The Unsavory Truth Behind the Move to Take Wolves Off the Endangered List

[Judi Lynn]

The Unsavory Truth Behind the Move to Take Wolves Off the Endangered List
By Tracy Ross | Takepart.com 4 hours ago Takepart.com EnvironmentNature & Environment

Just weeks after calling for the removal of gray wolves from the Endangered Species List, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is now under fire for allegations that it intentionally excluded three prominent scientists—whose views diverged from the Service’s on delisting—from an upcoming peer review process.

In June, Fish and Wildlife called to delist gray wolves across the Lower 48 states, leaving an exception for the struggling Mexican wolf in the Southwest. Agency director Dan Ashe told the media that the gray wolf had recovered to the point that it could thrive and even enlarge its territory without federal oversight. Several wolf advocates and some members of Congress disagreed. Once wolves are delisted, their management will fall to individual states.

But in order for the delisting process to continue, federal law requires that a team of scientists evaluate the basis for the motion. As such, Fish and Wildlife hired a private contractor to select and oversee the peer review panel. According to Fish and Wildlife spokesman Gavin Shire, the agency isn’t supposed to know who the panelists are. But the Associated Press revealed that the contractor chosen to assemble the panel had provided a list of candidates that redacted their names but included their professional resumes. Armed with this information, the Service found three esteemed wolf biologists, who—and this is the key part—had expressed concern with the gray wolf delisting plan. They also, along with 16 other prominent scientists, had signed a letter expressing this concern. Shortly thereafter, Fish and Wildlife effectively “delisted” the three scientists from the panel.

The three are identified as Dr. John Vucetich, Dr. Robert Wayne, and Dr. Roland Kays. All have published extensively on the wolf and are considered preeminent experts. Yet the Center for Biological Diversity’s Bret Hartl reports that the Service rescinded their invitations because, in the agency’s words, they have an “unacceptable affiliation with an advocacy position.”

More:
http://news.yahoo.com/unsavory-truth-behind-move-wolves-off-endangered-list-202618001.html

[Tumbulu]

1. Why doesn't this surprise me? nt

[xchrom]

2. du rec.

[CRH]

3. Sounds like the IPCC, ...

If you are out of the mainstream of opinion, political appointed administrators determine who serves, diluting opposition to the conclusion politicians want. Remove a few wayward experts, then adjust research grants for others, and a consensus comes closer to administrators goals.
Shaping the science to benefit the status quo of present economy.