Presented by Amaroq Weiss West Coast Wolf Organizer for The Gray Wolf in California Part 2

To list, or not to list.... A Commissioner must faithfully execute the laws which the Commission has authority and responsibility to implement. California Constitution, Art. IV, Sec. 20(b); Cal Fish & G Code § 107.

The Commission listed Guadalupe fur seal and wolverine under standards essentially the same as those in effect today

The statutory definition for “endangered” in effect today (and since 1984) is: “... in serious danger of becoming extinct throughout all, or a significant portion, of its range.” Cal Fish & G Code § 2062.

The definition in 1971 to be listed as “endangered” was: A species... “whose prospects of survival and reproduction [ ] are in immediate jeopardy from one or more causes, including loss of habitat, change in habitat, overexploitation, predation, competition, or disease.” Cal. Fish & G Code Division 3, Chapter 1.5, Section 2051(a) (1970).

If anything, the definition in 1971 made listing more difficult than today. “immediate jeopardy”

The regulatory criteria in place since 1985 do not raise the bar for listing from what was in place in 1971.

Despite identical definitions for listing and delisting, the Commission has never delisted a species that was an intermittent resident or even the condor when it was completely absent from the wild.

Assertions by CDFW that listing recommendations in the past were based on “professional judgment” but are now based on “scientific findings” are absurd and irrelevant.

Listing gray wolf as endangered does not establish a new Commission precedent.

Non-CESA management protections for the gray wolf can neither substitute for nor prevent the listing of gray wolf as endangered.

Neither the statutory definition of, nor the regulatory criteria for listing include considerations of existing regulatory mechanisms for protection.

Proposals by the Department that the Commission adopt rules to prohibit take of wolves is an implicit acknowledgment that threats to the continued existence of wolves exist in California.

Any suggestion that a range and distribution of wolves in California cannot be determined at this time is flatly wrong.

Wolves dispersing to California have been expected and the trend is projected to accelerate. A breeding population is likely on the border right now and a pregnant female was likely present in California already this year.

These pioneer wolves are under multiple threats to their continued existence in California. Predation /exploitation by humans Predation by other wildlife Habitat destruction or modification Disease and poisoning

Peer-reviewed literature shows that present or threatened habitat modification and destruction are a threat to wolves’ continued existence in California. CDFW failed to analyze.

Peer-reviewed literature and multiple lines of evidence show that illegal and accidental killings are a threat to wolves’ continued existence in California, especially pioneer dispersing wolves.

Verified wolf dispersal events : 65 dispersals, 53 killed

Widespread coyote killing in particular is a threat to wolves’ continued existence in California. CDFW sufficiently concerned to intervene.

Several political leaders in OR-7’s range have vowed to kill all wolves found in the area. “If I see a wolf, it’s dead.”

Recent evidence and peer- reviewed literature suggests that disease and poisoning may be threats to wolves’ continued existence in California. CDFW failed to analyze. Parvo Mange Anticoagulants / rodenticides

The Department failed to analyze predation by other wildlife, despite its impact on wolves in Washington and elsewhere.

Commissioner Rogers has said that “listing is inevitable.” The Department encouraged the Commission to adopt “[t]he prospect of CESA listing at a later date.” There is no reason to wait. Wolves are returning to California. The time to list the gray wolf as endangered is now.

As bound by the science and Constitutional and statutory duties, the Commission must list the gray wolf as endangered.