Predator derby document issued; comments due soon!

512px-Raccoon_(Procyon_lotor)_2

“Seriously? Someone gets POINTS for killing me in a contest???” (Author: Darkone, 5. Aug. 2005, Creative Commons)

Kathleen Stachowski   Other Nations

Remember that predator derby I wrote about back in August–the one sponsored by predator hate group Idaho for Wildlife? They applied for a Special Recreation Permit from the Bureau of Land Management, which triggered a scoping period to gather information for the development of an Environmental Assessment (EA) document.

The EA for the Idaho federal public lands predator derby Special Recreation Permit has been issued; comments are accepted until October 16, 2014. 

Revisit that previous blog post, “Stop a depraved ‘predator derby’ on your public land” – there you’ll find links to the recently-issued EA and previous documents, how to comment, and updated talking points.

In case you’ve forgotten who’ll be walking (and flying) around wearing a big ol’ predatory species “shoot me” target,  Continue reading

Stop a depraved ‘predator derby’ on your public land

800px-Jackrabbit2_crop

Predatory jackrabbit. Click image to witness lagomorphs’ vicious nature.
Jim Harper photo – en-wikipedia

Kathleen Stachowski   Other Nations

The Environmental Assessment has been issued; comment deadline is Oct. 16, 2014. Details at end of post.

Q: What do coyotes, skunks, weasels, jackrabbits, raccoons, starlings, and grey wolves in Idaho have in common?
A: An arsenal of bullets heading their way.

Why? All are designated as predators by Idaho Fish and Game. And unless we–you and I–send a clear message to federal land managers about the value of these animals on our taxpayer-supported public lands, they will be in the crosshairs on 3,100,000 acres (Challis, Salmon, and Upper Snake Field Offices of the Idaho Falls BLM District) during another competitive killing derby slated for early January 2015. It’s sponsored by predator hate group Idaho for Wildlife, and follows their first, controversial derby held last winter–that one limited to coyotes and wolves. This time, they’re seeking a 5-year federal special recreation permit for their expanded death-fest.  Continue reading

My own private Idaho: Pursuing ag-gag secrecy

ht_cow_drag_mi_130128_wmain

Bumps and bruises: The “inadvertent cruelty” of factory farming. Mercy for Animals Idaho dairy photo; click image

Kathleen Stachowski  Other Nations

“My Own Private Idaho.” You might know it as a ’90s era movie, but its new identity is being forged in the Idaho legislature right now. “My Own Private Idaho” could soon be how factory farm owners refer to their holdings–places where anything goes and no one knows–if ag-gag legislation is signed into law. But according to some, it goes far beyond undercover filming in animal agriculture settings. Continue reading

Let slip the dogs of war: Wolf slaughter is afoot

sign-composite

Click image for photo credit

Kathleen Stachowski   Other Nations

(NOTE: See my updates scattered throughout the text & comment section)

Cry “Havoc!” There will be blood…and it will be wolf blood.

Idaho Fish and Game (IDFG) has hired a killer to slaughter two wolf packs within the federally-protected Frank Church-River of No Return Wilderness. This is congressionally-designated, captital-W wilderness, certainly the one place nature should be allowed to express itself without manipulation by and for humans. Said wolf biologist and PBS filmmaker (“River of No Return”) Isaac Babcock,

…when Fish and Game hires a bounty hunter to go live in designated wilderness in a Forest Service cabin with the goal of eliminating entire wolf packs — something seems terribly wrong with that.” ~ Idaho Statesman: “Idaho Fish and Game turns to hired hunter

Why must two wilderness wolf packs die? Continue reading

Research Hunts & Conservation Hunts: New Ways to Fetishize Wolf Slaughter

David Cassuto

Not too long ago, I blogged about the duplicity of Japan’s “research” hunting of whales.  The practice is little more than a disingenuous attempt to circumvent the global ban on whale killing by pretending the slaughter has some scientific purpose.  I called on the rest of the world to repudiate such tactics and to hold them up to public scrutiny and scorn.

Then, a few weeks ago, a federal judge in the U.S.  ruled that gray wolf hunts in the Northern Rockies violated the Endangered Species Act.  Guess what then happened:  U.S. wildlife officials proposed a “research hunt” to kill the wolves. Apparently, their idea was that it was okay to kill listed species as long as you claimed a scientific reason for doing so.  You know, just like they do in Japan with the whales. Continue reading

A New & Welcome Chapter in the Wolf Saga

David Cassuto

I’ve blogged a fair bit about the ill-advised delisting of gray wolves as endangered species in the northern Rockies, as well as about the lawsuit that followed.  When last we left the story, the district court had denied a preliminary injunction that would have stopped the wolf hunts that subsequently took place in Montana and Idaho.  The judge did indicate, though, that the plaintiffs had a strong chance of prevailing on the merits (the standard for a preliminary injunction is formidably high, as discussed here).               Continue reading

A Sub-Optimal Ruling on the Rocky Mountain Wolf Hunt

WolfJudge Molloy has refused to stop the wolf hunt that has already begun in Idaho and will soon begin (September 15th) in Montana.  Yet his decision to deny the preliminary injunction sought by Defenders of Wildlife, Sierra Club, the Humane Society & others does  acknowledge that the plaintiffs will likely prevail (eventually) on the merits.

Courts will only issue preliminary injunctions (which halt the challenged activity while the court considers its permissibility) when plaintiffs show that they are 1) “likely to succeed on the merits,” (2) that they are “likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief,” (3) that the “balance of equities tips” in their favor, and (4) that such an injunction is in the“public interest.” Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 129 S. Ct. 365, 374 (2008).

In this case, the court determined that it would likely find that the Fish and Wildlife Service’s decision to delist a portion of a “Distinct Population Segment” of a protected species ran afoul of the Endangered Species Act.  It also concluded that the agency’s decision seemed to contradict its own previous interpretations of its authority under the statute.  Inconsistent agency rulings are not entitled to judicial deference.  Consequently, the court need not defer to the agency’s new interpretation and the plaintiffs would probably prevail. Continue reading