August 19, 2017

Bishop Statement on Gray Wolf Court Ruling

WASHINGTON, D.C., August 2, 2017 –

Chairman Rob Bishop (R-UT) issued the following statement on the Federal appeals court ruling concerning protections for gray wolves in the western Great Lakes region under the Endangered Species Act (ESA).

“When science-based recovery criteria are met and environmental litigants can still drag the federal government through a decade of costly litigation before the delisting is final, we have a problem. Republicans and Democrats from impacted states have worked hard to resolve this conflict and ensure wolf populations are healthy and thriving but all they’ve received in return is prolonged economic harm and regulatory uncertainty. When ESA decisions are taken out of the hands of expert biologists and given to judges and radical ideologues, this is what happens.

“Congress must take action to protect communities from this broken law. Until we do, Americans’ tax dollars will continue padding the pockets of wealthy environmental trial lawyers, rather than investing in actual species recovery.”

Share

Court Sides with Sportsmen on Key Issue, but Leaves Wolves Protected for Now

Press Release from the Sportsmen’s Alliance:

On Tuesday, Aug. 1, the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit issued its ruling in the Western Great Lakes wolf lawsuit appeal. The ruling is a short-term setback, but very likely a win for sportsmen in the long run.

For the immediate future, the Appellate Court’s decision leaves Endangered Species Act listing in place, upholding the lower court’s 2014 ruling that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) erred in delisting wolves in 2011. Very importantly, however, the court laid out a road map for FWS to delist the Western Great Lakes wolves on remand and dismantled many of the dangerous and unsupported holdings in the lower court decision.

Additionally, the appellate court ruled in favor of sportsmen on the most important legal issue in the case regarding the distinct population segment (DPS) definition in the Endangered Species Act and the Fish and Wildlife Service’s DPS Policy. The appellate court sided with the Sportsmen’s Alliance Foundation and our partners that the FWS has the ability to list and, as in this case, delist a species at the distinct population segment level:

“The central dispute in this case is whether the Endangered Species Act permits the Service to carve out of an already-listed species a “distinct population segment” for the purpose of delisting that segment and withdrawing it from the Act’s aegis. We hold that the Act permits such a designation, but only when the Service first makes the proper findings.” (Op. at 15-16).

This ruling means that, if the Fish and Wildlife Service takes the right steps, they are able to delist a recovered species in some places (a distinct population) without having to delist it everywhere. This flexibility will make the ESA more efficient and possibly subject to fewer legal challenges. HSUS and their partners had argued that FWS could never delist a smaller portion of a species unless the entire species had fully recovered and could be removed from the Endangered Species Act protections. HSUS has now lost that point.

“The court’s ruling that regional delisting is legally possible is a victory for sound scientific wildlife management and further upholds DPS policy of the Endangered Species Act as an important tool for conservation moving forward,” said Evan Heusinkveld, president and CEO of the Sportsmen’s Alliance. “While we clearly would have preferred that wolves be returned to state management today, this ruling provides a path forward for the Fish and Wildlife Service on how to successfully delist wolves once and for all.

“Folks in the animal-rights community would like believe that the Endangered Species Act is a one-way ratchet. In their world, you can only put species on to the Endangered Species List based upon a distinct population segment. However, we know that this is not how the ESA is written,” continued Heusinkveld. “This distorted view of the DPS policy is simply emblematic of their 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 recover and be returned to state management.”

Additionally, the appellate court dismantled many of the main arguments provided by the HSUS-led coalition and holdings of the unfavorable lower court opinion:

  • The court upheld FWS’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 HSUS argued. HSUS’ interpretation would mean that populations may never be delisted if they could not rebound throughout their historic range. However, the court said FWS must consider large losses in historical range in evaluating the continuing viability of the species in its current range. On remand, FWS must decide the “baseline” date from which historical range loss is measured. One likely date could be 1973 – the year Congress enacted the ESA.
  • HSUS argued that FWS failed to explain why the wolf population’s combined mortality from humans and disease is not a continuing threat to the species’ existence. The court found that FWS had thoroughly examined these factors, and that the wolf population had continued to grow despite any disease or human-caused mortality.
  • HSUS attempted to characterize Minnesota as an “unregulated killing zone.” While the lower court decision had agreed, the Circuit Court disagreed and found that Minnesota’s depredation plan did not amount to an “unregulated killing zone,” as it was indeed regulated and unlikely to threaten wolves’ survival.
  • HSUS argued the lack of state regulatory plans to monitor and protect the Western Great Lake wolves outside of their core recovery areas in Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan did not support FWS’s decision to delist those wolves. The court found that the lack of separate state plans in six nearby states was not a concern because wolves are virtually non-existent in those states, and those animals that do occasionally appear there are protected by other measures or they do not significantly contribute to the WGL population.
  • HSUS challenged the 2011 rule on genetics issues concerning whether there are one or two wolf species. The court rejected the HSUS argument that there were two separate species of wolves, and thereby additional protections were warranted.
  • HSUS argued that FWS had inappropriately responded to political pressure from Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D, Minnesota) in adopting its wolf-delisting order. The court rejected that argument, stating that HSUS could point to no science “ignored, misused, or manipulated” or to any material change in FWS’ position in response to a letter from Sen. Klobuchar. In particular, the court cites that FWS had acted favorably in response to several delisting petitions (including the Sportsmen’s Alliance petition) before Sen. Klobuchar’s letter.

How We Got Here:

The case stems from a late 2014 decision by U.S. District Court Judge Beryl A. Howell that ruled the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service had to return wolves found in the western Great Lakes area to the protections afforded by the Endangered Species Act. At the crux of the case was the delisting of a “distinct population segment” of wolves from the Endangered Species Act.

The lawsuit brought by Humane Society of the United States; Born Free, USA; Help Our Wolves Live; and Friends of Animals and Their Environment argued that despite a healthy population of wolves that had surpassed all recovery goals in the western Great Lakes region, since wolf populations haven’t recovered in all 50 states, the animals must remain under federal protection as an endangered species even where they have recovered.

“This 2014 ruling clearly ignored years of Fish and Wildlife Service policy, court rulings and plain common sense,” said Heusinkveld. “The idea that wolves can never be deemed ‘recovered’ in the Great Lakes states until they have recovered across the entire U.S. is a complete fantasy.”

Joining the Sportsmen’s Alliance Foundation in this case, was the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, Safari Club International, the Wisconsin Bear Hunters Association, the National Rifle Association, Michigan United Conservation Clubs, Wisconsin Bowhunters Association, Upper Peninsula Bear Houndsmen Association and Michigan Hunting Dog Federation.

Share

Department of Interior Announces Recovery and Delisting of Yellowstone Grizzly Population

Press Release from the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation:

MISSOULA, Mont.—The U.S. Department of Interior announced the recovery of the Yellowstone grizzly bear population as well as its intent to remove federal protections and return management to state agencies.

“The Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation supports the delisting of grizzly bears,” said David Allen, RMEF president and CEO. “It’s been a long time coming and we think this is the appropriate move by Secretary Zinke and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.”

The Yellowstone population rebounded from as few as 136 bears in 1975 to an estimated 700 today. Confirmed sightings of grizzlies are taking place in locations where they have not previously been seen for more than 100 years as they extend their range in the Northern Rockies.

“This achievement stands as one of America’s great conservation successes; the culmination of decades of hard work and dedication on the part of the state, tribal, federal and private partners,” said U.S, Secretary of the Interior Ryan Zinke. “As a Montanan, I’m proud of what we’ve achieved together.”

The Yellowstone grizzly population meets all delisting criteria. These factors include not only the number and distribution of bears throughout the ecosystem, but also the quantity and quality of the habitat available and the states’ commitments to manage the population from now on in a manner that maintains its healthy and secure status.

“We do caution everybody to manage their expectations about the potential of hunting grizzly bears. The reality is there will be very minimal hunting of grizzly bears for the next several years. Those who oppose the delisting are going to try and use ‘trophy hunting’ as a major obstacle and reason not to delist grizzly bears. It’s purely rhetoric and propaganda,” added Allen.

The final rule, and the supporting documents, will publish in coming days in the Federal Register and the rule will take effect 30 days after publication.

Press Release from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service:

Partners celebrate Endangered Species Act delisting following decades of collaboration

June 22, 2017

WASHINGTON – Due to the success of conservation efforts and collaboration among a variety of stakeholders, U.S. Secretary of the Interior Ryan Zinke announced today that the Yellowstone population of the grizzly bear has been recovered to the point where federal protections can be removed and overall management can be returned to the states and tribes. The population has rebounded from as few as 136 bears in 1975 to an estimated 700 today and meets all the criteria for delisting.

“As a kid who grew up in Montana, I can tell you that this is a long time coming and very good news for many communities and advocates in the Yellowstone region,” said Secretary Zinke. “This achievement stands as one of America’s great conservation successes; the culmination of decades of hard work and dedication on the part of the state, tribal, federal and private partners. As a Montanan, I’m proud of what we’ve achieved together.”

The Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem (GYE) Distinct Population Segment (DPS) consists of portions of northwestern Wyoming, southwestern Montana and eastern Idaho. Grizzly bear populations outside of this DPS in the lower 48 states will be treated separately under the ESA and will continue to be protected.

The GYE grizzly bear population is one of the best studied bear populations in the world thanks to the longstanding efforts of the Interagency Grizzly Bear Study Team (IGBST). Population and habitat monitoring efforts undertaken by the IGBST indicate that GYE Grizzly Bears have more than doubled their range since the mid-1970s. They now occupy more than 22,500 square miles, an area larger than the states of New Hampshire, Massachusetts and Connecticut combined. Stable population numbers for grizzly bears for more than a decade also suggest that the GYE is at or near its capacity to support grizzly bears. This decision by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) was informed by over four decades of intensive, independent scientific efforts.

The GYE grizzly bear population was determined to be recovered because multiple factors indicate it is healthy and will be sustained into the future. These factors include not only the number and distribution of bears throughout the ecosystem, but also the quantity and quality of the habitat available and the states’ commitments to manage the population from now on in a manner that maintains its healthy and secure status.

In addition to this final rule, the USFWS will also release a final supplement to the 1993 Grizzly Bear Recovery Plan for the Yellowstone Grizzly Bear population. The Conservation Strategy that describes management of the grizzly bear following delisting was finalized by the Yellowstone Ecosystem Subcommittee of the IGBC in December of 2016. That document can be found here: http://igbconline.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/161216_Final-Conservation-Strategy_signed.pdf.

The final rule, and the supporting documents, will publish in coming days in the Federal Register and the rule will take effect 30 days after publication. More information can be found here: https://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/es/grizzlyBear.php.

Press Release from House Committee on Natural Resources and Energy:

Bishop: Grizzly Delisting Process Emblematic of Need for ESA Reform

WASHINGTON, D.C., June 22, 2017

Today, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) announced grizzly bears in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem will be delisted from the endangered species list. Chairman Rob Bishop (R-UT) issued the following statement:

“I commend this Administration and the Department of the Interior for delisting the grizzly bear even though it  should have been done years ago. States are far more capable of managing the grizzly population than the federal government. The time it took to get this delisting is the latest evidence that reform of ESA is sorely needed. Recovery and delisting — and responsible state management that will prevent listings in the first place — must be the goals of ESA, not lifetime sentences on the endangered list fraught with frivolous litigation.”

Background:

Grizzly bears are currently listed as “threatened” under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Delisting the species will allow states the ability to manage populations within their borders.

The grizzly bear population was originally delisted in 2007, but relisted in 20009 following litigation. In 2016, FWS proposed to delist the grizzly bear population as former Interior Secretary Ken Salazar deemed the population “unquestionably recovered” in 2012. The population has remained either steady or increasing for close to a decade.

Share

Removing the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem Population of Grizzly Bears From the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce the reopening of the public comment period on our March 11, 2016, proposed rule to revise the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife, under the authority of the Endangered Species Act, by removing the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem population of grizzly bears (Ursus arctos horribilis). In our proposed rule, we emphasized that the governments of Montana, Wyoming, and Idaho needed to promulgate regulations managing human-caused mortality of grizzly bears before we would proceed with a final rule. Montana, Wyoming, and Idaho recently finalized such mechanisms. We are also announcing the receipt of five independent peer reviews of the proposed rule. We are reopening the comment period for the proposed rule to allow all interested parties an additional opportunity to comment on the proposed rule in light of these documents. If you submitted comments previously, you do not need to resubmit them because we have already incorporated them into the public record and will fully consider them in preparing the final rule.<<<Read More>>>

Share

Alliance Submits Comments on Delisting of Grizzly Bears

Press Release from the Sportsmen’s Alliance:

The Sportsmen’s Alliance Foundation recently submitted comments in favor of delisting of the grizzly bear as a threatened species under the federal the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The Alliance supports the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service findings that the bear population has recovered and stringent ESA protections are no longer necessary.

“Grizzly bears have undeniably recovered in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem, and their removal from the Endangered Species Act is long overdue,” said Evan Heusinkveld, President and CEO of Sportsmen’s Alliance Foundation. “It is well within in the authority of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to delist this distinct population of bears. In fact, at this point it’s incumbent upon them to do so as outlined in the ESA.”

The result of a 30-year collaborative effort between federal and state agencies, and using the best available science and wildlife management principles, all evidence suggests Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem grizzly bear populations have surpassed recovery goals by 25 percent and have remained stable and above recovery goals for nearly a decade while also tripling their occupied range.

Not only has the grizzly bear population recovered and stabilized, threats to that population have been mitigated to the point that they no longer meet the definition of endangered, or even threatened.

“All available evidence suggests that this grizzly bear population will continue to flourish after delisting,” said Heusinkveld. “That’s a testament to decades of work by USFWS and its partners, and which includes post-delisting monitoring and management plans that will ensure the species is never again threatened with extinction in the Lower 48 states.”

Clearly outlined in the Endangered Species Act are requirements for U.S. Fish and Wildlife to, at any time, remove a species, subspecies or distinct population segment of a species from the protections of the act once recovery goals have been met.

Once delisted, the Sportsmen’s Alliance encourages the U.S. Forest Service, National Wildlife Refuges and other federal land managers to defer to state wildlife population management to the maximum extent permitted by law.

“The National Parks Service and U. S Forest Service manage 88 percent of lands within suitable grizzly habitat,” said Heusinkveld. “Those federal agencies should respect state management goals and future hunting seasons by not passing any special rules or policies that would encroach on the ability of Idaho, Montana or Wyoming to manage grizzlies within the current federal framework.”

One remaining threat, however, is a lawsuit from animal rights and anti-hunting organizations. “These groups have shown that population recovery is simply not enough to meet their insatiable demands,” said Heusinkveld. “Just like with wolves, no level of recovery will ever satisfy their desires to keep the bears listed as a threatened.”

As with wolves currently, keeping grizzly bears listed as threatened or endangered compromises other populations of predator and prey species, even the very habitat itself, found within the completely managed ecosystems.

Share

Congress: Gray wolves still endangered in Michigan

*Editor’s Note* – I remember very well a few years back, when efforts, of which I was a part of, to go to the source of the problem and amend the Endangered Species Act, were derailed by corrupt politics. I said back then that abandoning this effort, of which many people had worked many years on, in favor of attaching a rider to a budget omnibus bill to delist wolves in Idaho and Montana, would not solve any of the real problems and would eventually come back and bite us all in the ass. The corrupt politicians, using their phony outdoor sportsmen groups (most also eager to play corrupt politics) destroyed our efforts. And, where are we now?

Am I bitter? Yes, I am. Wouldn’t you be? The Endangered Species Act is almost 43 years old and is in need of revamping or repealing. It is NOT working to “save” endangered species. It IS working to put money in Environmentalist’s bank accounts and to promote scarcity and corruption.

There is little hope for anything good when both sides approach politics with different words to achieve the same result of corruption.

Expect nothing to change!

Some lawmakers from the affected states had hoped to attach a rider to return management of wolves in Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan and Wyoming to the states, which could have opened the door to a resumption of wolf hunting in those places. The provision would have undone federal court decisions that restored the animals’ protected status in the four states despite repeated efforts by the federal government to remove them from the list.

Source: Congress: Gray wolves still endangered in Michigan

Share

Johnson, Barrasso Introduce Gray Wolf Delisting Bill

Press Release from Senator Ron Johnson:

WASHINGTON — Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) and Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) introduced legislation this week that directs the secretary of the Interior to reissue final rules related to the listing of the gray wolf in Wisconsin, Michigan, Minnesota and Wyoming under the Endangered Species Act  of 1973. The bill serves as the Senate companion to the bipartisan House bill introduced by Reps. Reid Ribble (R-Wis.) and Cynthia Lummis (R-Wyo.) earlier this year.

“After over 30 years of needed protection and professional pack population management, the wolf has made its comeback,” Johnson said. “In 2011,  the administration’s Department of the Interior  determined the number of wolves in the western Great Lakes states to be sufficient and growing and made the correct decision to delist them as an endangered species. President Obama’s own Interior secretary applauded the decision, saying, ‘Thanks to the work of our scientists, wildlife managers, and our state, tribal, and stakeholder partners, gray wolves in the western Great Lakes region are now fully recovered and healthy.’

“Unfortunately, in late 2014, a liberal judge in Washington, D.C. overruled the administration’s wildlife experts in the field and returned the gray wolves to the Endangered Species List.  It’s obvious the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service judges its past delisting decision to have been correct, and the ongoing efforts in Wisconsin and elsewhere to properly manage the wolf levels are working well.  Simply put, wolves in these four states are no longer endangered and do not need the protections the ESA afforded them in the past.

“Our bill’s language does not modify the Endangered Species Act, nor does it prevent the Fish and Wildlife Service from ever returning the wolf to the endangered list if it determines the population is again threatened and in need of federal protection.  I strongly agree with Wisconsin’s farmers, ranchers, loggers and sportsmen that future gray wolf listing decisions should come from the experts, and not from judges.

“Several important strides have been taken this year to once and for all give the final say on the gray wolf’s status to our expert researchers inside the state Department of Natural Resources and the Department of the Interior.  I’m glad to be a part of this important effort, and it is my hope that all senators from these four affected states will join Sen. Barrasso and me in this effort. “

“Wyoming has honored its commitment and put together a solid and working plan to protect the state’s wolf population. Even the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service agrees that wolves should be delisted in Wyoming,” said Barrasso. “This is just one of many legislative opportunities we’ll continue to pursue until Wyoming’s wolf management plan is protected and fully implemented.”

A full text of the bill can be found here. 

“To direct the Secretary of the Interior to reissue final rules relating to listing of the gray wolf in the Western Great Lakes and Wyoming under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, and for other purposes.” 

Share

Science or politics? Scientists dispute whether Great Lakes’ wolves should be delisted

*Editor’s Note* – If one were to honestly assess the differences between reality during federal ESA listing and state ESA listing, is there any difference that matters? Neither “side” has changed their whining rhetoric.

Instead, the letter contains policy arguments against changing the species status, cloaked as science. For instance, the lead argument concerns the “science” of public attitudes, reporting that public opinion polls show broad national support for the ESA and species protection. Public opinion polls quantify people’s preferences. They’re just a measure of what people think, not whether what they think is true.

Source: Science or politics? Scientists dispute whether Great Lakes’ wolves should be delisted – PLF Liberty Blog

Share

So-Called “Wolf Scientists” Support Delisting of Wolves in Great Lakes

*Editor’s Note* – One cannot help but be skeptical of the what is really going on with the list of those supposedly showing support for the delisting of gray wolves in the Western Great Lakes region. Historically, there is little reason to believe there are not sinister motives at play here. All should proceed with caution when attempting to play ball with any of these so-called wolf scientists.

Perhaps what we are witnessing is the result of Environmentalists recognizing that they have overstepped common sense and actions of the past have angered enough people that they have taken action, some of it a bit extreme, to counter the efforts of wolf pimps.

It wasn’t that many years ago that it took an act of Congress, i.e. a rider to a budget bill to get wolves removed from the throes of Federal protection. In that bill, not only did it immediately remove the gray wolf from Federal protection under the Endangered Species Act, it also exempted Environmentalists from filing lawsuits to stop the delistings, then and into the future. Similar bill proposals for the Western Great Lakes are pending, including the prohibition of lawsuits.

Is this an effort to promote the delisting through regular government channels in hopes that any proposed bills to exempt lawsuits will not happen? Could be. The reality is that there is no reason to trust these people and those looking to get some kind of relief from wolves, needn’t bother trying to work with this group. Some may find my skepticism and warnings uncalled for but the reality is the Environmentalist have taken far more than they have given and will not settle for proper and scientific management of wolves – a management that places the rights of men of that of animals.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: November 18, 2015

CONTACT:

Adrian Wydeven, Timber Wolf Alliance, awydeven@northland.edu (715) 794-2548

or (715) 682-1489

David Mech, University of Minnesota, mechx002@umn.edu (651) 649-5231

Wolf Scientists Support Delisting Wolves in Great Lakes

Wolf populations in Minnesota, Wisconsin and Michigan have successfully recovered and should be taken off the Endangered Species list, according to a letter sent today to U.S. Secretary of the Interior Sally Jewell and U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service Director Dan Ashe from 26 U.S. and Canadian wolf and wildlife experts.

[I]t is in the best interests of gray wolf conservation and for the integrity of the [Endangered Species Act] for wolves to be delisted in the western Great Lakes states where biological recovery has occurred and where adequate regulatory mechanisms are in place to manage the species,” wrote the scientists.

We believe that failure to delist wolves in these states is counterproductive to wolf conservation there and elsewhere where suitable habitat may exist. The integrity and effectiveness of the ESA is undercut if delisting does not happen once science-based recovery has been achieved.”

Gray wolves in the Great Lakes region of the United States have been federally listed as endangered since 1967 and federally protected since 1974. Since 1999 the wolf population in the Great Lakes region—Minnesota, Wisconsin and Michigan—met federal goals for delisting.

Wolves were absent for generations from Great Lakes states except for Minnesota and Isle Royale National Park in Michigan. Protections afforded under the Endangered Species Act allowed wolves to re-colonize the upper Great Lakes states of Minnesota, Wisconsin and Michigan, according to David Mech, a leading wolf researcher at the University of Minnesota.

Now there are more than 3,700 wolves in those states. “Wolf recovery is a tremendous success story,” Mech said. 

The species has been taken off the endangered species list and put back on the list several times due to litigation. The scientists are urging the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to delist again based on the overwhelming view of professional biologists and wildlife managers that wolves have biologically recovered.

Now it’s time to recognize that success and take the next logical step: removing them from the list of endangered species so that state wildlife professionals can manager wolves locally,” added Adrian Wydeven, coordinator of the Timber Wolf Alliance at Northland College in Ashland, Wisconsin.

Wydeven, a former Wisconsin DNR wolf biologist, oversaw Wisconsin’s wolf recovery program from 1990 to 2013.

Once a species has recovered, management responsibilities should return to the states and federal funding should be applied to species that truly are endangered,” Wydeven said. “State wildlife managers were instrumental in bringing back wolves to the upper Great Lakes states, and now it’s important that they use their professional expertise to make sure that wolves are a part of our landscape for now and generations to come.”

Share

Senate, House push to remove gray wolves from endangered species list

And in typical “liberal,” biased, media coverage, this report only collects comments from those who oppose the action to insert language into an Interior Department budget bill. Perhaps the newspaper could have done some honest journalism and reported that due to the relentless, always taking and never giving of the Environmentalists, Congress is left with no other alternatives than to write law to circumvent activist judges operating within a rigged system.

The language provides for the delisting of gray wolves and prohibits the rule from ever being subjected to judicial review — which means it could never be overrruled by a future judge.

Source: Senate, House push to remove gray wolves from endangered species list – StarTribune.com

Share