California Ranchers Fight Gray Wolf Protections

A week after President Donald Trump signed an executive order rolling back environmental protections, the California Farm Bureau and ranchers sued the state, challenging its listing of the gray wolf as endangered. The California Cattlemen’s Association and the California Farm Bureau Federation claim in Superior Court that the California Fish and Game Commission exceeded its authority by protecting the species. The administrative record shows that the gray wolf is not native to California, making it ineligible for listing, the groups say in their Tuesday lawsuit. They say the commission’s listing was based on inadequate analysis of the sporadic presence of only a few animals in California. They claim that giving the gray wolf substantial protections not easily contravened, the commission overturned a years-long, collaboratively developed wolf management plan that protects livestock from wolf predation, and threatened the safety and livelihoods of farmers and ranchers. Plaintiffs’ attorney Damien Schiff with the Pacific Legal Foundation insists that the lawsuit is not anti-wolf. “The commission’s wolf listing doesn’t materially improve the wolf’s protections in this state, but it does materially hamper the ability of private property owners to adequately protect themselves, their pets, and their livestock,” Schiff said in an email. “Thus, our lawsuit is about getting the commission back on the right track to employing a sound and balanced wolf management strategy.” In at least one aspect, the lawsuit is an extension of the long-running political fight between states’ rights groups and the federal government. The wolf seen in Northern California that set off this fight, known as OR-7, is believed to be a descendant of wolves the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service reintroduced to Idaho. They spread into Oregon and kept spreading. At issue behind the complaint, but not directly addressed by it, is the question: If the federal government declares that a species is in danger of extinction and needs protection, to what extent, if any, do the states have the right to refuse?...more

At issue behind the complaint, but not directly addressed by it, is the question: If the federal government declares that a species is in danger of extinction and needs protection, to what extent, if any, do the states have the right to refuse? 

I would phrase it differently:  When is a state no longer a state? If the federal government can introduce a dangerous predator into a state, without the consent of the state, then it is no longer a state. It is simply a subunit or administrative arm of the feds. They would have reverted to being a Territory.