Mass Mailing from Earthjustice

Attached are the names of **29,645** individuals who are submitting public comments reaffirming that the reintroduction program was mandated by Colorado’s voters through a fair and democratic process, and the federal government should be working to aid, not thwart, that choice. --- We are writing in response to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s Request for Information on the implementation of the Section 10(j) nonessential experimental population rule for gray wolves in Colorado. Colorado’s wolf reintroduction program is helping fulfill the purpose of the Endangered Species Act: to recover endangered species to the point where they no longer need protection. Colorado’s reintroduced wolves have begun establishing territories, reproducing, and reoccupying habitat from which they were extirpated generations ago. These outcomes are precisely what the ESA was designed to accomplish, and the Service should do everything it can to support the program’s continued success The RFI asks about livestock conflict and Colorado’s compensation program. Colorado Parks and Wildlife—with the help of nonprofit groups—has invested enormous time, effort, and money to minimize harm to livestock producers. Any concern over too much money being spent on compensation is no reason to impede wolf recovery; it simply indicates that more funding is required and/or that nonlethal deterrents should be used more widely and more effectively to prevent conflict in the first place. And Colorado can address any state funding issues without federal interference. The RFI also asks about “allowable forms of take,” potentially suggesting that additional opportunity to kill wolves should be allowed. The federal 10(j) rule and complementary state regulations already authorize the taking of wolves caught in the act of attacking livestock on both private and public land, as well as lethal removal of wolves proven to have chronically depredated livestock. These carveouts from normal ESA protections should not—and legally cannot—be expanded further, as a 10(j) rule must advance, not thwart, recovery of ESA-listed species. Notably, the RFI fails to ask about the benefits of the 10(j) rule and state reintroduction program in advancing wolf recovery. It’s clear that the reintroduction is helping recover this keystone species to an important part of its former range. Given the Service’s defined role under the ESA—to protect and recover listed species—these benefits to recovery should be the focus of the Service’s evaluation of the 10(j) rule. We are also concerned about the implied threat of federal interference in a fundamentally state-led, voter-driven effort. The reintroduction program was mandated by Colorado’s voters through a fair and democratic process, and the federal government should be working to aid, not thwart, that choice. Like most Coloradans, we continue to support wolf reintroduction. we urge the Service to follow the law and evaluate this program based on science and the ESA’s recovery mandate, not political pressure from anti-wolf interests. Thank you for your time and consideration of our comments, The Undersigned See attached file(s)