|
|
|
Special Announcement February 16, 2011 |
|
|
|
|
|
Dear (Contact First Name),
Last August we were happy to share with you that a federal judge placed wolves in the Northern Rockies back under federal protection and back under the protections of the Endangered Species Act.
Since then, immense pressure has been building for the U.S. Congress to intervene and do what has never been done before to any species: Go around the Endangered Species Act (ESA) by passing a law that removes wolves from the list of endangered species, regardless of scientific evidence and the ruling of a federal judge. If this happens, your Congress (Senators and Representatives) will have prioritized political pressure over science. And by setting this new legislative precedent, they will have compromised the ESA for wolves and all other endangered species.
Being at the center of this debate, we realize that there is so much about this issue and about wolves that is not understood by those advancing toward a decision about their future and the future of the ESA. There is a very deliberate spreading of misinformation coming from the top of state politics: state governors and the handful of U.S. Senators and Representatives who are writing and aggressively pushing this legislation.
In the interest of sharing the truth and informing those who stand to vote on the future of wolves, Living with Wolves has written a 27-page report (4.9MB) and hand-delivered it to the office of every U.S. Senator and every U.S. Representative on Capitol Hill.
Introducing this report to the members of Congress are two cover letters sent from Living with Wolves board member former U.S. Senator John Tunney (D) and Rhode Island`s Governor Lincoln Chafee (I).
John Tunney, a retired U.S. Senator from California, was the Senate floor manager for the Endangered Species Act when it was enacted in 1973. Lincoln Chafee, Governor of Rhode Island and former U.S. Senator of Rhode Island, like his father U.S. Senator John Chafee before him, has fought many legislative battles to defend the integrity of the ESA.
Once wolves have recovered in the Northern Rockies (Idaho, Montana and Wyoming) to numbers that are large enough and stable enough to ensure their future survival, only then through the proper scientific guidance of the ESA, should they be considered for removal from the list of endangered species.
If and when that happens, it should be considered a success to be celebrated, like it was with the bald eagle.
Yet for wolves, another hurdle awaits. Delisting wolves from the list of endangered species means that management would be turned over to the individual states where the wolves live. To ensure their survival, this recovered population must be maintained and kept healthy. But currently, these states have made it clear that they intend to drastically reduce the population of wolves as soon as they get the chance.
The struggle to give wolves a voice continues. Your support is central to our efforts and successes.
Sincerely,
Jim Dutcher Jamie Dutcher
|
|
Living with Wolves Delivers Report to Congress
Wolves at a Crossroads: 2011
The Endangered Species Act in Peril (4.9MB)
This report was designed to help U.S. Senators and Representatives develop a clear understanding of the issue of wolves, whose future they may soon decide. Within this report you will find a detailed and comprehensive explanation of the recent history of wolves in the context of litigation, the Endangered Species Act, the concerns about livestock and elk, the politics of wolves, the various benefits of wolves and much more.
Additionally it explains some of the reasons why wolves have been managed the way they have by the state game agencies and by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. At the end there is a thorough timeline illustrating the back-and-forth, tug-of-war politics of wolf management in the West.
With cover letters introducing the report from two former U.S. Senators, John Tunney (D) and Lincoln Chafee (R), the wolf debate is certainly not a partisan one, but rather one that speaks to every person interested in the preservation of our wildlife and what remains of our wild spaces. This debate is about the protection of an American icon, the symbol of a more natural world and the preservation of a valuable and historical piece of legislation, the Endangered Species Act.
|
|
Senator Tunney's Cover Letter
February 14, 2011
Dear Senator or Representative XXXX,
This correspondence does not come from the boy who cried wolf.
I write to you pursuant to my role as the floor manager for the original legislation in 1973. A meticulously designed law, it was rigorously thought out and crafted. The U.S. Supreme Court has described the act as "the most comprehensive legislation for the preservation of endangered species ever enacted by any nation." As species around the world continue to be irretrievably lost, Americans know that our fortress of species preservation, the Endangered Species Act, protects those within our borders.
Currently, a war over wolves rages in the West, pitting long-standing traditions against the challenges of a changing world. A recent barrage of bills seeking to forever remove wolves from the protections of the ESA has come before Congress. We urge you to consider carefully the ramifications of approving these measures. Once one designated animal is removed from protection, based on hearsay, and unsupported by well-documented scientific and biological fact, the Endangered Species Act itself becomes the real victim.
The contentions of Western governors, and of the Senators and Representatives cosponsoring these bills are twofold:
. That wolves are "decimating" big game populations, especially elk and
. That wolves are having an unacceptable impact on livestock.
These contentions are blatantly inaccurate. Data and studies from the state game agencies in charge of managing elk, and from federal and state agencies that monitor livestock attacks clearly tell another story. Contrary to what the premise of these bills suggests, the elk population of the Northern Rockies in regions where wolves have been reintroduced has been well above the objectives set, and the impact of wolves on livestock is far smaller than you are being led to believe.
Neither of these contentions holds enough water to justify the need for Congress to intervene. The document enclosed here clearly illustrates the reality of wolves in the West, and even more important, what is at stake with the undermining of the Endangered Species Act. There exists no emergency in the West regarding wolves.
On the last day of the lame duck session, one of six wolf delisting bills, S3919, was brought to the Senate floor, bypassing the committee process in an effort to have it pass by unanimous consent. That effort failed when Senator Benjamin Cartin objected. In his comments, he said that the bill would undermine the Endangered Species Act, and that it was an attempt "to solve politically what should be done by good science."
Now, in the 112th Congress, new bills seeking to remove wolves from Endangered Species protection have already been introduced. Governors and others pushing for Congressional intervention have claimed that the ESA is "broken" and "nonsensical."
The ESA outlines, through rigorous scientific process, exactly how a species is designated as endangered, and the requirements for that species to be considered as recovered. There is no need to respond to hysteria and misinformation by removing wolves from that process. Like other protected species, wolves play a key role in the ecosystems where they were meant to live. A chain of positive ecological developments in Yellowstone National Park have proved this to be the case, and are extremely well documented.
Delisting of any species with an act of legislation is unprecedented and should remain so. Allowing for the endangered status of the wolf, or any other protected species, to be decided by a political act rather than by sound science is the first step in the dismembering of the Endangered Species Act itself .
We ask you to consider the cascade of implications of setting such a precedent.
Sincerely,
John V. Tunney
|
|
Governor Chafee's cover letter
February 9, 2011
Dear Senator or Representative XXXX,
It is my longstanding belief that the Endangered Species Act is a powerful and effective law. This groundbreaking legislation continues to offer essential protection to wildlife that could otherwise vanish.
Throughout our respective tenures in the United States Senate, my father and I fought against persistent efforts to weaken the ESA and sought to preserve the integrity of a law that is vital to the protection of imperiled plant and animal life - and we humans are part of this divine chain, as well.
With this in mind, I was alarmed to learn that an effort is under way to legislatively remove wolves from the protection of the ESA. There have been previous efforts to legislatively exempt certain species or activities from the protection of the Act; all of these have been voted down, though sometimes by very narrow margins.
Much of what makes the ESA so powerful is its firm grounding in science. The Act contains a specific, formalized process for listing, delisting and exempting species, a process that removes these decisions from political considerations and places them in a scientific realm - where they belong. The Secretary of the Interior oversees the implementation of the Act, and thus is the only appropriate official to review scientific and management concerns.
It is my belief that legislatively removing a single species would undermine the effectiveness of the law and would set a dangerous precedent - one that should concern Americans from coast to coast to coast.
Here in Rhode Island, we have been excited and heartened to witness the return of the Bald Eagle. We have been thrilled to see pods of endangered right whales in the waters just off our shores. These are the types of species that could be threatened next if we allow this precedent to be set. Let me be clear: this is not about a single species or a single state - this is about maintaining the integrity of the Endangered Species Act.
I urge you to consider the dangerous consequences of voting in favor of these bills, which aim to override science in favor of politics.
Lincoln D. Chafee
Governor
Rhode Island
|
Write your Senators and Representatives
If you wish to have your opinion heard, our suggestion is that you read the report and take what you already know about wolves and write your U.S. Senators and U.S. Representatives an email or letter expressing your opinion about the pending legislation aimed at delisting wolves. Your Senator or Representatives may not be on the lists below. It doesn't matter. These bills will likely go before the entire Senate and House.
First it is important to realize that the lawmakers you are writing did not necessarily write these bills, so it will not benefit you or wolves to blame them. Urge them when voting or weighing in on this issue, to do what you want them to do. Their job is to represent you.
A special emphasis can be made with the members of the Environment and Pulbic Works Committee (EPW) of the Senate, because if this legislation goes through the committee process it will be this Senate Committee that reviews it. The members of the EPW Committee are:
Representing the majority on the EPW Committee:
Senator Barbara Boxer, California
Senator Max Baucus, Montana
Senator Thomas R. Carper, Delaware
Senator Frank R. Lautenberg, New Jersey
Senator Benjamin L. Cardin, Maryland
Senator Bernie Sanders, Vermont
Sheldon Whitehouse, Rhode Island
Senator Tom Udall, New Mexico
Senator Jeff Merkley, Oregon
Senator Kristen Gillibrand, New York
Representing the minority on the EPW Committee:
Senator James M. Inhofe, Oklahoma
Senator David Vitter, Louisiana
Senator John Barrasso, Wyoming
Senator Jeff Sessions, Alabama
Senator Mike Crapo, Idaho
Senator Lamar Alexander, Tennessee
Senator Mike Johanns, Nebraska
Senator John Boozman, Arkansas
The legislators who have had written or cosponsored the wolf delisting bills of 2010 and 2011 include:
Senator Max Baucus, Montana
Senator Jon Tester, Montana
Senator Orrin Hatch, Utah
Senator James E. Risch, Idaho Senator Mike Crapo, Idaho
Senator Mike Enzi, Wyoming Senator John Barrasso, Wyoming
Representative Rob Bishop, Utah
Representative Mike Simposn, Idaho
Representative Jason Chaffetz, Utah
Representative Denny Rehberg, Montana
Representative Cynthia Lummis, Wyoming
Representative Trent Franks, Arizona
Representative Wally Herger, California
Representative Dean Heller, Nevada
Representative Dan Boren, Oklahoma
Representative Paul Broun, Georgia
Representative Dennis Cardoza, California
Representative John Kline, Minnesota
Representative Jim Matheson, Utah
Representative Mike Ross, Arizona
Representative Greg Walden, Oregon
Representative Donald Young, Alaska
Representative Raul Labrador, Idaho |
|
|
P.S. For the most part, wolves live on federal lands. It was a national effort to bring them back. Everyone can have a say about their future. |
|
|
|
|
|
