Category: Animal Rights

NRA Joins Appeal of District Court’s “Erroneous” NWR Decision

NRA Appeals District Court’s Erroneous National Wildlife Refuge Decision

Fairfax, Va. – The National Rifle Association on April 15 joined with Safari Club International, Sportsmen’s Alliance Foundation, and the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation to appeal an erroneous decision of the U.S. District Court for the District of Montana denying the pro-hunting organizations’ efforts to intervene in and defend the expansion of hunting opportunities on federal lands.

In Center for Biological Diversity v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the plaintiff challenged a 2020 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service regulation, that expanded hunting and fishing opportunities on almost 100 National Wildlife Refuges around the country. The plaintiff wrongly asserts that this expanded hunting and fishing threatens Endangered Species Act-listed species and challenges the use of lead ammunition and fishing tackle on National Wildlife Refuges. The pro-hunting organizations seek to defend the 2020 regulation, which is consistent with the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act’s directive to prioritize hunting and fishing on refuges.

In the appeal, the hunting organizations will demonstrate that the district court erred in ruling that hunter advocacy organizations do not have a legal interest in maintaining a rule that expanded hunting access. NRA, along with the adjoining groups, are leading hunter advocacy organizations and submitted multiple declarations of members who want to take advantage of expanded hunting and fishing opportunities provided in the 2020 rule.

“The NRA has always fought to ensure America’s sportsmen and women have ample access to this country’s great outdoors, and the district court’s ruling deprives them of the opportunity to be heard in this case,” said Amy Hunter, NRA spokeswoman. “On behalf of our five million members, we urge the appellate court to reverse this ruling.” Read more

Animal Rights, Hunting

SCI Sends Letter to Interior Over Gray Wolf Battle

Today, Safari Club International (SCI) joined 23 other hunting and conservation organizations, representing millions of sportsmen and women across the country, in a letter to Interior Secretary Deb Haaland. These organizations “respectfully request that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) appeal the February 10, 2022, decision from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California vacating the 2020 rule removing the gray wolf from the Endangered Species Act (ESA) lists of endangered and threatened species.”

In early 2020, the Service removed gray wolves in the lower 48 U.S. States from the ESA lists. Of course, anti-hunting groups immediately sued to put wolves back under the ESA. Although these groups acknowledged that some populations of gray wolves have recovered, they sought to force the Service to restore wolves everywhere—from Maine to Washington State. SCI, along with the National Rifle Association (NRA), intervened in these suits to defend the Service’s science-based delisting rule. Unfortunately, a federal court in the Northern District of California largely ruled in the plaintiffs’ favor. It is now up to the Service to appeal this decision.

Gray Wolf populations have been increasing the last 20 years and demonstrate an Endangered Species Act success story. Now that the gray wolf is in no way endangered, it is time for the Service to allocate funding to other much more vulnerable species.

The best available science supports the delisting of the gray wolf, and the decision in California prevents species from being delisted even when they have fully recovered. Additionally, removal from the Endangered Species List simply means that federal resources are not used for conservation, and that management is returned to state agencies – which they are fully capable of in the case of the gray wolf.

The Department of the Interior and Secretary Haaland have a responsibility to stand on the side of science, management, and proven conservation strategies. They should not listen to misguided animal rights groups, which aim to have the gray wolf “endangered” in perpetuity. We look forward to Secretary Haaland’s response and will continue to stand on the side of science, conservation, and hunters.

Animal Rights, Wildlife

Lower 48 Wolves Returned to ESA Protections by Court Order

This from the Sportsmen’s Alliance  

Gray wolves delisted by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in 2020 have been returned to protections afforded by the Endangered Species Act by court order.

On Feb. 10, 2022, District Court Judge Jeffery White of the Northern District of California ruled in favor of three radical animal-rights and environmental groups seeking to return wolves in the lower 48 States (except Idaho, Montana and Wyoming and portions of neighboring states) to protected status. Defenders of Wildlife, Natural Resources Defense Council and Wildearth Guardians filed suit against the USFW and Department of Interior seeking to overrule a Trump-era delisting of the apex predators.

Among other points, Judge White found that “the Service’s analysis relied on two core wolf populations to delist wolves nationally and failed to provide a reasonable interpretation of the ‘significant portion of its range’ standard.”

The 26-page ruling issued by District Court Judge White putting wolves back on the endangered/threatened list applies to all gray wolves in the lower 48 states, except those found in Idaho, Montana and Wyoming and portions of neighboring states, which were delisted by Congressional action in 2011. Any appeal of Judge White’s ruling would be to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

“We’re very disappointed by today’s ruling, as it’s clear that wolves have recovered across their intended range when placed under federal protection,” said Evan Heusinkveld, president and CEO of the Sportsmen’s Alliance Foundation, which filed an amicus brief in the court case. “We will continue to work with our partners to ensure recovered wolf populations are properly delisted and returned to state management as was laid out in the 2017 court case.”

In the 2017 Great Lakes wolf ruling, the court laid out a road map for FWS to delist the Western Great Lakes wolves and dismantled many of the dangerous and unsupported holdings in a lower court decision. That ruling also demonstrated that delisting of Great Lakes wolves by distinct population segment was supported as a way to scientifically manage recovered wolf populations.

“We will continue to evaluate today’s ruling while examining our legal options moving forward,” said Heusinkveld.

About the Sportsmen’s Alliance: The Sportsmen’s Alliance protects and defends America’s wildlife conservation programs and the pursuits – hunting, fishing and trapping – that generate the money to pay for them. Sportsmen’s Alliance Foundation is responsible for public education, legal defense and research.  Its mission is accomplished through several distinct programs coordinated to provide the most complete defense capability possible. Stay connected to Sportsmen’s Alliance: Online, Facebook, Twitter and Instagram.

Animal Rights

Michigan: With Federal Gray Wolf Protections Restored, Two State Laws Suspended

Livestock compensation, update to Michigan Wolf Management Plan continue

An order Thursday from a federal court in California returns gray wolves, including those in Michigan, to the federal list of endangered species. The ruling means that two state laws governing the ability to kill wolves preying on livestock, pets and hunting dogs have been immediately suspended.

The ruling from U.S. District Judge Jeffrey S. White in the Northern District of California vacated a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service order from Nov. 3, 2020, which removed gray wolves from the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife in the lower 48 states, beginning Jan. 4, 2021. That original U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ruling did not include wolves in the northern Rockies, nor the Mexican wolf subspecies.

“The changes on wolf protections took effect immediately Thursday with the judge’s signing of the U.S. District Court order,” said Michigan Department of Natural Resources Public Information Officer Ed Golder. “Ongoing work to update the 2015 Michigan Wolf Management Plan will continue, with completion of that process expected later this year.”

The now-suspended state laws are Public Act 318 of 2008, which allows hunting dog owners to remove, capture or use lethal means to destroy a wolf in the act of preying on the owner’s dog, and Public Act 290 of 2008, which offers the same provisions to livestock owners. Read more

Animal Rights, Wildlife

Scientific Management Frustrated Again as Wolves Relisted

A federal judge in California has ruled that the federal protections for gray wolf populations must be restored in the lower 48. The Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation and other conservation organizations strongly disagree with the ruling.

MISSOULA, Mont. — The Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation strongly disagrees with a ruling by a federal judge in California to restore federal protections to gray wolf populations in the Lower 48.

“Scientists, biologists and professional wildlife managers agree that wolf populations are stable and growing,” said Kyle Weaver, RMEF president and CEO. “As such, they should remain under the umbrella of state management since state wildlife agencies successfully manage all other wildlife in line with the North American Wildlife Conservation Model through regulated hunting and trapping.”

The science community under both the Obama and Trump administrations previously determined wolves to be a recovered species and removed populations from Endangered Species Act protections in 2011 and 2020. Yet both times, judges intervened to frustrate the process. Read more

Animal Rights

Dorsey Exposes Animal Rights Groups in Forbes

Excerpt from Chris Dorsey’s latest column

Perhaps you’ve seen the late-night appeals on cable channels from animal rights groups—the public service announcements of a starving dog or cat that will have a better life if you only send $25…immediately? You look down at Rover, resting comfortably on his padded dog bed next to the fire and think wouldn’t it be nice if every dog could have such a life. You’re only a phone call and a credit card away from making the world a happier place and feeling better about yourself at the same time.

That’s a common tug-at-the-heart-strings formula employed by groups like the Humane Society of the United States and others. Most of the people who see their fundraising pitches assume that these are the sweet people who once looked after Rover for a couple of days when he found love down the street and ran off before someone collared him and dropped him off at the local shelter. Who doesn’t want to pay such kindness forward? And therein lies the bait and switch that is the hallmark of the animal rights industry. It’s a formula HSUS has used to become the wealthiest animal rights organization in the world—annual revenues now of roughly $130 million.

To read the rest of the column click here

Animal Rights

Wolf Management Needs Hunters

By Glen Wunderlich

Charter Member Professional Outdoor Media Association (POMA)

The headline read as follows:  “Groups ask court to restore protections for gray wolves.”  The unsigned piece began with “Wildlife advocates asked a federal court to overturn a decision that stripped ESA protections.”  Oh, no!  And, to make matters even more threatening, language followed by indicating the toxic Trump administration announced just days ahead of the November 3rd election that  wolves were considered recovered.  That’s news?  It certainly is.  Old news.

Before getting into current details – reminiscent of clever, past maneuvers by these “advocates” – a history refresher is in order.  America’s lawmakers through a Supreme Court decision established public ownership of wildlife as a matter law. Titled the Public Trust Doctrine, this principle is the very essence and foundation of the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation.  It would ultimately expand to link funding of wildlife management to consumptive, public users – principally hunters and anglers.

Gone were the days of no-rules market hunting when animals of various stripes were wiped out.  Boone and Crockett Club founder, Theodore Roosevelt, was a strong advocate of science-based decisions that were to be used on our then-dwindling natural resources ultimately called the Roosevelt Doctrine.

The term “wildlife advocate” has since been co-opted by far-left, anti-hunting individuals who steadfastly hold to one underlying motive:  to end hunting of any kind.  They’ll tug at heartstrings with pictures of puppy-dog wolves and paint hunters as thrill killers devoid of consciousness.  Baloney!

Americans learned that the responsibilities guaranteed by the Public Trust Doctrine were too great for proper wildlife management.  Once the public realized their wildlife was being eliminated, their collective voice was so great that the conservation legislation being proposed began passing easily.  To this day, through excise taxes on guns, ammo, and fishing gear, the spirit thrives.

The slanted piece goes on to state how many wolves – some 4400 of them – reside in Michigan, Wisconsin, and Minnesota, unarguably far above the agreed-upon full-recovery goals.  And, it’s been this way many years – over a decade – before Trump declared anything.

Said Lindsay Larris, wildlife program director and current litigator at WildEarth Guardians. “No matter how you try to spin the data, wolves do not even inhabit 20 percent of historic range. This is not true recovery under the Endangered Species Act and a clear violation of the law.”  And, that’s their spin on an old yarn resurfacing with their newfound opposition to science.

Ah, but it is recovery, my dear uninformed spin masters.  Under the ESA, if it is determined that a species is no longer threatened or endangered throughout all or a significant portion of its range, the U.S Fish and Wildlife Service must publish in the Federal Register a proposed rule to remove the species from the Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants.

In 1917, the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit issued its ruling in the Western Great Lakes wolf lawsuit appeal which claimed that wolves could not be recovered unless they inhabited all of their historic range.  Sound familiar?

“This distorted view of the Endangered Species Act is simply emblematic of activists’ view of the ESA as a whole. They view this as a means to enshrine federal protections in perpetuity, as opposed to a tool to help those in need to recover and be returned to state management”, said Evan Heusinkveld, of the Sportsmen’s Alliance.  “The court’s ruling that regional delisting is legally possible was a victory for sound, scientific wildlife management and further upholds policy of the Endangered Species Act as an important tool for conservation moving forward.”

The court upheld the Service’s interpretation that the ESA’s definition of “range” refers to “current range” at the time of the listing or delisting decision that is the subject of the case, not “historic range,” as opponents argued and now continue with the same, lame tactics.

History may show where wolves were, but it also shows where people were not. The mere presence of man on the landscape can negatively affect wildlife and the habitats that support them.

And, if anyone thinks that by hunting wolves to control their numbers, is going to wipe them out, just name one single species that falls under the parameters of regulated hunting in which this has happened.  I’m waiting.

Animal Rights, Hunting, Wildlife , , , ,

CECIL Act Passes House Natural Resources Committee

H.R.2245 “Conserving Ecosystems by Ceasing the Importation of Large Animal Trophies Act” (CECIL Act) passed the House Natural Resources Committee today on a straight party-line vote, 19-16.The CECIL Act now sits in waiting for a vote in the U.S. House of Representatives.

As a hunter and an advocate for conservation, join the Hunter Advocacy Action Center (HAAC) to stay informed on this issue and to tell your Representative to OPPOSE H.R.2245.

Click here to tell your Representative to OPPOSE H.R. 2245

H.R. 2245 will derail clearly proven wildlife management strategies in Africa that are recovering the world’s largest populations of lions, elephants, and other species. If implemented, H.R. 2245 would undermine the authority and the on-going wildlife management plans of several African nations. At best, this legislation is an ill-conceived attempt to substitute emotionalism with rational wildlife conservation. Read more

Animal Rights

Endangered Mussels to Gain Protected Habitat in 18 Eastern, Midwestern States

WASHINGTON— The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service today agreed to designate critical habitat for four endangered freshwater mussels found in 18 states in the East and Midwest, marking a major legal victory for the species and for the Center for Biological Diversity.

The four colorfully named mussels — snuffbox, spectaclecase, sheepnose and rayed bean — range from Wisconsin and New York to Alabama and from Kansas to Virginia.

“Freshwater mussels are America’s most endangered group of animals, so it’s fantastic that these four incredibly important creatures will get habitat protection,” said Tierra Curry, a senior scientist at the Center. “Those safeguards will benefit these mussels along with the health of rivers across 18 states.”

The mussels were protected under the Endangered Species Act in 2012, but the Fish and Wildlife Service took no action to designate critical habitat for them until after the Center sued the agency in July 2018.

Under the agreement the agency must propose protected habitat areas for the mussels by Nov. 30, 2024. That protection will require anyone conducting a federally funded or permitted project in the mussels’ habitat to consult with the Service to ensure the area is not damaged. Species with federally protected critical habitat are more than twice as likely to be moving toward recovery as species without it. Read more

Animal Rights, Wildlife

Sturgeon Don’t Need Whackos’ “Help”

By Glen Wunderlich

The anti-hunting, anti-fishing groups led by the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) have sent a notice of their intent to sue the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for failing to respond to a 2018 petition seeking Endangered Species Act protection for the lake sturgeon.

According to CBD, many states and tribal organizations are working to restore lake sturgeon spawning populations. But, most populations have not recovered from overfishing, and dams still block access to former spawning and rearing habitats. Continued threats include new proposed dams and hydroelectric facilities, excessive water diversions, pollution, river dredging and channelization, invasive species and climate change.

The question is whether eliminating fishing for the majestic fish will achieve the stated goal of recovering the lake sturgeon to historic population levels, because that’s what “protection” means to these short-sighted groups. But, if we are to believe the stated reasons for the decline of the sturgeon populations, what exactly do these groups expect the federal government to do about them?

*Over-fishing – This year’s sturgeon season on Black Lake (Cheboygan County, Michigan) ended at 9:18 a.m. Saturday, Feb. 2 – after only 78 minutes of fishing.

The fishing season, which included spearing or hook-and-line fishing, was scheduled to run Feb. 2-6, or until the harvest quota had been reached. This year’s allocation of sturgeon for Black Lake anglers was seven fish, although Department of Natural Resources officials set a harvest quota of six fish.

There were 403 registered anglers on the ice Saturday, slightly down from 422 the year before. So, this is over-fishing?

*Dams need to go – Hydro-electric dams may prevent the fish from former spawning areas, but are we really going to eliminate them or do we really require such drastic action for the sake of the fish? The simple answer is no. We have installed other rearing facilities to compensate for the loss of habitat.

*Pollution – We can minimize air and water contaminants and have actually done so, but to return to the age of candle-lit lanterns and hand pumping water from the ground is asinine.

*River dredging and channelization – During heavy rain season, restricted river flow may result in flooding of local areas. This can result in major property damage, negative impact on tourism and local businesses, and can even be life-threatening. River dredging describes blockage removal with a dredge to maintain natural water flow. So, we have to cut this out, too?

*Invasive species – All we have to do is to stop all foreign ships from entering our waters and we will have cut off the supply of many of the troublesome creatures that come with them. This is about as likely to happen as the sun rising in the West.

*Climate change – This is always a red herring to add to the reasons for cold or hot weather that we humans could control.

These unrealistic goals of the fish lawyers are sound reasons to dismiss such changes in current management practices. In the past 20 years habitat projects have been increased substantially, while research has led to better regulations and sustainable use.

Even though we will never bring the sturgeon back to its numbers of yesteryear, we are on the path to sustainable use and harmony with the forgotten animal – the human one.

Animal Rights, Fishing
1 2 3 4 5 … 59