November, 13 2012, 01:57pm EDT

For Immediate Release
Contact:
Gwen Dobbs, Director of Media Relations,(202) 772-0269,newsroom@defenders.org
Suit Filed Against Wyoming's Kill-at-Will Wolf Policy
Removal of Federal Protection Is Hampering Recovery of Iconic Endangered Species
BOZEMAN, Mont.
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 wolfmanagement 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.
Defenders of Wildlife is the premier U.S.-based national conservation organization dedicated to the protection and restoration of imperiled species and their habitats in North America.
(202) 682-9400LATEST NEWS
Protesters Arrested Disrupting Macy's Parade Over Genocide in Gaza
"What we are witnessing right now in Palestine is one of the greatest human rights issues of our time," said Seven Circles Alliance.
Nov 23, 2023
A small number of demonstrators were arrested on Thursday for disrupting the Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parade on Sixth Avenue in New York City to protest Israel's "ongoing ethnic cleansing and genocide of Palestinians" in the Gaza Strip.
"Floats, marching bands, and the parade's iconic balloons were navigating around the protesters as cops moved in to make arrests," the New York Daily Newsreported. "Protestors clad in white jumpsuits, some emblazoned with the words 'Colonialism,' 'Militarism,' and 'Ethnic Cleansing' poured fake blood on one another and the roadway."
Taking credit for the direct action, Seven Circles Alliance said in a statement that the coalition of climate, social justice, and political activists is calling on the United States to "cease its support for Israel's occupation of Palestine" and for both the U.S. and Israel to recognize the International Criminal Court (ICC).
"A free Palestine and the liberation and decolonization of all people, everywhere is deeply linked with the climate movement," the alliance asserted. "If the powers of the West are unabashedly supporting genocide and ethnic cleansing, it is crystal clear that they will not budge an inch in addressing climate breakdown and preventing societal collapse. Climate is a human rights issue, and what we are witnessing right now in Palestine is one of the greatest human rights issues of our time."
The direction action wasn't the only expression of solidarity with Palestine during Thursday's parade. Someone riding on the Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe float also held up a Palestinian flag.
Israeli airstrikes and raids in Gaza have killed more than 14,500 Palestinians, including over 6,000 children, since Israel declared war in response to a Hamas-led attack on October 7. The assault has also displaced about three-quarters of the besieged strip's 2.3 million residents and devastated civilian infrastructure.
Massive street protests around the world over the past several weeks have pressured political leaders to demand a cease-fire and path toward peace in Gaza, while genocide experts and other critics of Israel's war—including some Israelis—have advocated for action by the ICC.
Some U.S. lawmakers have also called for a cease-fire, but President Joe Biden has stressed his "unwavering" support for Israel and asked Congress to authorize $14.3 billion for the war effort, on top of the $3.8 billion in military aid that Israel already gets from the United States annually.
A four-day pause in fighting is scheduled to begin at midnight to allow for the release of 150 Palestinian women and children from Israeli prisons as well as 50 hostages held by Hamas.
"A temporary pause in the violence is not enough," U.S. Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.), the only Palestinian American in Congress, said earlier this week. "We must move with urgency to save as many lives as possible and achieve a permanent cease-fire agreement."
Keep ReadingShow Less
AOC Says $20 Million Offer to Unseat Tlaib Exemplifies 'Corruption of Our Politics'
Hill Harper rejected the offer from the Michigan businessman, saying he wants to "break the stranglehold wealthy special interests have on our politics."
Nov 23, 2023
Recent news out of Michigan, where actor and union organizer Hill Harper is running for U.S. Senate and U.S. Rep. Rashida Tlaib has recently angered pro-Israel lawmakers and donors for her staunch support for Palestinian rights, offered an illustration of the "corruption" of the American political system, said one progressive House member late Wednesday.
As Politico reported, Harper recently rejected $20 million from an anti-Palestinian rights enterpreneur, Linden Nelson, who offered the money in exchange for Harper dropping out of his Senate race and running instead against Tlaib (D-Mich.) for her House seat.
The offer came on October 16, the day Tlaib joined Rep. Cori Bush (D-Mo.) in introducing a resolution to back an immediate de-escalation and cease-fire in Gaza. The blockaded enclave was then nine days into a relentless bombardment by Israel, which was launched October 7 in retaliation for Hamas' attack on southern Israel but had already killed nearly 3,000 Palestinian civilians, including 1,000 children, at the time.
The death toll has now grown to more than 14,500 people, including 6,000 children.
Tlaib, the only Palestinian American member of Congress, has been the subject of vitriol from lawmakers who believe the U.S. should continue supporting Israel regardless of what human rights groups and the United Nations have warned may amount to war crimes in Gaza. Earlier this month, 22 Democrats joined Republicans in voting to censure Tlaib for using the rallying cry for Palestinian rights, "From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free."
Pro-Israel Democrats are reportedly searching for a candidate to primary Tlaib, and last month, according to Politico, Nelson reached out to Harper offering $10 million in bundled donations directly to his campaign and $10 million in independent expenditures—if he would agree to be that House candidate instead of continuing his Senate run.
"The fact that in the U.S. just one wealthy person can make a call and offer millions to unseat an official they dislike tells you everything about the corruption of our politics," said Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.).
Nelson has been involved with the powerful American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) in the past, and has donated to both Democratic and Republican lawmakers.
AIPAC toldThe Hill that it "was absolutely not involved in any way in this matter" and said Nelson has not donated to the organization in over a decade, but considering the group's efforts to defeat other pro-Palestinian rights progressives in recent elections, Ocasio-Cortez expressed skepticism.
Harper, who is running for Sen. Debbie Stabenow's (D-Mich.) seat against the more conservative Rep. Elissa Slotkin (D-Mich.), echoed Ocasio-Cortez, saying Nelson's rejected offer exemplifies a "broken political and campaign finance system that's tilted towards the wealthy and powerful."
"I'm running to be a voice for the people," said Harper. "I'm not going to run against the only Palestinian American in Congress just because some special interests don't like her. I'm running because I want to break the stranglehold wealthy special interests have on our politics, whether it's the Israel lobby, the NRA, or Big Pharma."
Harper himself has called for a "humanitarian cease-fire" in Gaza this month, saying in a statement, "The answers to ensure long-term peace and security for Israelis and Palestinians are neither simple nor pain-free, but one truth stands firm: violence against defenseless children, trapped and frightened, is abhorrent, regardless of who is behind it."
Saurav Ghosh, director for federal reform at the Campaign Legal Center, toldPolitico that Harper and Nelson would have broken the law if they had moved forward with the deal.
Nelson's offer, said Jewish-led anti-Zionist group IfNotNow, is "a clear example of how groups like AIPAC and [its super PAC, Democratic Majority for Israel] try to undermine the will of voters and attack representatives who truly represent our values."
Keep ReadingShow Less
The Nation Publishes Gaza Genocide Article Killed by Harvard Law Review
"Palestine brings to legal analysis an unmasking force: It unveils and reminds us of the ongoing colonial condition that underpins Western legal institutions," argues Rabea Eghbariah.
Nov 23, 2023
The Nation this week published a piece about Israel's genocidal war on the Gaza Strip that the Harvard Law Review commissioned from a Palestinian scholar but then refused to run after several days of internal debate, a nearly six-hour meeting, and a board vote.
The essay—"The Ongoing Nakba: Towards a Legal Framework for Palestine," by Rabea Eghbariah, a human rights attorney and doctoral candidate at Harvard Law School—begins: "Genocide is a crime. It is a legal framework. It is unfolding in Gaza. And yet, the inertia of legal academia, especially in the United States, has been chilling."
The controversy over Eghbariah's own piece helps prove his point. In an email to Eghbariah and Harvard Law Review president Apsara Iyer, online chair Tascha Shahriari-Parsa, one of the editors who commissioned the blog article, called the bid to kill it an "unprecedented decision" by the academic journal's leadership.
The Interceptreported on that email and others from those involved:
"As online chairs, we have always had full discretion to solicit pieces for publication," Shahriari-Parsa wrote, informing Eghbariah that his piece would not be published despite following the agreed-upon procedure for blog essays. Shahriari-Parsa wrote that concerns had arisen about staffers being offended or harassed, but "a deliberate decision to censor your voice out of fear of backlash would be contrary to the values of academic freedom and uplifting marginalized voices in legal academia that our institution stands for."
Both Shahriari-Parsa and the other top online editor, Sabrina Ochoa, told The Intercept that they had never seen a piece face this level of scrutiny at the Law Review. Shahriari-Parsa could find no previous examples of other pieces pulled from publication after going through the standard editorial process.
In a statement, the Harvard Law Review said that it "has rigorous editorial processes governing how it solicits, evaluates, and determines when and whether to publish a piece. An intrinsic feature of these internal processes is the confidentiality of our 104 editors' perspectives and deliberations. Last week, the full body met and deliberated over whether to publish a particular blog piece that had been solicited by two editors. A substantial majority voted not to proceed with publication."
According to The Nation, 63% of editors who participated in the anonymous vote opposed publication.
"At a time when the Law Review was facing a public intimidation and harassment campaign, the journal's leadership intervened to stop publication," 25 editors said in a statement shared with The Nation and The Intercept. "The body of editors—none of whom are Palestinian—voted to sustain that decision."
"We are unaware of any other solicited piece that has been revoked by the Law Review in this way," they added. "This unprecedented decision threatens academic freedom and perpetuates the suppression of Palestinian voices. We dissent."
Eghbariah wrote in an email to an editor: "This is discrimination. Let's not dance around it—this is also outright censorship. It is dangerous and alarming."
It is also part of a broader trend identified by more than 1,700 lawyers and law students. In a letter to the American Bar Association last week, they noted "increasing instances of discrimination and censorship faced by Palestinian, Muslim, Arab, South Asian, Black, Indigenous, immigrant, and other communities within law schools, universities, law firms, and other corporate entities, particularly due to their expression of support for the Palestinian people."
Since Israel declared war in response to a Hamas-led attack on October 7, genocide experts around the world have used the term to describe Israeli airstrikes and raids that have killed more than 14,500 Palestinians in Gaza—among them over 6,000 children—and destroyed infrastructure including residential, educational, medical, and religious buildings.
"Some may claim that the invocation of genocide, especially in Gaza, is fraught. But does one have to wait for a genocide to be successfully completed to name it? This logic contributes to the politics of denial," Eghbariah wrote in his essay.
After pointing to both statements from Israeli politicians and the forming consensus among genocide scholars, he stressed that "genocide is the material reality of Palestinians in Gaza: an entrapped, displaced, starved, water-deprived population of 2.3 million facing massive bombardments and a carnage in one of the most densely populated areas in the world."
"And yet, leading law schools and legal scholars in the United States still fashion their silence as impartiality and their denial as nuance. Is genocide really the crime of all crimes if it is committed by Western allies against non-Western people?" he added. "This is the most important question that Palestine continues to pose to the international legal order. Palestine brings to legal analysis an unmasking force: It unveils and reminds us of the ongoing colonial condition that underpins Western legal institutions."
Eghbariah also explained the term Nakba, or "catastrophe," which is used to describe the ethnic cleansing of over 750,000 Palestinians during the creation of the modern state of Israel in the 1940s—and argued that "the Nakba is ongoing."
"The Nakba is both the material reality and the epistemic framework to understand the crimes committed against the Palestinian people," he wrote. "And these crimes—encapsulated in the framework of Nakba—are the result of the political ideology of Zionism, an ideology that originated in late 19th-century Europe in response to the notions of nationalism, colonialism, and antisemitism."
"We must imagine that one day there will be a recognized crime of committing a Nakba, and a disapprobation of Zionism as an ideology based on racial elimination. The road to get there remains long and challenging, but we do not have the privilege to relinquish any legal tools available to name the crimes against the Palestinian people in the present and attempt to stop them," he concluded. "The denial of the genocide in Gaza is rooted in the denial of the Nakba. And both must end, now."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular