federal judge Judge orders protections reinstated for gray wolf in Montana and Idaho

HELENA, Mont. A federal judge on Thursday reinstated protections for wolves in Montana and Idaho, saying the government made a political decision in removing the protections from just two of the states where Northern Rocky Mountain wolves roam.The decision puts a halt to wolf hunts in Montana and Idaho planned for this fall. Montana wildlife regulators last month set the wolf-hunt quota at 186, more than doubling last year’s number, with the aim of reducing the state’s wolf population.U.S. District Judge Donald Molloy in Missoula said in his ruling that the entire region’s wolf population either must be listed as an endangered species or removed from the list, but the protections for the same population can’t be different for each state.

Last year, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service turned over wolf management to Montana and Idaho wildlife officials but left federal endangered species protections in place for wolves in Wyoming. There, legislators have approved a plan classifying wolves in most areas of the state outside the vicinity of Yellowstone National Park as predators that could be shot on site.

Molloy sided with the wildlife advocates who sued the federal government, ruling that Endangered Species Act does not allow the Fish and Wildlife Service to list only part of a species as endangered, and the federal agency must protect the entire Northern Rocky Mountain wolf population.”The rule delisting the gray wolf must be set aside because, though it may be a pragmatic solution to a difficult biological issue, it is not a legal one,” Molloy wrote.

Gray wolves were listed as endangered in 1974, but following a reintroduction program in the mid-1990s, there are now more than 1,700 in the Northern Rockies, which includes all of Idaho, Montana and Wyoming, along with portions of Washington, Oregon and Utah.Defenders of Wildlife, the Greater Yellowstone Coalition and other wildlife advocates sued the federal government after the Fish and Wildlife Service decision in April 2009. They argued that the government’s decision would have set a precedent allowing the government to arbitrarily choose which animals should be protected and where.

Doug Honnold, an attorney for EarthJustice representing the plaintiffs, said he was gratified by the ruling, though he is sure there will be another chapter to the story.”For today, we are celebrating that the approach we thought was flatly illegal has been rejected. The troubling consequences for the Endangered Species Act have been averted and the wolf hunts are blocked,” Honnold said.

The plaintiffs don’t want wolves on the endangered species list forever, but they do want a solid plan in place, said Suzanne Stone, Northern Rockies representative for Defenders of Wildlife. The government’s plan was poorly devised and would have allowed too many wolves to be killed, she said.”We need a good wolf management and delisting that allows for a healthy interconnected wolf population,” Stone said.

Officials with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Idaho Department of Fish and Game declined to comment immediately after the ruling was released, saying they had yet to read the whole decision.The Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks Commission has asked the state to appeal the ruling to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, according to a statement by the state Fish, Wildlife and Parks agency.

Carolyn Sime, wolf program coordinator for Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks, said Montana has done everything it’s been asked to do in developing its state management program but now will have to apply federal law and regulations once more.”This puts a spotlight on Wyoming and seeing what can be done with Wyoming,” Sime said.The increase in the wolf population brought livestock losses for ranchers and competition for hunters for big game, such as elk. Molloy’s decision means ranchers in northwestern Montana will no longer be able to haze, harass or kill wolves that prey on their livestock, Sime said.

Wolves in southwestern Montana will revert to their “experimental population” status and ranchers there will still be able to kill wolves that attack their animals, she said.But a big blow is the loss of a hunting season, Sime said.”That’s clearly a management tool that we want to have in the toolbox. We think it’s legitimate and appropriate,” she said.Both Idaho and Montana held wolf hunts last year. Montana’s kill ended with 73 wolves and Idaho’s with 185.

Idaho’s congressional delegation released a statement that said Molloy’s ruling ignored the exploding population of wolves and that the state can manage wolves in a sustainable and responsible way.”We look for a more reasonable decision from a higher court,” said the statement from Sens. Mike Crapo and Jim Risch and Reps. Mike Simpson and Walt Minnick.At the end of 2009, there were at least 843 wolves in Idaho, 524 in Montana and 320 in Wyoming, with more in parts of Oregon and Washington state.

Thursday’s ruling could affect a lawsuit in which Wyoming charges the Fish and Wildlife Service had no reason to refuse to turn over management of gray wolves to Wyoming as it did to the other states. The case is before U.S. District Judge Alan B. Johnson of Cheyenne.”If the rule is vacated, there’s a question that Judge Johnson has to consider of whether or not there is something for him to decide,” said Bruce Salzburg, Wyoming attorney general.(AP)

Arizona border businesses lose key Mexican clients / (Smash The Border)

Adalberto Lopez’ family-run musical instrument shop in the bustling Arizona border city of Nogales sells guitars and accordions to foot-stomping banda musicians and mariachis who cross up from Mexico to shop.But in mid-May, the music stopped in the store. Mexican customers who account for almost all its sales stayed away as part of a two-day boycott to repudiate Arizona’s tough new immigration law.”The street and my shop were empty,” said Lopez, of the “Day Without a Mexican” protest on May 14 and 15.The law may make life more difficult for border retailers already hobbled by the recession and long border crossing waits, and Arizona’s economy could take a hit from lost business.

But on a larger scale, experts believe the overall trade between the United States and Mexico, valued at around $1 billion a day, is unlikely to suffer from this latest wrinkle in the often strained U.S.-Mexico relations.Passed last month, the law requires state and local police to check the immigration status of those they reasonably suspect are in the country illegally. Opponents on both sides of the border say it is a mandate for racial profiling.

Mexico President Felipe Calderon sharply criticized it during a visit to Washington last week. Standing beside U.S. President Barack Obama, Calderon said Mexican immigrants make a “significant contribution to the economy and society of the United States” but many face discrimination “as in Arizona.”

The measure has triggered legal challenges, convention cancellations, and, most recently, snubs by some of the 65,000 Mexicans who cross into the desert state each day to work, visit family and shop, spending $7.4 million, according to a recent University of Arizona study.”The people in Mexico have been fairly insulted by this legislation, as have most Latinos in the state of Arizona,” said Bruce Bracker, president of the Downtown Merchants Association in Nogales, who said local shops’ sales fell 40 percent to 60 percent as Mexicans stayed home during the boycott.

NO TRADE SLOWDOWN

Obama has spoken out against the law, which is backed by a majority of Americans.The United States, Mexico and Canada created the world’s largest free trade block with the North American Free Trade Agreement in 1994, although the U.S.-Mexico trade relationship has been jarred by job losses and charges of protectionism.Trade between the two neighbors is already ruffled by a trucking row. Mexico is waiting for the United States to let its trucks circulate again on U.S. roads, ending a spat that led it to slap duties on $2.4 billion in U.S. goods.

But analysts and customs brokers say the furor over the state law is unlikely to disrupt the $21 billion annual flow in goods over the Arizona-Mexico border, between clients scattered across northwest Mexico and the United States.”Once you work so hard to get a business enterprise up and operating, how much are you willing to reverse that based upon something that someone relatively remote from you does?” said Rick Van Schoik, director of the North American Center for Transborder Studies at Arizona State University in Phoenix.

“Life goes on regardless of the newsy political conversation that’s going on,” he added.Customs brokers in Nogales, meanwhile, who clear goods ranging from semi-conductor chips to fresh produce headed over the border by truck and freight train, said their clients were more concerned about the sputtering economic recovery than the migrant law, which is due to come into effect on July 29.

“The economy is one thing, but that’s an ongoing situation for everyone,” said Nogales customs broker Terry Shannon Jr.”But I have not had any dialogue with my clients at this point where they have called me up and point-blank (asked) ‘What do you think of the law? Where are we going with this?'”

‘ONE MORE OBSTACLE’

But in cross-border retail, where sentiment plays a role in shaping Mexican shoppers’ spending, the outlook is more vexed, business groups say.Informal Mexican boycotts in protest at the measure have taken hold in other cities bordering Arizona, among them San Luis Rio Colorado, south of Yuma, where some traders are opting to head to California and Nevada to buy appliances and cars.”They’re looking for other options,” said Juan Manuel Villarreal, president of the city’s chamber of commerce, adding that it is still too early to quantify the impact.Authorities in Nogales  the state’s principal trade gateway to Mexico  were unable to place a dollar value on the recent boycott by Mexican shoppers, whose spending accounts for nearly a quarter of all jobs in surrounding Santa Cruz County, and almost half of taxable sales.

But Olivia Ainza-Kramer, president of the Nogales-Santa Cruz County Chamber of Commerce said a backlash from the law piled pressure on local shops, restaurants and hotels already hurt by the recession and delays of up to two hours for customers crossing up from Mexico.”This is one more obstacle that’s getting in the way,” she said.(Reuters)

Mexican migrants head for Arizona despite crackdown

NOGALES, Mexico Kidnapped by bandits, and caught and repatriated three times by the U.S. Border Patrol,  migrant Roberto Santos says Arizona’s tough new immigration law is the least of his worries.”I don’t care if they tell me they’re going to give me life in jail. I’m still going to keep on trying,” Santos, 30, said as he sat on a bench outside a migrant welfare project in this bustling city just south of the border from Arizona.”There’s no other option, Mexico’s dead — I just don’t want to be here anymore. I don’t have a life here anymore,” added Santos, who spent more than a decade in Los Angeles, before being recently deported.

Last month, Arizona passed a tough new law to drive 460,000 illegal immigrants out of the desert state, which straddles one of the principal corridors for human and drug smugglers heading up from Mexico.But despite the looming crackdown which will require state and local police to check the immigration status of anyone they reasonably suspect is in the country illegally when it comes into effect in late July — migrants remain undeterred, authorities on both sides of the border say.

The U.S. Border Patrol’s Tucson sector said they had arrested 148,000 people in southern Arizona between October and April, around 8,000 more than in the same period last year.In Mexico, migrant welfare agency Grupo Beta says staff have continued to attend to some 150 to 200 migrants a day, either headed north from some of Mexico’s poorest states in search of work stateside, or sent packing over the border by U.S. authorities who have stepped up deportations.

“People are leaving, others are being repatriated, so I don’t see any change,” said Enrique Enriquez, the director of Grupo Beta’s center, which stands a few blocks south of the rusted border fence in Nogales.The controversial new law is supported by almost two thirds of Arizona voters, and a majority of American adults.

‘NO FOOD IN THE HOUSE’

Opponents charge the measure is unconstitutional and a mandate for racial profiling, and have launched legal challenges and an economic boycott to try to derail it.

Mexican President Felipe Calderon is expected to protest it when he meets with U.S. President Barack Obama in Washington on Wednesday for a state dinner.

In an interview last week he slammed the state measure as “frankly discriminatory, terribly backward.” His government issued a warning to Mexicans living in or traveling to Arizona, and asked its consulates there to offer Mexicans legal protection.

Among those particularly motivated to cross north despite the state crackdown are illegal immigrants who used to live in the United States and were swept up in deportations, which reached a record 387,790 last year, according to U.S. Department of Homeland Security figures.

Standing among a group of two dozen migrants in the Mexican border city, Miguel Lopez said he would risk arrest and deportation as many times as was needed to rejoin his wife and two young children in North Carolina.”We’ll just have to see who gets tired first,” said Lopez, 31, with a shrug.”I have to keep trying, because my family is over there. I have nothing in Mexico,” he added.

Despite the promise of greater vigilance under the law, some first-time migrants added that they were driven by poverty to seek a better life in the United States, and would push on through Arizona regardless.”We heard about Arizona’s new law on the news, but we need work,” said Gerardo Perez, 30, a farmer who said he earned 80 pesos a day   about $6  in his home state of Chiapas in southern Mexico.(Reuters)

Mexico condemns Anti-Immigration Law

Mexico has warned its citizens to visit Arizona, responding to one anti-immigration legislation that cause anger strict in Mexico and throughout America. The law, signed in January Brewr, U.S. state governors, the southern part of it, from Republicans, allows police to inspect and arrest anyone who they suspect may be illegal immigrants, although they are not suspected of criminal acts.

Action caused resentment on both sides of the border, with MPs California, on Tuesday called for economic boycott against Arizona and one Mexican airline warned it may cancel more flights to the southern U.S. states that. Mexico’s foreign ministry suggested its citizens carry identity documents and to respect the laws of Arizona, warned that an adverse political situation for the migrant community and all visitors of Mexico.

“With this legislation is estimated to every citizen can be disrupted and examined for reasons that are not important at all times,” the statement said. President Felipe Calderon criticized the law as racial discrimination and said the government would use all means available to defend its citizens.

He said the law threatens the relationship of friendship, business, tourism and culture between Mexico and Arizona. Many Mexican migrants and the opposition party called for a boycott of businesses on the southern U.S. states, while the businessmen concerned about the negative reaction.

“Without doubt it will have an impact on traffic and the pelacong between Mexico and the state’s (Arizona),” Leader said Andres Conesa Aeroméxico airline told reporters at a tourism conference in Acupulco, Tuesday. “Aeroméxico’ve closed the routes between the cities of Mexico City and Guadalajara and Phoenix in Arizona in recent months,” he said.

In Sonora, the Mexican state bordering Arizona government symbolically membatalan one annual meeting with officials of Arizona, said its Internet pages, but said that trying to maintain good relations. North of the border, the legislation sparked a wave of criticism, including from U.S. President Barack Obama, and create legal and political fights while the Democratic party would consider filing a change in the law immigration wide.

Members of Congress in San Francisco and Los Angeles, Tuesday called for a boycott, including tightening up contracts with companies in Arizona and encourage private companies to reduce business with the state.

U.S. Homeland Security Chief Janet Napolitano says U.S. justice officials very worried about the law and the Justice Department is considering whether the law meets constitutional requirements. Mexico, which have a 3.200km long border with the United States, estimated to have approximately 12 million citizens in the U.S., half of them do not have documents or illegal. Arizona estimates in its territory there are 460 000 illegal immigrants, mostly from Latin America.

Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano talk about the "Calls to boycott Arizona grow over new immigration law "

Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Tuesday that she had “deep concerns” with the law and said it could siphon resources needed to target criminals. U.S. Atty. Gen. Eric Holder said he was considering “the possibility of a court challenge.”

“I think that that law is an unfortunate one,” Holder said. “It is, I fear, subject to potential abuse. And I’m very concerned about the wedge that it could draw between communities that law enforcement is supposed to serve and those of us in law enforcement.”The law makes it a state crime to be in Arizona illegally and requires police to check suspects for immigration paperwork. The legislation also bars people from soliciting work or hiring day laborers off the street.Gov. Jan Brewer cast the law in terms of public safety, saying, “We cannot sacrifice our safety to the murderous greed of drug cartels.” Brewer said she would order the state police training agency to formulate guidelines for law enforcement officers.

But critics said the law will result in racial profiling and discrimination.Calls for boycotts spread throughout California this week after the bill was signed by Brewer on Friday. The law is scheduled to take effect 90 days after the legislative session ends this week.On Tuesday, seven members of the Los Angeles City Council signed a proposal for a boycott, calling for the city to “refrain from conducting business” or participating in conventions in Arizona. Councilman Ed Reyes, who coauthored the proposal with Councilwoman Janice Hahn, said he wants city officials to spend the next 90 days assessing the financial relationships that exist between various city departments and businesses based in Arizona.

“If Arizona companies are taking our money, I want to sever that,” he said.Hahn acknowledged that a boycott would be logistically complicated but said the city should not remain silent. “When people are asked to show their papers, it brings back memories of Nazi Germany,” she said.

A spokesman for City Controller Wendy Greuel identified at least 12 city contracts with Arizona companies that are worth an estimated $7.2 million.San Francisco supervisors introduced a similar resolution Tuesday, and Mayor Gavin Newsom imposed an immediate moratorium on city-related travel to Arizona, with limited exceptions. Newsom also announced the convening of a group to analyze how a boycott would affect city contracts and purchasing.

City Atty. Dennis Herrera said he hoped the city’s resolution would “be an impetus to others taking an aggressive stand in terms of scrutinizing the services they have with Arizona companies.”The leader of the California Senate, Darrell Steinberg (D-Sacramento), called the law a “disgrace” and said the state also should consider a boycott. He sent a letter to Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger asking for an inventory of Arizona businesses and government agencies with which California does business.

“The Arizona law is as unconscionable as it is unconstitutional, and the state of California should not be using taxpayer dollars to support such a policy,” Steinberg wrote.Already, several organizations have canceled planned conventions in Arizona. The American Immigration Lawyers Assn. announced that it is moving its fall convention, originally scheduled for Scottsdale in September.

“We just felt that given this new law signed by the governor that it would not be right for our association to meet and convene there and take on the issues of immigration in a state that passed such a misguided bill,” said George Tzamaras, spokesman for the group.Arizona was already reeling from a decline in tourism because of the recession, and the fallout from the law has taken hotel owners by surprise, said Debbie Johnson, president of the Arizona Hotel and Lodging Assn.”Obviously our members are concerned,” Johnson said. “I thought there would be political issues. It has become so tourism-focused and that, to me, is the unfortunate side.”

Johnson said 200,000 people, many of them Latinos and legal immigrants, depend on a paycheck from the tourism industry. “They don’t want to lose their jobs,” she said.Barry Broome, president of the Greater Phoenix Economic Development Council, compared the boycott resolutions to the aftermath of Proposition 187, the anti-illegal immigrant measure passed by California voters in 1994.”You didn’t see people in Arizona trying to leverage political gain from California’s issues,” he said.

Brewer said at a meeting in Tucson on Monday that she wasn’t worried about possible boycotts. “I believe it’s not going to have the kind of economic impact that some people think that it might,” she said.But Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-Ariz.), who himself called for companies not to plan conventions in the state, said in an interview Tuesday that he expected the state to see declines in business and leisure travel, the trucking industry and retail shoppers from Mexico.

“There are political, legal and economic consequences that are going to hit the state,” said Grijalva, who has received death threats since speaking out against the law. “The disgust goes across state lines.”The concern about the law crossed international borders, with a travel warning posted by the Mexican government Tuesday. The post, on the Mexican Foreign Relations Ministry website, urged Mexican citizens to be careful in Arizona and to expect harassment and questioning.