May 24, 2019

The Courts v. Congress

What a mess the Courts have made as it may pertain to Endangered Species Act (ESA) rulings. Court interpretations of the ESA have essentially rendered the Act a useless instrument to deal scientifically with specie issues. Because of out of control Courts, it has literally taken an act of Congress to effect some sort of sanity back into reality…..or not.

In the latest issue of the Sportsman’s Alliance of Maine (SAM) newsletter, Gerry Lavigne, a former Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW) biologist, now works with SAM as a science adviser, wrote an article titled, Trojan Lynx.

In that article he writes: “To make matters worse, the USFWS lumped all 14 states into one recovery area, or “Distinct Population Segment” (DPS). Biologically, there are four distinct and separate lynx populations in the lower 48 states. Each of these four lynx populations extend into Canada….

“Recovery and removal of the lynx from the endangered species list depends on all four subpopulations attaining some as yet undetermined recovery standards simultaneously. What are the chances? How the USFWS chose to define the listing appears corrupt, and lacking biological integrity.

Lynx canadensis  Canada Lynx

The yellow-shaded areas show the historic range of Canada lynx throughout North America.

I’m not sure I agree totally with Lavigne’s assessment but that has little bearing on the bigger issue at hand. There was corruption all around during the Canada lynx listing process, and so we know that the choice to list the lynx was all based in political corruption and animal rights activism. Little can be done to reverse that act as history has shown government agencies and their pal environmentalists are not held accountable for any of their corrupt actions.

At this juncture, it matters not whether the USFWS listed lynx as “threatened” in one recovery area, 4 or 4,000, the Courts have decided, twice that I am aware of, that the USFWS doesn’t have authority to do that. Yesterday I explained this in an examination of Judge Beryl Howell’s recent gray wolf nonsense ruling.

Lavigne states that the only way the lynx can be taken off the list of protected species is when all lynx in all of the Lower 48 States are recovered – and we don’t know what the recovery criteria is because the USFWS has, of yet, to make that determination. (Sanity would suggest that in order to declare something “threatened” there must be some kind of data to show that and at the same time to have knowledge of what it will take to declare a species recovered. Otherwise how can such an act come about other than through corruption? But we don’t deal in normal things.)

At the present moment I think Lavigne is correct, according to the Courts. Judge Howell’s and Judge Friedman’s rulings both said that the USFWS doesn’t have authority to create a DPS for the purpose of delisting a species. And yet reality shows that they have authority to create a DPS for the purpose of listing a species. This cannot be and makes no sense at all. A complete one way street as I see it.

I almost never support the USFWS because they are agenda oriented, biased, corrupt and inept, but I do believe that part of the USFWS’s decision in listing the lynx originally as one segment in the Lower 48 States, their belief was, from past events, that they could chunk out a separate population segment and declare lynx (or any other species) within that segment recovered. The Courts have said no way.

Even though the USFWS has provided the Friedman Court an explanation of where they get authority within the ESA to create DPS and delist, and the Obama Administration drafted and entered into the Federal Register their definitions of historic range, current range and “significant portion of its range” evidently the Courts don’t want anything to do with that stuff.

The Courts have created a legal mess, destroying the ESA and rendering the functioning of the USFWS as nothing more than a government agency trying to work with both hands tied behind their backs. This all brings the solution back to Congress. As with what happened in Montana and Idaho, because the Courts are so ignorant of wildlife issues, and corrupt due to activism, then the Legislature has to do what legislatures do and that’s write more laws. When a corrupt Congress decides that the corrupt courts can’t interpret laws as they were corruptly written, then the lawmakers simply write new corrupt laws even if if means circumventing the corrupt rule of law. Make sense to you?

Lavigne asks what the chances are that lynx will be recovered simultaneously throughout 14 states. The answer is never and that is the reason why the Courts rule in favor of the environmentalists because animal protection, in their perverted minds, must be continual, and that includes no hunting, trapping and fishing. Go ahead. Keep denying it.

Share

Historic Range: All Or Nothing? Intellectual Bankruptcy?

CognitiveDissonanceIt is more and more obvious with each passing day that the United States has eagerly, and yet unknowingly, moved into a Totalitarian socialist government and existence of servitude. Much of this occurred the result of intellectual bankruptcy at all levels. If you at all get it, this might appear to you as obvious in Court rulings about endangered species…and then again, maybe not.

The latest in this seeming Kabuki theater is one ruling and explanation of a Washington, D.C. judge, Beryl Howell, who essentially ruled that the United States, under the Obama-administrated Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) cannot remove any species from federal protection under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) unless that species is fully recovered throughout all of its historic range. In other words, the USFWS does not have authority because of the ESA to manage species through the confines of the ESA by declaring a species recovered within a designated region, most often called a Distinct Population Segment (DPS).

In Judge Howell’s Memorandum of Opinion in the Humane Society of the United States v. Sally Jewell, Judge Howell states, “The FWS’s interpretation is unreasonable on two levels. First, the structure, history, and purpose of the ESA do not permit the designation of a DPS for the purpose of delisting the vertebrates that are members of the DPS. Second, the ESA does not allow the designation of a DPS made up of vertebrates already protected under the ESA at a more general taxonomic level.”

This statement must be understood in its entirety in order that one can see the intellectual bankruptcy of such a statement. This statement says that the USFWS’s interpretation of the ESA is unreasonable because that department cannot create or designate a DPS for the purpose of delisting a species. Let me better explain for those who might not be able to fully understand. In the specific case in discussion, Judge Howell contends that gray wolves were listed as an endangered species in 1973 throughout all of the Lower 48 states – with the exception of Minnesota, where the wolf was listed as threatened.

The USFWS, after determining that wolves in a broad area of the Western Great Lakes had fully recovered, drew some boundaries and declared wolves within that boundary as no longer protected by the ESA.

Howell is not the first judge to rule this way. I have written about it before. Another Washington, D.C. based, intellectually bankrupt judge ruled pretty much identically as Howell did. My explanatory response to Judge Howell’s ruling can be found at this link.

At this link location you’ll be provided links to responses by the USFWS to Judge Friedman’s demand for an explanation as to why the USFWS has authority to create DPSs.

What Judge Howell is driving at is that because the USFWS cannot designate a segment as an area of recovered species, the only way that such a designation can be done is once wolves (or any other species) are fully recovered throughout its entire historic range. Howell reinforces this claim by saying, “The FWS’s interpretation of the ESA as authorizing the simultaneous designation and delisting of DPSs—or the designation of a DPS solely for the purpose of delisting—directly conflicts with the structure of the ESA and, consequently, this interpretation is entitled to no deference …. The ESA is remarkably clear: the FWS must identify “species” that are “threatened” or “endangered,” afford them the protections necessary to help them “recover,” and then re-evaluate the listed entities once such “species” are recovered.

Hopefully you have come to understand exactly what both Judges, Friedman and Howell, are saying, because I’m going to spoil their party. There are two things to consider but the major one is this: After the Endangered Species Act of 1973 was signed into law by the crooked Richard Nixon, wolves were designated as “Endangered” under the authority of the ESA. I know of nobody who disputes that event. My logical, and I think rational (sorry if you don’t see it that way) question is this: If, according to Friedman and Howell, the United States Government, under its own created law (ESA), cannot designate an area to delist a portion of a species’ historic range as recovered, then how did the United State Government have authority to designate the listing initially in the Lower 48 states?

Supposedly under this brand new law, the U.S. carved out an area, defined by the borders of the United States, and designated wolves endangered within those borders. How could they do this? In addition, at the same time, they carved out another area, separated by the borders defining the State of Minnesota, and declared wolves there “Threatened”. How could they do that?

But it gets worse. Because a group of people, which included not only the USFWS but also some of the very same activist, animal protectionist groups suing the U.S. Government to stop delisting wolves, wanted wolves introduced into the Greater Yellowstone National Park region, the U.S. Government carved out three areas where wolves would be introduced and protected with different protections than the rest of the country. How in God’s name, according to Friedman and Howell, could the USFWS do that?

Then the same USFWS and the same animal rights, environmental, totalitarians, headed for the Southwest. Once again they carved out and set boundaries and protected a fake hybrid species of wild dog they wished to call a Mexican wolf. Why was the USFWS able to do this? Friedman and Howell say that the ESA doesn’t provide authority to do that.

These hypocritical wolf lovers, carved out borders in the Southeast and created a Frankenstein wolf – red wolf- and introduced it into the landscape. How could the USFWS do that if the ESA doesn’t provide authority?

This same thing happened in the Western Great Lakes and all we hear about everyday are more and more environmental groups seeking to carve out borders and introduce wolves…wolves in everybody’s back yard.

And on and on it goes but only now, now that wolves are a damned menace, destroying wildlife wherever it goes and posing threats to humans for safety and health, do these people want an end to carving out populations for delisting. The cognitive dissonance is amazing. What was acceptable to get their damned wolves infesting this nation is no longer acceptable to bring them under control.

The second issue, which I will touch on only briefly, has to do with the determination of historic range and significant portion of a species range. Historic range and currently feasible range should be determined as different. Whether we like it or not, what once was historic range can no longer be acceptable to support a species that may have once roamed that area.

Once that has been determined, because the ESA uses as criteria in determining if a species deserves ESA protection, we must decide if the species under question is “threatened” or “endangered” throughout a significant portion of that range.

Section 3 – (6) of the Endangered Species Act defines “Endangered Species” as: “(6) The term “endangered species” means any species which is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range…

The Obama-administered USFWS placed into the Federal Register what it deemed to be the definition of “significant portion of its range.” This determination attempts to separate the differences between historic range and range.

Determination of “significant” is not so cut and dry and leaves far too much wiggle room. “…we determine that a portion of the range of a species is “significant” if the species is not currently endangered or threatened throughout all of its range, but the portion’s contribution to the viability of the species is so important that, without the members in that portion, the species would be in danger of extinction, or likely to become so in the foreseeable future, throughout all of its range.”

Making determinations would be easier if definitions actually meant something. To many, the use of “endangered or threatened throughout all or a significant portion of its range” has not at all been followed in listing of species for protection. The gray wolf is a prime example. Wolves live by the thousands all over the globe and only an idiot would think of them as being in danger of extinction. But that doesn’t bode well for those eager for other people to be forced to live with the animals.

It is my contention that the USFWS was wrong when it initially declared wolves endangered throughout all of the Lower 48 states because the determination was made utilizing historic range, with absolutely no determination as to whether wolves could conceivably exist in all of the Lower 48 States or that we would want them too.

According to statements made in the past by Ed Bangs and others, bent on protecting the wolves, they said that circumstances and “best available science” changes all the time and that the USFWS is forced, under the ESA, to recover wolves and they must make changes according to those influences. Perhaps then, it is time for these same ESA administrators to practice what they preach and begin making changes.

But this will be impossible to do provided this country gives jobs to judges that are clueless, intellectually deprived, make interpretations far outside anything historic or reasonable and to make statements like, “[The Courts] must lean forward from the bench to let an agency know, in no uncertain terms, that enough is enough.”

That door swings both ways.

Share

The Great Lakes Wolf Decision

BerylHowell(Judge Beryl A. Howell. Howell was nominated to the position in 2010 by President Obama, and confirmed by the U.S. Senate. She is married to Michael Rosenfeld, who served as an executive producer at National Geographic for decades.)

Cat Urbigkit has a fairly in depth article published on Pinedale Online about the ins and outs of the court ruling that placed wolves in the Western Great Lakes Distinct Population Segment (WGLDPS) back under federal control and the strong arm of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and the scrutiny of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS).

In reading over the court ruling and Urbigkit’s summary of events, seemingly absent from both is the court ordered explanation from the USFWS as to why they have authority, under the Endangered Species Act, to create Distinct Population Segments.

On September 29, 2008, Judge Paul Friedman, in Humane Society of the United States v. Kempthorn, vacated a portion in his rule demanding that the USFWS return to his court with an explanation as to why the USFWS had authority of create Distinct Population Segments (DPS). The bulk of Judge Friedman’s ruling is based on his belief that that the USFWS cannot carve out population segments of any species for the purpose of removing that segment from federal protection under the ESA.

It also appears to me that Judge Beryl Howell traveled down the same path as Friedman did in 2008.

On December 12, 2008, just over two months after Judge Friedman vacated his ruling, the Department of Interior, Solicitor’s Office sent to Friedman’s court a 19-page explanation as to why the USFWS has authority, under the ESA, to create DPSs. This 19-page explanation must have satisfied the Courts because a subsequent attempt by the USFWS to “delist” gray wolves in the WGLDPS was successful. However, now, another hand-picked activist judge, evidently refusing to use the same explanation as Judge Friedman, has declared that the USFWS cannot delist wolves, or any other species I’m assuming, unless said species is removed from ESA protection throughout the entirety of the United States, i.e. the USFWS cannot create a DPS.

Odd isn’t it that two courts have ruled in this manner, that it’s all or nothing and that the USFWS cannot create DPSs for the purpose of removing federal protection but evidently the same USFWS is authorized to create as many DPSs in order place a species on the ESA list. Is there no sanity?

If we go back in history to the establishment of the Endangered Species Act, and to that time when the USFWS declared that gray wolves were an endangered species in all Lower 48 states, with the exception of Minnesota (which was listed as “threatened”), according to Friedman and now Howell, the USFWS did not have authority to do that. Evidently this left the USFWS with the only option of declaring the entire planet gray wolf habitat. But then again, why stop with Earth? Perhaps a Papal Bull would do the trick?

None of this makes much sense and to those whose aim is the protection of wolves at all costs, don’t really care about making sense or implementing previous court rulings in formulating their cases; at least when it doesn’t fit the narrative.

What is probably most unfortunate is that eventually there will be enough people sick and tired of this utter nonsense and they will do as was done in Montana and Idaho and craft Congressional legislation that will remove wolves in the Western Great Lakes from federal protection and block any further lawsuits. This is liable to create a domino effect for many other ESA listed species, i.e. Delta Smelt, Canada lynx, grizzly bears, polar bears, etc. And, eventually this action will come back and bite all of us on the ass.

The utter nonsense of it all.

Share

Sportsman’s Alliance of Maine Lays Out Demands to USFWS on Canada Lynx

Perhaps the tone of the comments made by the Sportsman’s Alliance of Maine (SAM) is just as important as the information contained in them. It is refreshing to read from any hunting, fishing, trapping and outdoor organization with an attitude that exudes the confidence needed to place the demands of the outdoor sportsmen above those of the environmentalists. SAM lays out five issues that they see as what needs to be done in order to move forward as it pertains to the application process for an Incidental Take Permit for trapping in Maine.

The comment period has closed in which the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), by law, accepted comments from all interested parties concerning the State of Maine’s application for an Incidental Take Permit(ITP) for trapping. The Canada lynx is listed under federal law as a “threatened” species and certain critical habitat has been designated as needing further protections in order to assist in the growth of the lynx population. As a result of this process Maine should apply for and obtain this ITP to protect the state and trappers should some lynx be accidentally caught in traps intended for other species.

Here’s a look at SAM’s five demands and my comments on them.

1.) SAM asks that the ITP be approved as quickly as possible without delay and without any further restrictions added to the already harsh rules that govern trapping (by a court Consent Decree). All the data available indicate that the rules and programs in place are more than adequate to not only protect the lynx but to assist in a continuation of growing the population.

2.) The USFWS is requiring MDIFW to set aside certain public lands to be used as “lynx conservation areas”. SAM demands that if this is done the land remain open to, “all legal trapping, hunting, snowmobiling, and other traditional activities”. While I agree that all public land should remain open for all public use, I have serious concerns about portions of this “conservation plan” that calls for large areas of forests on these public lands to be “clear cut” in order to grow desirable lynx habitat. We would hope that no public lands be clear cut only for the purpose of creating habitat for one species with disregard for all others and the overall use of the land by the people.

3.) SAM demands that the USFWS set recovery goals. In other words, provide the people with the scientific criteria in terms of population numbers, etc. that must be reached and for how long, before delisting can occur.

For those who don’t know, the Endangered Species Act (ESA) lists, although extremely non specific, any condition that must be in existence BEFORE a species can be listed on the ESA. Please review the ESA for those criteria. The ESA also clearly states that the same criteria must NOT exist in order to remove a species for federal protection.

Because the criteria in the ESA is so non specific and much flexibility and deference is given to the Secretary of Interior, what SAM is demanding is reasonable and well within the scope and historic activities of the USFWS.

However, that same history shows us that setting population goals, genetic connectivity, etc. acts more as a catalyst for inflaming arguments over species management theories than providing reachable goals for delisting. In some areas, such as those battling over gray wolves, those goals keep changing making it impossible to ever delist a species.

4.) SAM demands that the USFWS, “modify its distinct population segment”. This is where the waters get really muddy; where science takes a back seat and politics take over and decisions that should be based on science get decided in the Courts.

Historic evidence shows us that animal rights groups and environmentalists have learned to use the very non specific Endangered Species Act to create great wealth. One aspect of abuse of the ESA comes over the debate about Distinct Population Segments (DPS). I would attempt to explain to readers what a DPS is supposed to be but the court rulings nationwide are so varied I’m not sure anyone knows any longer what the laws are regulating the use of DPSs.

The intent of a DPS was to designate a certain species of animal within a region that subsequently became federally listed through the ESA as a “threatened” or an “endangered” species. Of course in designating such a DPS, boundaries have to be used somewhere and decided upon somehow. However, the designation and use of such boundaries has led to some ridiculous court rulings making little sense, based on arbitrary decisions and mostly from activist-type judges.

In the Great Lakes region a few years ago, when the USFWS attempted to remove grey wolves from the ESA, a lawsuit ensued and Judge Paul Friedman, in his ruling, stated that the USFWS did not have the authority to create a Distinct Population Segment in order to delist a species. No explanation has ever been given as to why, then, it is acceptable to create a DPS to list a species but not to delist.

Judge Friedman remanded the case back the USFWS until such time as they could provide proof to the courts that they had the authority to create DPSs. Last year, the USFWS tried once again to delist grey wolves in the Western Great Lakes. The Final Rule in the Federal Register, goes into quite a bit of depth in explaining existing laws and past court rulings in an attempt to bolster their argument that they have all the necessary authority the judge deemed they didn’t.

Currently grey wolves in the Western Great Lakes Distinct Population Segment have been removed from federal protection under the ESA. Environmental groups are threatening lawsuits and until such time as that happens we may not know whether the USFWS has sufficiently satisfied the Court.

While I concur with the SAM on this to some degree, that a better job needs to be done, especially when the initial creation of a DPS is considered, making the demand to “modify its distinct population segment” for Maine’s population of lynx is a very complicated act. Which leads us into SAM’s fifth demand.

5.) SAM insists that, “individual states within each of the newly-created DPS’s need to be separable when lynx populations reach recovery goals in one or more states, but not in the others.”

Again, this is a very complex issue because of the involvement of the courts. When a species is brought under federal protection, it is the U.S. Government, i.e. the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, that overseas and calls all the shots as they pertain to species protection and recovery. That management authority is taken away from the states and if and when the day comes that a species is declared recovered, wildlife management authority returns to the states. And yet, when it comes time to delist a species, even if one state has worked harder than another to recover a species, delisting cannot occur along state boundaries because of court rulings.

Example: The USFWS has designated large portions of Maine and smaller areas in New Hampshire, Vermont and New York as areas where the Canada lynx has known populations. Essentially, the USFWS includes Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont and New York as a Distinct Population Segment for Canada lynx.

SAM is asking the USFWS to be prepared to delist Maine’s population of lynx when it has recovered even if New Hampshire, Vermont and New York have not recovered their populations.

Court rulings have further confused this issue. As I stated earlier, Judge Friedman claims the USFWS does not have that authority under the ESA. In Maine’s case, according to Friedman’s ruling, the USFWS could not create a DPS along the boundary lines of the states for the purpose of declaring the Canada lynx a recovered species.

Out in the Northern Rockies, when the USFWS attempted to delist grey wolves, Judge Donald Molloy ruled that the USFWS could not exclude Wyoming from the delisting process because the Feds didn’t have authority through the ESA to do that. In other words, the Northern Rocky Mountains Distinct Population Segment included all of Montana, Idaho and Wyoming and small portions of Washington, Oregon and Utah. Cutting Wyoming out of the process was not something Judge Molloy was willing to do. For him, it was all in or all out while the issue of scientific recovery, within the borders of a state, of a species was never considered.

Even though it literally took an act of Congress to delist wolves in all of the NRM DPS except Wyoming, the laws are still very unclear about what the feds can do.

SAM says that the feds need to do a better job with their DPS designation processes and I would certainly concur with that statement. However, the first thing needed is a clear and definite set of rules and guidelines that should be utilized before any DPS is created and the specific guidelines for delisting, even if it included breaking off segments within a DPS. Science should be the driving force not politics or private agendas.

There is one thing that I can guarantee. Maine’s attempt at acquiring an Incidental Take Permit will not be simple. Depending upon the content of that ITP, will depend on the number of lawsuits that will be filed in an attempt to stop all trapping to protect the lynx. It is almost as certain that we will never see the Canada lynx removed from the ESA because the ESA, politics and the entire process that got the species listed is not designed to remove a species from federal protection. This is partially what is wrong with the ESA that needs fixing.

And, good luck with that.

Tom Remington

Share

WGL Delisting of Wolves Complex and Left Open For Failure

What some consider the world’s most difficult puzzles to solve, are those where large written documents are essentially shredded and the participants must put all the shredded pieces back together again. The Department of Interior’s third stab at removing gray wolves in the Western Great Lakes (WGL) Distinct Population Segment (DPS) from federal protection under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), while not capable of standing up to the world’s most complicated puzzles, appears to be much more complicated than it needs to be, leaving me wondering if this is the intent in order to leave room for costly and time consuming lawsuits. Sigh!

During the last attempt to delist wolves, a lawsuit, Humane Society of the United States v. Kempthorne, was awarded to the plaintiffs that failed at removing gray wolves from federal protection. Judge Paul Friedman ruled that he was going to place protection of the wolves back under the ESA until such time as the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), i.e. Department of Interior, could show how they had the legal authority to create a Distinct Population Segment of gray wolves, or any other species, for the purpose of delisting that same species.

Shortly after that ruling, I wrote that Friedman’s decision was not at all based on scientific evidence and that the Judge had no legitimate reason to return wolves to protection other than the fact that as a judge, he could.

For what it’s worth, the Solicitor for the Department of Interior, on December 12, 2008, issued an official opinion as to how the USFWS has authority under the ESA to create a DPS in order to delist a species.

In the most recent proposal to delist wolves, the USFWS briefly explains their authority:

Our authority to make these determinations and to revise the list accordingly is a reasonable interpretation of the language of the Act, and our ability to do so is an important component of the Service’s program for the conservation of threatened and endangered species. Our authority to revise the existing listing of a species (the gray wolf in Minnesota and the gray wolf in the lower 48 States and Mexico, excluding Minnesota) to identify a Western Great Lakes DPS and determine that it is healthy enough that it no longer needs the Act’s protections is found in the precise language of the Act. Moreover, even if that authority were not clear, our interpretation of this authority to make determinations under section 4(a)(1) and to revise the endangered and threatened species list to reflect those determinations under section 4(c)(1) is reasonable and fully consistent with the Act’s text, structure, legislative history, relevant judicial interpretations, and policy objectives.

The information presented to support the USFWS’ authority to create a DPS for the purpose of delisting a species within that DPS is not new information. The same information existed in 2008 and yet somehow the USFWS in Humane Society of the United States v. Kempthorne, couldn’t sufficiently explain to Judge Paul Friedman where it got it’s authority; another example of ineptitude or corruption in representing the people in the court of law.

This is but one issue that could possibly derail an attempt to delist gray wolves. If lawsuits, which are as sure to happen as the sun rising in the morning, are intended to stop the delisting, will the explanations given in this proposal satisfy Judge Friedman’s query as to where USFWS gets its authority?

Unfortunately, this proposal to delist is further complicated by adding to it a determination by the USFWS not to recognize another species of wolf cohabiting in the same DPS. Why was it necessary to do this? Why couldn’t the USFWS made a separate announcement or proposal that it did not feel that sufficient scientific evidence existed to determine the existence of another species of wolf(eastern wolf)?

As complex as proposals to delist a species can get, why would the USFWS choose to clutter up this delisting with information pertaining to separate petitions? Efforts like this leave people like me wondering if the real intention of the USFWS is to derail the delisting for personal agendas, etc.

While I and others place our attention of things like whether the USFWS has sufficiently satisfied the courts to explain their authority to create DPS’s for delisting, and whether or not a proposal cluttered with explanations aimed at nefarious petitions and claims of the existence of a brand new species of wolf, in the end all that will matter is what one judge thinks.

Sportsmen in the WGL region shouldn’t spend too much time just yet honing their wolf hunting and trapping skills.

Tom Remington

Share