Opinion: Defenders Fails to Defend Wolves
Last Friday, the 18th of March, will be a day forever emblazened into the minds of wolf advocates and supporters throughout the nation, as it was on this day that Defenders of Wildlife and 9 other plaintiffs in the two delisting lawsuits to restore federal protection to wolves, sold out these passionate advocates.
I am in a position, as an up-and-coming freelance journalist, of being both a news writer, as well as an editorialist. My experience, my skills as a writer, and my expertise in areas such as law and wolf advocacy (I've been in the wolf business since 1998 as an advocate for wolves, neutral to all other parties) afford me insight into these issues that few others can have. And on this matter, I have upheld the highest journalistic standards in presenting an analysis of the settlement agreement in accordance with my longstanding neutrality.
But now, I get to opine on the matter. Sadly, I must do so without the benefit of comment from Defenders of Wildlife and other parties to the agreement, as none of these organizations responded to my request for comments nor to my direct questions. One organization even had a "vacation message" on the designated contact's email, despite being the point-of-contact on what they had to understand was a contentious issue.
This settlement agreement was slipped in behind our backs, on a Friday, with only minimal communication about the agreement provided in press releases and on Defenders' website. And Defenders even went so far as to delete comments on the brief entry annoucing the agreement on their Facebook page, over half by some accounts.
Defenders, in a letter posted to their website, attempts to reassure supporters that the agreement was necessary, and would be highly effective in preventing Congress from passing legislation to undermine ESA (Endangered Species Act) protections for wolves. But if they really wanted to assure us, they would show us something more that this agreement, to which Congress is not a party. There is nothing in the agreement to prevent Congress from passing legislation, with the exception of the agreement itself.
And I don't know about you, but I'd rather see solid, on-paper assurances. Why can't, for example, Defenders ask Congress to pass a moratorium as a condition of the agreement? That's easy to do. If Congress has said they won't pass legislation, then get it in writing before committing to this agreement.
But even if such a moratorium or other form of credible promise did come about, It's quite clear that Defenders gave away too much. This settlement agreement, which Defenders insists would prevent legislation, was not the right path. Defenders is "paid" by its supporters to defend wildlife. I don't know about you, but if I were a wolf, I wouldn't want a toothless agreement to be all that stands in the way of congressional action. I'd want promises. I'd want Defenders to lobby Congress, and to encourage voters to tell their representatives not to legislate to harm wolves.
For an organization that took in over $28million last year, according to their ***IRS filing for 2009, I personally think they could do a lot better if perhaps they didn't pay out 43% of their contributions in salary and compensation, including over $360,000 in annual compensation for Rodger Schlickeisen, CEO of Defenders of Wildlife and another $2.5 million for the other 14 officers of Defenders of Wildlife. I think perhaps its time we took a good hard look at these organizations, and especially the money they generate in highly lucrative salaries, and start asking some tough questions.
I am in a position, as an up-and-coming freelance journalist, of being both a news writer, as well as an editorialist. My experience, my skills as a writer, and my expertise in areas such as law and wolf advocacy (I've been in the wolf business since 1998 as an advocate for wolves, neutral to all other parties) afford me insight into these issues that few others can have. And on this matter, I have upheld the highest journalistic standards in presenting an analysis of the settlement agreement in accordance with my longstanding neutrality.
But now, I get to opine on the matter. Sadly, I must do so without the benefit of comment from Defenders of Wildlife and other parties to the agreement, as none of these organizations responded to my request for comments nor to my direct questions. One organization even had a "vacation message" on the designated contact's email, despite being the point-of-contact on what they had to understand was a contentious issue.
This settlement agreement was slipped in behind our backs, on a Friday, with only minimal communication about the agreement provided in press releases and on Defenders' website. And Defenders even went so far as to delete comments on the brief entry annoucing the agreement on their Facebook page, over half by some accounts.
Defenders, in a letter posted to their website, attempts to reassure supporters that the agreement was necessary, and would be highly effective in preventing Congress from passing legislation to undermine ESA (Endangered Species Act) protections for wolves. But if they really wanted to assure us, they would show us something more that this agreement, to which Congress is not a party. There is nothing in the agreement to prevent Congress from passing legislation, with the exception of the agreement itself.
And I don't know about you, but I'd rather see solid, on-paper assurances. Why can't, for example, Defenders ask Congress to pass a moratorium as a condition of the agreement? That's easy to do. If Congress has said they won't pass legislation, then get it in writing before committing to this agreement.
But even if such a moratorium or other form of credible promise did come about, It's quite clear that Defenders gave away too much. This settlement agreement, which Defenders insists would prevent legislation, was not the right path. Defenders is "paid" by its supporters to defend wildlife. I don't know about you, but if I were a wolf, I wouldn't want a toothless agreement to be all that stands in the way of congressional action. I'd want promises. I'd want Defenders to lobby Congress, and to encourage voters to tell their representatives not to legislate to harm wolves.
For an organization that took in over $28million last year, according to their ***IRS filing for 2009, I personally think they could do a lot better if perhaps they didn't pay out 43% of their contributions in salary and compensation, including over $360,000 in annual compensation for Rodger Schlickeisen, CEO of Defenders of Wildlife and another $2.5 million for the other 14 officers of Defenders of Wildlife. I think perhaps its time we took a good hard look at these organizations, and especially the money they generate in highly lucrative salaries, and start asking some tough questions.
In the meantime, if Defenders of Wildlife and the other parties to the settlement agreement want our support back, they can start by withdrawing the settlement agreement. Perhaps the settlement agreement should be submitted for public comment on the partcipating organizations' websites, as the Fish and Wildlife Service must do for any actions they take. And maybe, while we're at it, we should be allowed to comment on the salaries of these organizations' officers.
Sources:
Michael Wolf Defenders' Wolf Settlement All Bark No Bite Associated Content
Yesterday... Defenders of Wildlife's Facebook
Roger Schlickeisen 2009 IRS Form 990 Defenders of Wildlife
Published by Michael Wolf
I came to the Yahoo! Contributor Network in order to attempt a semi-professional writing career. Unfortunately, I came to the wrong place. Yahoo! Contributor Network was advertised and promoted as someth... View profile
Rare California El Segundo Blue Butterfly is Saved by Endangered Species...USC researchers can attest to the fact that the Endangered Species Act has done its job in saving and restoring the El Segundo blue butterfly which was first placed on the Endan...
Protecting the Planet from Our Bigfoot: Let's Endanger the Endangered Sp...According to one news source, "Recently, a Canadian member of parliament from Edmonton, Alberta, agreed to introduce a petition that called for Bigfoot to be protected under the...- What is the Endangered Species Act?A look at the Endangered species act and its importance to biological diversity
- 2009 Mississippi Endangered Species Act GrantsThe State of Mississippi received a 2009 Endangered Species Grant that totals $121,400 and is valid from January 1, 2009 through December 31, 2009.
- 2009 Alabama Endangered Species Act GrantThe State of Alabama received a 2009 Endangered Species Grant that totals $417,326 and is valid from October 1, 2008 through September 30, 2009.
- US Fish and Wildlife Services Delists Grey Wolves from the Endangered Species List
- A Critical Look at the Endangered Species Act of 1973
- Reintroduction of Wolves Into Yellowstone National Park
- Gray Wolf May Get De-Listed
- Super Smash Brothers Brawl Wii: Fox Vs Wolf
- Mexican Gray Wolves Were Declared and Endangered Species in 1976
- Endangered Species Act at Risk
"For an organization that took in over $28million last year, according to their IRS filings, I personally think [Defenders of Wildlife] could do a lot better if perhaps they didn't pay out 43% of their contributions in salary and compensation"
4 Comments
Post a CommentI am deeply disappointed by this news. I have donated to DOF for quite a few years, but may not in the future. This is particularly galling to me, because DOF is where I got involved in donating to, petitioning for, and calling officials on behalf of wolves.
I was aware that HSUS, ASPCA, and PETA are little more than money makers, but I really had not idea DOF was hypocritical as well.
Thank you for this information.
Thank you for your article & informing us of this deal. Thank you for your unbiased opinion and at least, trying to get Defenders to comment to you. I am (well was until tonight) a member of DOF. They are not an organization that is defending wildlife like I would want, or in a manner they could with the amount of financial intake they get. They sacrificed the wolves for another agenda.
Michael,
Thank You writing this article, and the information! I Really appreciate that you take the time to get the facts out, and that You stand up for Wolves!
OMG, I had no idea Roger Schlickeisen AND the organization made that kind of money which I know could have been put to better use, how sad! Thanks for the information!