Conservation groups sue over predator killing program in Montana
(CN) — Three conservation groups sued the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Wildlife Services’ predator killing program in Montana on Wednesday, which kills or removes native predators in the state, including threatened grizzly bears. The lawsuit also challenges the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services for approving the program’s predator control efforts, which lawyers for the conservation groups say remain “largely unregulated in the state.”
According to the lawsuit, led by WildEarth Guardians, Wildlife Services’ predator removal program is “intended to address damage livestock and agricultural interests from wildlife and feral animals.” To do so, the program targets a variety of predators, including gray wolves, red foxes, mountain lions, black bears and grizzly bears — the latter of which is, in most cases, protected under the Endangered Species Act.
Fish and Wildlife listed all grizzly bears as threatened under the Endangered Species Act in 1975, prohibiting the “take” of grizzly bears except for special circumstances. For instance, one could take a grizzly in the act of self-defense or remove a “nuisance bear,” aka one with a “demonstratable but non-immediate threat to human safety” or “significant depredations.” Otherwise, a take may occur for scientific purposes, but only if it does not result in death or permanent injury of the bear involved.
As such, the Wildlife Services’ predator removal program appears to mitigate the clause of grizzly bear take involving the Endangered Species Act, yet WildEarth Guardians claim the federal agency’s program and Fish and Wildlife’s approval thereof still violates the act because its very existence is not based on the best available science available.
https://www.courthousenews.com/conservation-groups-sue-over-predator-killing-program-in-montana/
= new reply since forum marked as read
Because in 2010/2011 Sen. Jon Tester submitted a rider into a must pass budget Bill that delisted the the wolves and forbade legal redress of this motion. That was completely illegal and he knew it at the time. It is the one thing I'll never forgive him for though I vote for him in every election because otherwise he's the best federal office holder we have in the state and our only Democrat at present. I hope this is the part where he sees what a mistake he made and why.
So the Endangered Species Act states, first of all - to address the Tester thing, that the path to remedy for any dispute regarding the Act will be settled in federal court, period. To forbid Public redress through the instruction of the Act is illegal in itself. This was a condition entered into the Act as protection from States taking action without observing the guidelines and mandates of the Act. Any changes to any species' status requires input including the best available science and a public comment process that was completely ignored in placing that rider in that budget Bill back in 2011.
That part is laid out in the introduction and definitions section of the Act, like in the first five pages of a 42 page document.
Onward.Of greatest interest to those who oppose the presence and the reintroduction of the species in the Tri-state DPS (Distinct Population Segment reintroduced into ID,MT,WY initially in 1995/1996) is found int Chapter 4; 10j, aka the 10j rule. It clearly defines who can kill a protected species, why and when. So, of course, this is where most of the court cases centered. The State of Idaho tried to rewrite it at least 17 times, Montana has a few time recently and Wyoming has an ongoing department in the legislature (I jest but only slightly) dedicated to rewriting and covering up violations of the rule.
It is good to see this suit emerge, the groups involved have been on this fight since the beginning and I hope they succeed. Governorgreg has declared war on nature so we need to keep on with this nonstop bullshit from the rwnj contingent.
