February, 10 2022, 01:42pm EDT

For Immediate Release
Contact:
Kelly Nokes, Western Environmental Law Center, 575-613-8051, nokes@westernlaw.org
Erik Molvar, Western Watersheds Project, 307-399-7910, emolvar@westernwatersheds.org
Bethany Cotton, Cascadia Wildlands, 503-327-4923, bethany@cascwild.org
Lindsay Larris, WildEarth Guardians, 310-923-1465, llarris@wildearthguardians.org
Judge Restores Gray Wolf Protections, Reviving Federal Recovery Efforts
Wolves in Northern Rockies still face brutal slaughter.
WASHINGTON
Today, a federal court restored Endangered Species Act protections for the gray wolf after they were eliminated by the Trump administration in 2020. The ruling orders the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to resume recovery efforts for the imperiled species. Today's decision redesignates the gray wolf as a species threatened with extinction in the lower 48 states with the exception of the Northern Rockies population (map), for which wolf protections were removed by Congress in 2011.
The most recent data from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and its state partners show only an estimated 132 wolves in Washington state, 173 in Oregon (with only 19 outside of northeastern Oregon), and fewer than about 20 in California. Nevada, Utah, and Colorado have had a few wolf sightings over the past three years, but wolves remain functionally absent from their historical habitat in these states. In 2020, Colorado voters directed the state to reintroduce wolves by 2023.
"The science is clear that gray wolves have not yet recovered in the western U.S. By design, the Endangered Species Act does not provide the federal government the discretion to forsake western wolf recovery in some regions due to progress in other parts of the country," said Kelly Nokes, Western Environmental Law Center attorney. "Today's decision will bolster recovery of western wolves - a keystone species wherever they exist - and improve ecosystem health more broadly."
From the decision: "...the Service did not adequately consider threats to wolves outside of these core populations. Instead, the Service avoids analyzing these wolves by concluding, with little explanation or analysis, that wolves outside of the core populations are not necessary to the recovery of the species... In so concluding, the Service avoided assessing the impact of delisting on these wolves." Opinion at 11.
In delisting wolves, the Service ignored the science showing they are not recovered in the West. The Service concluded that because in its belief there are sufficient wolves in the Great Lakes states, it did not matter that wolves in the western U.S. are not yet recovered. The Endangered Species Act demands more, including restoring the species in the ample suitable habitats afforded by the wild public lands throughout the western U.S. Wolves are listed as endangered under state laws in Washington and California, and only occupy a small portion of available, suitable habitat in Oregon.
"This ruling is a huge win for wolves in states like California, Oregon, and Utah where they have yet to achieve stable, robust populations," said Erik Molvar, a wildlife biologist and executive director with Western Watersheds Project. "We are relieved to have staved off premature delisting with this case, but there is still a huge amount of work ahead to protect wolves in Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming where they face some of their biggest threats."
"The nation has witnessed the brutality that happens when 'management' of wolves is returned to anti-wolf states like Montana and Idaho, which have implemented an aggressive eradication agenda, including surrounding Yellowstone National Park," said Lindsay Larris, Wildlife Program director at WildEarth Guardians. "Restoring federal Endangered Species Act protections for wolves is essential to their recovery throughout their historic range, so while we are thankful for this ruling we also call on Secretary Deb Haaland to issue emergency relisting protections for the Northern Rockies wolf population to halt the senseless slaughter taking place."
The conservation groups have long been active on wolf recovery issues in the western U.S., including working with western states to develop science-based wolf management plans, mounting cases to rein in rogue federal government wolf-killing programs, promoting recovery efforts in the Southwest for critically imperiled Mexican gray wolves, and working with local governments and landowners to deploy non-lethal tools that prevent wolf-livestock conflicts.
"Over the past two winters, we lost icons of wolf recovery when OR-7 and his mate OR-94 passed away in southern Oregon's Cascades. These two wolves represent the first generation of wolves in western Oregon in nearly a century," said Michael Dotson with the conservation group Klamath Siskiyou Wildlands Center based in southwest Oregon. "Delisting is premature and obviously politically driven."
"Wolves are an integral part in the health and resilience of western ecosystems," said Adam Gebauer, Public Lands Program director at The Lands Council. "Local land managers, state wildlife offices and the federal government must work together and rely on science and not politics to ensure their recovery. Wolves are our allies in the conservation of wildlands."
"Today's victory injects hope and resources into ongoing efforts to restore wolves across their historic range," said Bethany Cotton, conservation director for Cascadia Wildlands. "We look forward to engaging with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to ensure wolf management is guided by sound science, not prejudice."
"The politically driven delisting of wolves in the Northern Rockies by Congress incorrectly included all of eastern Washington, east of US Highway 97. It was an arbitrary decision then and it still is today," said Timothy Coleman, director of Kettle Range Conservation Group and former member of the Washington state Wolf Advisory Group. "Eighty-five percent of wolves killed in Washington were from the Kettle River Range, where unfortunately the gray wolf is still at risk despite the court's excellent decision. And though Washington has kept state endangered species protections for wolves, that clearly provides little protection. Had wolves retained federal Endangered Species Act protection, entire wolf families would not have been slaughtered and could have dispersed into unoccupied areas of the state with excellent habitat such as southwest Washington, Mount Rainier and Olympic National Park."
"California's wolves are just starting to return home," said Tom Wheeler, executive director at the Environmental Protection Information Center. "Today's decision means these animals will have the help of federal wildlife managers to establish a true foothold in their historic habitat in the state."
"We must learn to coexist with gray wolves. These highly intelligent and social animals play a key role in balancing entire ecosystems," said Kimberly Baker of the Klamath Forest Alliance. "Federal protection is paramount to safeguarding this nation's rightful heritage."
Unfortunately, today's decision will do nothing to stop the ongoing slaughter of wolves in Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming--including surrounding Yellowstone National Park and Glacier National Park. These states removed wolves' endangered species protections via federal legislation. The current war on wolves in the northern Rockies shows the stark reality of what happens when "management" is turned over to states hostile to wolves.
In just the past few months, at least 23 Yellowstone wolves--more than 20% of the park's entire wolf population--have been killed outside the park, causing widespread outrage and condemnation from Yellowstone National Park's supervisor, wolf researchers, and wildlife professionals. Hunters in Montana and Idaho can lure wolves out of Yellowstone with bait, strangle them with snares, and shoot them at night on private land.
Both states have established wolf bounties and in Idaho it's legal to run down a wolf with ATVs and snowmobiles. While celebrating today's positive ruling for wolves, the groups also call on the Biden administration to immediately issue emergency relisting protections for the Northern Rockies population of the gray wolf under the Endangered Species Act.
The coalition of western wildlife advocates involved in this legal challenge includes WildEarth Guardians, Western Watersheds Project, Cascadia Wildlands, Klamath-Siskiyou Wildlands Center, Environmental Protection Information Center (EPIC), The Lands Council, Wildlands Network, Klamath Forest Alliance, and Kettle Range Conservation Group, represented by the Western Environmental Law Center.
Western Watersheds Project is an environmental conservation group working to protect and restore watersheds and wildlife through.
LATEST NEWS
Mitt "47%" Romney's Post-Career Call to Tax the Rich Met With Kudos and Criticism
"When Romney had real power," noted journalist David Sirota, "he fortified the rigged tax system that he's only now criticizing from the sidelines."
Dec 19, 2025
In a leaked fundraiser footage from the 2012 US presidential campaign, Republican candidate Mitt Romney infamously claimed that 47% of Americans are people "who believe that they are victims, who believe that government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to healthcare, to food, to housing, to you name it." On Friday, the former US senator from Utah published a New York Times opinion piece titled, "Tax the Rich, Like Me."
"In 2012, political ads suggested that some of my policy proposals, if enacted, would amount to pushing grandma off a cliff. Actually, my proposals were intended to prevent that very thing from happening," Romney began the article, which was met with a range of reactions. "Today, all of us, including our grandmas, truly are headed for a cliff: If, as projected, the Social Security Trust Fund runs out in the 2034 fiscal year, benefits will be cut by about 23%."
"Typically, Democrats insist on higher taxes, and Republicans insist on lower spending. But given the magnitude of our national debt as well as the proximity of the cliff, both are necessary," he argued. "On the spending-cut front... Social Security and Medicare benefits for future retirees should be means-tested—need-based, that is to say—and the starting age for entitlement payments should be linked to American life expectancy."
"And on the tax front, it's time for rich people like me to pay more," wrote Romney, whose estimated net worth last year, when he announced his January 2025 retirement from the Senate, was $235 million. "I long opposed increasing the income level on which FICA employment taxes are applied (this year, the cap is $176,100). No longer; the consequences of the cliff have changed my mind."
"The largest source of additional tax revenues is also probably the most compelling for fairness and social stability. Some call it closing tax code loopholes, but the term 'loopholes' grossly understates their scale. 'Caverns' or 'caves' would be more fitting," he continued, calling for rewriting capital gains tax treatment rules for "mega-estates over $100 million."
"Sealing the real estate caverns would also raise more revenue," Romney noted. "There are more loopholes and caverns to be explored and sealed for the very wealthy, including state and local tax deductions, the tax rate on carried interest, and charity limits on the largest estates at death."
Some welcomed or even praised Romney's piece. Iowa state Rep. JD Scholten (D-1), a progressive who has previously run for both chambers of Congress, declared on social media: "Tax the rich! Welcome to the coalition, Mitt!"
US House Committee on the Budget Ranking Member Brendan Boyle (D-Pa.), who is part of the New Democrat Coalition, said: "I welcome this op-ed by Mitt Romney and encourage people to read it. As the next chair of the House Budget Committee, increasing revenue by closing loopholes exploited by the wealthiest Americans will be a top priority."
Progressive Saikat Chakrabarti, who is reportedly worth at least $167 million and is one of the candidates running to replace retiring former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), responded: "Even Mitt Romney now agrees that we need to tax the wealthiest. I call for a wealth tax on our billionaires and centimillionaires."
Michael Linden, a senior policy fellow at the Washington Center for Equitable Growth, said: "Kudos to Mitt Romney for changing his mind and calling for higher taxes on the rich. I'm not going to nitpick his op-ed (though there are a few things I disagree with), because the gist of it is right: We need real tax reform to make the rich pay more."
Others pointed to Romney's record, including the impactful 47% remarks. The Lever's David Sirota wondered, "Why is it that powerful people typically wait until they have no power to take the right position and effectively admit they were wrong when they had more power to do something about it?"
According to Sirota:
The obvious news of the op-ed is that we've reached a point in which even American politics' very own Gordon Gekko—a private equity mogul-turned-Republican politician—is now admitting the tax system has been rigged for his fellow oligarchs.
And, hey, that's good. I believe in the politics of addition. I believe in welcoming converts to good causes in the spirit of "better late than never." I believe there should be space for people to change their views for the better. And I appreciate Romney offering at least some pro forma explanation about what allegedly changed his thinking (sidenote: I say "allegedly" because it's not like Romney only just now learned that the tax system was rigged—he was literally a co-founder of Bain Capital!).
"And yet, these kinds of reversals (without explicit apologies, of course) often come off as both long overdue but also vaguely inauthentic, or at least not as courageous and principled as they seem," Sirota continued, stressing that "when Romney had real power, he fortified the rigged tax system that he's only now criticizing from the sidelines."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Elon Musk Is Vowing Utopia Driven by AI and Robotics. Bernie Sanders Has a Few Questions
"I look forward to hearing about how you and your other oligarch friends are going to provide working people with a magnificent life that you promise," the Vermont senator said in a sardonic video.
Dec 19, 2025
The world's richest man, Elon Musk, continues to insist that the artificial intelligence technology he profits from will create an economic utopia free from poverty, where work is optional and saving money is unnecessary.
But at a time of unprecedented wealth inequality that the Trump administration Musk supports has helped to accelerate, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) expressed incredulity about how Musk envisions such a future coming about.
Musk, the CEO of SpaceX and Tesla, made his comments on his social media app X, in response to billionaire investor Ray Dalio, who'd announced that he and his wife were contributing to an initiative backed by the Trump administration to create savings accounts for children born between 2025 and 2028.
Dalio mentioned that the computer billionaire Michael Dell and his wife had also pledged $6.25 billion to the effort.
Unprompted, Musk responded: "It is certainly a nice gesture of the Dells, but there will be no poverty in the future, and so no need to save money. There will be universal high income."
It's a theory that Musk has proposed repeatedly of late. Last month, while on a podcast, he suggested that thanks to rapidly accelerating AI and robot technology, all labor will soon be automated, making the need for wages obsolete: "In less than 20 years, working will be optional. Working at all will be optional. Like a hobby."
Earlier this week, he postulated—in almost Marxian fashion—that automation would do away with the need for money as a store of value.
“I think money disappears as a concept, honestly,” he told another podcast. “It’s kind of strange, but in a future where anyone can have anything, you no longer need money as a database for labor allocation. If AI and robotics are big enough to satisfy all human needs, then money is no longer necessary. Its relevance declines dramatically.”
Social media users have had a field day with Musk's fanciful predictions. One noted that it was a bit strange that a person who believed money would soon lose all value recently strong-armed Tesla shareholders into giving him a nearly $1 trillion pay package, the biggest corporate compensation plan in history. Another simply asked, "Are you high on ketamine?"
But perhaps the most blistering reaction came from Sanders, one of Musk's most steadfast adversaries, who posted a sardonic response video on Thursday.
"I was delighted to hear that through the rapid advancement in artificial intelligence and robotics that you are funding, you will be bringing about utopia to the world," the senator said. "You have told us that poverty will be wiped out, work will be optional, there will be universal high income, and that everyone will have the best medical care, food, home, transport, and everything else. That is wonderful news."
"I just have a couple of questions. How will this utopia come about?" he continued. "If young people can't find the entry-level jobs that used to exist, and they are unemployed without income, when are they going to get the free housing you talk about? If manufacturing workers lose their jobs because robots take their place, when are they going to get the free healthcare you promise? If a young nurse with kids loses her job, how is she going to get the food she needs to feed her family?"
Sanders then turned his attention to the fact that Musk spent an unprecedented amount of more than $270 million to help elect President Donald Trump, who earlier this year enacted historic cuts to the social safety net to fund tax breaks that overwhelmingly benefit the rich, in what has been described as the greatest upward transfer of wealth in US history.
"I look forward to hearing about how you and your other oligarch friends are going to provide working people with a magnificent life that you promise," he continued. "Because let's not forget, Donald Trump, the guy you got elected, is kicking 15 million people off their healthcare, doubling insurance premiums for more than 20 million, and is making massive cuts to nutrition assistance and education for kids across the country."
Sanders concluded, "With that track record, I can't wait to hear how your plan to provide universal high income for every American is going to be implemented."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'An Absolute Joke': Trump DOJ Partially Releases Epstein Files, Many Heavily Redacted
“Trump’s failure to release the Epstein files is an insult to survivors and a further stain on an administration that continuously bends over backwards to protect abusers," said one critic.
Dec 19, 2025
The US Department of Justice on Friday released a massive—but incomplete—trove containing hundreds of thousands of records related to the late convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, a move that came as Democratic lawmakers vowed to pursue "all legal options" after the Trump administration blew a deadline to disclose all of the files.
The DOJ uploaded the files—which can be viewed here in the section titled "Epstein Files Transparency Act"—to its website on Friday. Earlier in the day, Deputy US Attorney General Todd Blanche said that the agency would not release all the Epstein files on Friday, as required by the transparency law signed last month by President Donald Trump.
Friday's release includes declassified files, many of them heavily redacted and some of which were already publicly available via court filings, records requests, and media reporting. Files include flight logs and masseuse lists. One document contains nothing but 100 fully redacted pages.
Curiously, a search for the words "Trump" and "Epstein" in the posted documents returned no results.
The progressive media site MeidasTouch said, "This Epstein files 'release' is the most disgusting cover up in American history."
Journalist Aaron Parnas accused the DOJ of "engaging in a cover up."
"Most of the files are heavily redacted, with very few fully released," he noted. "There are disturbing images of Epstein with victims. There are images of Michael Jackson, Bill Clinton, and others. Donald Trump is not in any of the ones I've reviewed."
While not accused of any wrongdoing, Trump was a former close friend of Epstein, who faced federal sex trafficking charges at the time of his suspicious 2019 death in a New York City jail cell.
White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson released a statement Friday afternoon, which read in part:
The Trump administration is the most transparent in history. By releasing thousands of pages of documents, cooperating with the House Oversight Committee’s subpoena request, and President Trump recently calling for further investigations into Epstein’s Democrat friends, the Trump administration has done more for the victims than Democrats ever have.
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) noted in a statement following the DOJ document dump, noting that the Epstein Files Transparency Act passed by Congress and signed by Trump "calls for the complete release of the Epstein files so that there can be full transparency."
"This set of heavily redacted documents released by the Department of Justice today is just a fraction of the whole body of evidence," Schumer continued. “Simply releasing a mountain of blacked out pages violates the spirit of transparency and the letter of the law. For example, all 119 pages of one document were completely blacked out. We need answers as to why."
“Senate Democrats are working to assess the documents that have been released to determine what actions must be taken to hold the Trump administration accountable," he added. "We will pursue every option to make sure the truth comes out.”
Schumer's remarks followed vows by congressional Democrats including Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.)—who, along with Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) introduced the Epstein Files Transparency Act—to hold Trump administration officials accountable for violating the law.
Responding to the DOJ's document release and delay in fully disclosing the files, Elisa Batista, campaign director at UltraViolet Action, said in a statement that “if the Trump administration had its way, they would undo the sacrifice of survivors who came forward to demand transparency and accountability, as well as all those abused by Epstein who were unable to."
“Trump’s failure to release the Epstein files is an insult to survivors and a further stain on an administration that continuously bends over backwards to protect abusers—and just violated the Epstein Files Transparency Act to do so," Batista added. "We will continue to fight alongside the brave survivors—many of whom were young girls when they were abused by Epstein—who took great risk to reveal Epstein’s globe-spanning sex trafficking network.”
Britt Jacovich, a spokesperson for the progressive political action group MoveOn, said following Friday's release that “President Trump’s Department of Justice is breaking the law by holding all of the Epstein files hostage, and yet again, Trump is doing absolutely nothing."
"Trump doesn’t care about the victims or the millions of Americans calling for justice," Jacovich added. "He only cares about protecting the rich and powerful, even those who abuse young women and children. Every single person named in the Epstein files and involved in the cover-up should face accountability, regardless of their political party. No more delays, no more obstruction.”
Yasmine Meyer, an attorney who represents multiple alleged victims of Epstein, told CBS News that while "we are glad that... we are seeing some documents finally being released," the "heavy redactions" in many of the documents are "troubling."
"Every single time that there has been a promise to deliver some meaningful material, the survivors cannot help but get their hopes up... and every single time, that door slams back shut in their faces and retraumatized them all over again," she added.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular


