively named Humane Society of the United States only spends 1% of its budget on grants to help local organizations care for pets. But HSUS can afford to send $26 million—the equivalent of 20% of its budget—to offshore hedge funds. It’s a case of putting tax shelters ahead of pet shelters, and it comes on top of the $25.7 million HSUS put into the Caribbean in 2012. In 2013, HSUS reports that it sent $26 million to the Caribbean and Central America. Where exactly did that money go? A supplemental document tells us: Read more

Did HSUS Mislead its Insurance Company or a Federal Court?

Wayne_ClownThe Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) is still facing blowback from the more than decade-long litigation drama involving several animal rights group, including HSUS, and their alleged racketeering scheme against Feld Entertainment, owner of the Ringling Brothers and Barnum & Bailey Circus. The latest issue? Whether HSUS misled its insurance company—or a federal court.

As readers may recall, a cohort of animal-liberation extremists sued Feld Entertainment, alleging elephant abuse, and lost. Adding insult to injury, however, was the ensuing countersuit. The court found that the activist’s key witness—a former circus employee who lied under oath—had been paid almost $200,000 by the plaintiffs and their attorneys, prompting Feld to bring a federal RICO lawsuit against the animal extremists.

While HSUS was not involved in initially bringing the animal-rights lawsuit against Feld in 2000, the group merged with the Fund for Animals (FFA)—one of the original plaintiffs—in 2005 while the litigation was ongoing. Usually, HSUS has no problem taking credit for the work of its affiliates—except, apparently, when this affiliation involves a federal RICO lawsuit. With racketeering allegations on the table, HSUS was quick to distance itself from the Fund for Animals, insisting that the 2005 marriage did not qualify as a merger.

According to HSUS CEO Wayne “I don’t love animals” Pacelle, FFA was separate from HSUS, with “its own board of directors and its own donors.” HSUS filed a motion to dismiss the RICO suit on this premise of organizational separation. According to court records, HSUS argued that while it “join[ed] forces in a corporate combination” with FFA, the two organizations did not merge and therefore HSUS wasn’t liable for any of the allegations. (Never mind, of course, that at least one payment to the witness was made on an HSUS check.)

Before the suit progressed to trial, HSUS joined the other animal radicals in forking over a combined $15.75 million to settle the litigation, covering Feld’s legal fees incurred by the “frivolous and vexatious” 14-year crusade.

HSUS released a statement responding to the multi-party settlement, explaining: “We expect that a substantial portion, if not all, of the settlement costs to The HSUS and The Fund for Animals will be covered by insurance, and in the end, that no donor dollars from The HSUS will go to Feld.”

One problem: HSUS was denied insurance coverage. The solution? Evidently, yet another lawsuit: HSUS sued its insurance provider. But now, it looks like three times won’t be a charm for HSUS.

National Union Insurance Co.—which denied HSUS’s request for coverage—has filed a motion for summary judgment in the suit brought by HSUS. Its motion sheds light on new evidence of glaring factual discrepancies in HSUS’s claims. Read more

1 16 17 18 19 20 60