On the recordJuly 27, 2011
Reclaiming my time, I'm coming to that. The State of Wyoming has a wolf management plan that was approved by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service as adequate. And then subsequently, through litigation upon litigation upon litigation, the courts changed their mind, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service changed its mind, the court changed its mind again, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service changed its mind again. So this is a process that is driven by litigation, not by science, because the science and the numbers both say that the gray wolf is recovered in Wyoming. Wyoming has a wolf management plan on the books. However, what we are saying here with this amendment is that the State of Wyoming, through its Governor, will negotiate changes to that management plan which, when agreed to with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and submitted to the Wyoming Legislature, will not then be subject to additional whipsaw litigation--that will be the end of it--returning management of wolves to the State experts that should be doing this job. Wolf management is frozen, and it need not be. By trying to strip this language, the gentleman from the State of Washington emboldens the people who don't want Washington State--or Oregon or Wisconsin or Michigan or Wyoming or any other State--to make its own decisions using its own wildlife biologists. I believe that State wildlife experts, not D.C. cube dwellers, have the expertise and the knowledge and the passion to manage the wolf anywhere they roam.…





