November, 14 2012, 02:33pm EDT
For Immediate Release
Contact:
Tim Preso, Earthjustice, (406) 586-9699
John Motsinger, Defenders of Wildlife, (202) 772-0288
Noah Greenwald, Center for Biological Diversity, (503) 484-7495
Josh Mogerman, Natural Resources Defense Council, (312) 651-7909
Virginia Cramer, Sierra Club, (804) 225-9113, ext. 102
Suit Filed Against Wyoming's Kill-at-Will Wolf Policy
Removal of federal protection is hampering recovery of iconic endangered species
WASHINGTON
Conservation groups filed suit today challenging the federal government's elimination of Endangered Species Act protections for Wyoming wolves. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service turned wolf management in Wyoming over to state officials this fall even though the state's wolf-management policies promote unlimited wolf killing in a "predator" zone that extends throughout most of the state and provides inadequate protection for wolves even where killing is regulated. The state policies will result in wolf deaths that undermine the recovery of the species. The lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.
"Wyoming's anti-wolf policies take the state backward, to the days when wolf massacres nearly wiped out wolves in the lower 48 states. Our nation rejected such predator extermination efforts when we adopted the Endangered Species Act," said Earthjustice attorney Tim Preso. "The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has turned its back on Wyoming wolves, and so today we are asking the court to make sure that wolves on the border of Yellowstone--our nation's first national park--have the protections they need to thrive."
"Wyoming's wolf-management plan is poor policy, weak in its protection of wolves, and based on flimsy science," added Franz Camenzind, a retired Ph.D. wildlife biologist who lives in the Jackson Hole area. "Wyoming's plan sets a very disturbing precedent for other states by abdicating management responsibility of a native wildlife species over approximately 85 percent of the state."
Since Wyoming took over wolf management Oct. 1, 2012, at least 49 wolves have been killed through state-sanctioned hunting and unregulated killing in Wyoming's "predator" zone; the actual number is likely higher because of delayed or neglected reporting of kills. Before Wyoming took over wolf management, the state's wolf population numbered only 328 wolves at last count.
Last year Congress gave hunters and trappers in Montana and Idaho the right to kill wolves that had been protected under the Endangered Species Act, nullifying a court victory won by Earthjustice that would have prevented the hunts. In the 2011-2012 hunting season, hunters and trappers killed 545 wolves in Montana and Idaho. Both states eliminated their statewide quotas for wolf killing in the 2012-2013 hunting season, opening the door to even higher wolf mortality. After just over one month of hunting and trapping in Idaho, Montana and Wyoming, 177 wolves have been killed.
Fish and Wildlife in the past denied Wyoming the authority to manage wolves due to the state's extreme anti-wolf laws. Despite what today's lawsuit calls only "cosmetic" changes to those wolf-management laws, the Service has now reversed its position.
"The administration needs to be held accountable for its decision to allow the senseless and unnecessary killing of wolves in Wyoming," said Mike Senatore, vice president of conservation law for Defenders of Wildlife. "The American people didn't invest their hard-earned tax dollars into wolf recovery just so these important animals could be treated like vermin and killed on sight. We can't allow states like Wyoming to continue to undermine one of our nation's greatest Endangered Species Act success stories."
"Wyoming's plan is a wolf-killing plan, not a management plan. Allowing it to move forward could reverse one of the greatest endangered species recovery success stories of all time," said Bonnie Rice of the Sierra Club's Greater Yellowstone Resilient Habitats Campaign. "We need a return to the sound, science-based management practices that have for decades brought iconic animals back from the brink of extinction."
Now that Fish and Wildlife has eliminated federal protections, wolves in Wyoming's expansive "predator" zone may be shot, snared or trapped; killed from helicopters and airplanes; and pursued on four-wheelers and snowmobiles. Wolf pups may be killed in their dens. The Service has stated that no wolves are expected to survive in these areas.
"This plan allows Wyoming to manage wolves at the razor's edge of an already low number of wolves," said Sylvia Fallon, senior scientist at the Natural Resources Defense Council. "It fails to adequately regulate the kill-on-sight practices that drove wolves to endangerment in the first place. And it stands as yet another lost opportunity on the part of the Fish and Wildlife Service to provide the leadership necessary to secure a legally and scientifically defensible delisting plan for wolves."
The return of the gray wolf to the northern Rockies is one of America's greatest conservation success stories. After being exterminated from the western United States in the last century, wolves have begun a significant comeback in the region. According to independent studies, their reintroduction has helped reestablish ecological balance and boosted the regional economy.
"Taking Endangered Species Act protections away from Wyoming's wolves is a disaster not only for the state's wolves but for the possible return of wolves to Colorado and other parts of the West," said Noah Greenwald, endangered species director at the Center for Biological Diversity. "Like past versions of Wyoming's wolf plan--which were rejected by the Fish and Wildlife Service--the new plan fails to ensure the long-term survival and recovery of these unique animals. The decision to remove protections for Wyoming's wolves failed to rely on best science. It's a tragic political intrusion into what should be the scientifically guided management of an important endangered species."
Earthjustice represents Defenders of Wildlife, the Center for Biological Diversity, Natural Resources Defense Council and Sierra Club in this action.
Earthjustice is a non-profit public interest law firm dedicated to protecting the magnificent places, natural resources, and wildlife of this earth, and to defending the right of all people to a healthy environment. We bring about far-reaching change by enforcing and strengthening environmental laws on behalf of hundreds of organizations, coalitions and communities.
800-584-6460LATEST NEWS
Experts Warn of Toxins in GM Corn Amid US-Mexico Trade Dispute
"The Mexican government is both wise and on solid ground in refusing to allow its people to participate in the experiment that the U.S. government is seeking to impose."
Mar 26, 2024
Friends of the Earth U.S. on Monday released a brief backing Mexico's ban on genetically modified corn for human consumption, which the green group recently submitted to a dispute settlement panel charged with considering the U.S. government's challenge to the policy.
Mexican President Andrés Manuel López Obrador announced plans to phase out the herbicide glyphosate as well as genetically modified (GM) or genetically engineered (GE) corn in 2020. Last year he issued an updated decree making clear the ban does not apply to corn imports for livestock feed and industrial use. Still, the Biden administration objected and, after fruitless formal negotiations, requested the panel under the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA).
"The U.S. government has not presented an 'appropriate' risk assessment to the tribunal as called for in the USMCA dispute because such an assessment has never been done in the U.S. or anywhere in the world," said agricultural economist Charles Benbrook, who wrote the brief with Kendra Klein, director of science at Friends of the Earth U.S.
"The U.S. is, in effect, asking Mexico to trust the completeness and accuracy of the initial GE corn safety assessments carried out 15 to 30 years ago by the companies working to bring GE corn events to market."
The group's 13-page brief lays out health concerns related to GM corn and glyphosate, and the shortcomings of U.S. analyses and policies. It also stresses the stakes of the panel's decision, highlighting that "corn is the caloric backbone of the Mexican food supply, accounting, on average, for 50% of the calories and protein in the Mexican diet."
Blasting the Biden administration's case statement to the panel as "seriously deficient," Klein said Monday that "it lacks basic information about the toxins expressed in contemporary GMO corn varieties and their levels. The U.S. submission also ignores dozens of studies linking the insecticidal toxins and glyphosate residues found in GMO corn to adverse impacts on public health."
The brief explains that "since the commercial introduction of GE corn in 1996 and event-specific approvals in the 1990s and 2000s, dramatic changes have occurred in corn production systems. There has been an approximate four-fold increase in the number of toxins and pesticides applied on the average hectare of contemporary GE industrial corn compared to the early 1990s. Unfortunately, this upward trend is bound to continue, and may accelerate."
The U.S. statement's assurances about risks from Bacillus thuringiensis or vegetative insecticidal protein (Bt/VIP) residues "are not based on data and science," the brief warns.
"The U.S. is, in effect, asking Mexico to trust the completeness and accuracy of the initial GE corn safety assessments carried out 15 to 30 years ago by the companies working to bring GE corn events to market," the document says. "The Mexican government is both wise and on solid ground in refusing to allow its people to participate in the experiment that the U.S. government is seeking to impose on Mexico."
"The absence of any systematic monitoring of human exposure levels to Bt/VIP toxins and herbicides from consumption of corn-based foods is regrettable," the brief adds. "It is also unfortunate that the U.S. government rejected the Mexican proposal to jointly design and carry out a modern battery of studies able to overcome gaps in knowledge regarding GE corn impacts."
"The U.S. government's case against Mexico has no more scientific merit than its sham GMO regulatory regime, and should be rejected by the USMCA dispute resolution panel."
Friends of the Earth isn't the only U.S.-based group formally supporting the Mexican government in the USMCA process. The Center for Food Safety sent a 10-page submission by science director Bill Freese, an expert on biotech regulation, to the panel on March 15. His analysis addresses U.S. regulation of genetically modified organisms (GMO) along with the risks of GM corn and glyphosate.
"GMO regulation in the U.S. was crafted by Monsanto, now owned by Bayer, and is a critical part of our government's promotion of the biotechnology industry," Freese said last week, referring to the company known for the glyphosate-based weedkiller Roundup. "The aim is to quell concerns and promote acceptance of GMOs, domestically and abroad, rather than critically evaluate potential toxicity or allergenicity."
His submission notes that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration "does not require a GE plant developer to do anything prior to marketing its GE crop or food derived from it. Instead, FDA operates what it calls a voluntary consultation program that is designed to enhance consumer confidence and speed GE crops to market."
"When governmental review is optional; and even when it's conducted, starts and ends with the regulated company's safety assurance—what's the point?" Freese asked. "Clearly, it's the PR value of a governmental rubber stamp."
"The Mexican government's prohibition of GM corn for tortillas and other masa corn products is fully justified," he asserted. "The U.S. government's case against Mexico has no more scientific merit than its sham GMO regulatory regime, and should be rejected by the USMCA dispute resolution panel."
In a Common Dreams opinion piece last week, Ernesto Hernández-López, a law professor at Chapman University in California, pointed out that Mexico's recent submission to the panel also "offers scientific proof and lots of it," including "over 150 scientific studies, referred to in peer-review journals, systemic research reviews, and more."
"Mexico incorporates perspectives from toxicology, pediatrics, plant biology, hematology, epidemiology, public health, and data mining, to name a few," he wrote. "This clearly and loudly responds to American persistence. The practical result: American leaders cannot claim there is no science supporting the decree. They may disagree with or dislike the findings, but there is proof."
The Biden administration's effort to quash the Mexican policy notably comes despite the lack of impact on trade. While implementing its ban last year, "Mexico also made its largest corn purchase from the U.S., 15.3 million metric tons," National Geographicreported last month.
Kenneth Smith Ramos, former Mexican chief negotiator for the USMCA, told the outlet that "right now, it may not have a big economic impact because what Mexico is using to produce flour, cornmeal, and tortillas is a very small percentage of their overall imports; but that does not mean the U.S. is not concerned with this being the tip of the iceberg."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Collapse of Political Ambition': EU Shelves Nature Restoration Law
"To let this go now means we go into European elections saying the European system is not working, we do not protect nature, we do not take climate seriously," said Ireland's environmental minister. "That would be an absolute shame."
Mar 26, 2024
Environmental ministers in the European Union on Monday warned that the bloc's credibility on heading off the global biodiversity and climate emergencies is in peril following the European Council's decision to remove the historic Nature Restoration Law from its agenda after the proposal lost key support.
"We inspired others, yet now we risk arriving empty handed at COP16 [the 2024 UN Biodiversity Conference]," Virginijus Sinkevičius, E.U. commissioner for environment, oceans, and fisheries, said in a statement. "Backtracking now is... very difficult for me to accept."
The law, first introduced in 2022 and approved by European Parliament last month, faced one final hurdle to passage with the planned Council vote, but recent protests by farmers over the new nature restoration requirements helped push some previous supporters to reverse their positions on Monday.
The Nature Restoration Law, which supporters said they still intend to try to pass before E.U. elections in June, would require member states to adopt measures to restore at least 30% of habitats by 2030, working up to 90% by 2050. Member states would be required to take action to reverse pollinator populations, restore organic soils in agricultural use, increase development of urban green areas, and take other steps to protect biodiversity.
Since the farmer protests began in France and started spreading to other countries including Spain, Belgium, and Italy, policymakers have offered concessions including delayed implementation of another set of biodiversity rules calling for the agriculture industry to keep 4% of farming land free of crop production to regenerate healthy soil. The European Commission also shelved an anti-pesticide law in February in response to the protests.
As countries announced their new opposition to the Nature Restoration Law in recent days, some ministers suggested the demonstrations contributed to their decision.
Anikó Raisz, Hungary's minister of state for environmental affairs, said the law would "overburden the economy" and cited concerns about the "sensitive situation" in the agriculture sector. Italy also said it was concerned about the biodiversity rules' impact on farmers.
The World Wide Fund For Nature (WWF) accused far-right Hungarian President Viktor Orbán, who has dismissed European climate policies, of being behind the "unexpected and clearly politically motivated change in Hungary's position."
Hungary's opposition "was left unchallenged by Sweden, Poland, Finland, the Netherlands, Belgium, Austria, and Italy—who continue to either abstain or oppose," and "has now put the [Nature Restoration Law] in jeopardy again, giving Hungary's President Viktor Orbán the green light to further his own agenda and hold E.U. decision-making hostage," said WWF.
Eamon Ryan, Irish minister for the environment, accused other policymakers in the bloc of "buckling" before the farmer protests, which continued Tuesday, ahead of June elections.
"The biggest risk is the collapse of political ambition and will," Ryan said. "To let this go now means we go into European elections saying the European system is not working, we do not protect nature, we do not take climate seriously. That would be an absolute shame."
BirdLife Europe called on the E.U. the continue its efforts to pass the Nature Restoration Law before the session ends this summer.
"The E.U.'s reputation hangs in the balance in this critical year of E.U. elections," said the group. "Failure to make the law a reality also undermines the E.U.'s credibility and leadership on its international commitments to tackle the biodiversity and climate crises."
"This is definitely not the end of the story," Alain Maron, Belgium's minister for climate change, environment, energy, and participative democracy, told reporters at a press conference Monday. He added that the Belgian presidency of the European Council "will work hard in the next few weeks to find possible ways out of this deadlock, and get the file back on the agenda for adoption in another council."
Keep ReadingShow Less
US Under Fire for Downplaying Security Council Resolution as 'Nonbinding'
One expert accused the U.S. of working to "undermine and sabotage the U.N. Security Council, the 'rules-based order,' and international law."
Mar 26, 2024
Biden administration officials attempted Monday to downplay the significance of a newly passed United Nations Security Council resolution, drawing ire from human rights advocates who said the U.S. is undercutting international law and stonewalling attempts to bring Israel's devastating military assault on Gaza to an end.
The resolution "demands an immediate cease-fire for the month of Ramadan respected by all parties, leading to a lasting sustainable cease-fire." The U.S., which previously vetoed several cease-fire resolutions, opted to abstain on Monday, allowing the measure to pass.
Shortly after the resolution's approval, several administration officials—including State Department spokesman Matthew Miller, White House National Security Council spokesman John Kirby, and U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Linda Thomas-Greenfield—falsely characterized the measure as "nonbinding."
"It's a nonbinding resolution," Kirby told reporters. "So, there's no impact at all on Israel and Israel's ability to continue to go after Hamas."
Watch Matt Lee ask StateSpox about the passing of the UN ceasefire resolution. Basically the US position is it makes no difference and Miller calls 🇷🇺/🇨🇳 veto cynical.
Lee: Do you expect Israel is going to announce a ceasefire?
Miller: I do not
Lee: What’s the point of the UN? pic.twitter.com/FibaSKWjuh
— Assal Rad (@AssalRad) March 25, 2024
Josh Ruebner, an adjunct lecturer at Georgetown University and former policy director of the U.S. Campaign for Palestinian Rights, wrote in response that "there is no such thing as a 'nonbinding' Security Council resolution."
"Israel's failure to abide by this resolution must open the door to the immediate imposition of Chapter VII sanctions," Ruebner wrote.
Beatrice Fihn, the director of Lex International and former executive director of the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons, condemned what she called the Biden administration's "appalling behavior" in the wake of the resolution's passage. Fihn said the administration's downplaying of the resolution shows how the U.S. works to "openly undermine and sabotage the U.N. Security Council, the 'rules-based order,' and international law."
In a Monday op-ed for Common Dreams, Phyllis Bennis, a senior fellow at the Institute for Policy Studies, warned that administration officials' claim that the resolution was "nonbinding" should be seen as "setting the stage for the U.S. government to violate the U.N. Charter by refusing to be bound by the resolution's terms."
While all U.N. Security Council resolutions are legally binding, they're difficult to enforce and regularly ignored by the Israeli government, which responded with outrage to the latest resolution and canceled an Israeli delegation's planned visit to the U.S.
Israel Katz, Israel's foreign minister,
wrote on social media Monday that "Israel will not cease fire."
The resolution passed amid growing global alarm over the humanitarian crisis that Israel has inflicted on the Gaza Strip, where most of the population of around 2.2 million is displaced and at increasingly dire risk of starvation.
Amnesty International secretary-general Agnes Callamard said Monday that it was "just plain irresponsible" of U.S. officials to "suggest that a resolution meant to save lives and address massive devastation and suffering can be disregarded."
In addition to demanding an immediate cease-fire, the Security Council resolution calls for the unconditional release of all remaining hostages and "emphasizes the urgent need to expand the flow of humanitarian assistance."
Israel has systematically obstructed aid deliveries to Gaza, including
U.S.-funded flour shipments.
Farhan Haq, deputy spokesman for the U.N. secretary-general, stressed during a briefing Monday that "all the resolutions of the Security Council are international law."
"They are as binding as international laws," Haq said.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular