Wildlife and People

The ESA Has Failed

Note: the following letter from member organizations of the American Wildlife Conservation Partners (AWCP) [here] to Sec Int Ken Salazar points out multiple failures of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and calls on the Federal Government (all Branches) to “review and modernize” the ESA.

May 2, 2011

To The Honorable Ken Salazar
Department of the Interior
1849 C Street, N.W.
Washington DC 20240

Dear Secretary Salazar: The undersigned organizations are members of the American Wildlife Conservation Partners (AWCP), which represents millions of Americans who actively hunt and fish and support fish and wildlife conservation. We believe the time has come for Congress and the Department of the Interior to review and modernize the Endangered Species Act (ESA) so that it can more effectively recover species, better focus the Department’s limited resources, reduce and discourage costly litigation and lessen the regulatory burden on businesses to foster job creation. At the recent North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference in Kansas City, Missouri, you called for the ESA to be reformed, saying the Act was “unmanageable and unproductive.”

The primary goal of the ESA has been to recover species at risk of extinction. Unfortunately the ESA has failed in its species recovery efforts. Currently there are over 2000 species listed as “threatened” or “endangered” while only 20 recovered species have been removed from these lists since the ESA was enacted. A key example of this is the gray wolf in the Northern Rocky Mountains and Western Great Lakes. By all possible counts, these gray wolf populations have greatly exceeded their recovery goals and should be lauded as one of the ESA’s few great successes. Ironically, the ESA itself has now become the barrier to delisting these recovered wolves. Protectionist organizations have persuaded the courts to interpret the language of the ESA in such a way that delisting these recovered animals has become impossible. Congressional action outside of the ESA has become necessary to deal with the ESA’s failure.

Gray wolves, which continue to be listed under the ESA, are so abundant that they are decimating elk herds and are mercilessly attacking livestock and pets. Public confidence in the ESA and wolf conservation is plummeting among the communities who must live with wolf populations. Without public support, recovery efforts for endangered and threatened species are bound to fail. For these reasons, the undersigned groups encourage the Department of Interior (DOI) and Congress to work together to review and modernize the ESA so that recovery and delisting of recovered species are properly prioritized and so that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service can carry out their recovery and delisting obligations expeditiously and without unnecessary and burdensome litigation.
more »

Otter Signs Wolf Disaster Bill

Begrudgingly, Promises NOT to Abide By It

Idaho Gov. Butch Otter yesterday signed the Wolf Disaster Bill [here, here, here, here]. (Note: we previously reported that he signed it last week, which was incorrect and we redacted that mistaken report. Now we are convinced Otter has actually signed the bill, based on numerous sources).

The full text of the Bill (now law) is [here].

Gov. Otter penned a letter [here] to Idaho Sec. State Ben Ysura explaining his reasoning.

Otter claimed in his letter that Idaho citizens do not need him to declare any “state of disaster” before they are legally allowed to protect themselves and their properties from wolves. As we all know, that is false. Massive depredations of livestock and pets have occurred in Idaho while armed state troopers stand idly by, in fact threatening the victims of wolf attacks with arrest and prosecution if they attempt to defend themselves from wolves.

Otter claimed that the phony Simpson-Tester-Baucus budget wolf rider [here] will solve all the wolf problems. That is also patently false.

Otter also expressed concern that the Legislature’s declaration of a disaster usurps his “right” as governor to do all the disaster declaring in Idaho. But then, Otter didn’t do his job and has failed to declare any wolf disaster to date.

Otter concludes his letter by stating that “portions of the bill may prove useful in the future, if state management is revoked and the wolf is relisted in the future”.

Hello, Governor. The Idaho Dept. of Fish and Game has NEVER managed wolves in Idaho, has repeatedly violated the 2002 Wolf Plan approved by the Legislature, and has worked hand-in-glove with the USFWS to promulgate wolves and destroy elk, deer, and moose populations. Nor have wolves ever been “delisted” successfully, nor will the Simpson-Tester-Baucus rider delist them.

But at least Otter signed the Disaster Bill. He will not enforce it, though, so what’s the point?

Budget Wolf Rider a Farce

The budget wolf rider which is getting ample hysteria in the always-hysterical MSM (here, for instance) is actually a farce.

The rider [here] was proposed by Sen. Jon Tester (D-Mont.), Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.), and Rep. Mike Simpson (R-Idaho). It has been attached to the (eighth) emergency budget agreement necessary to fund the government for the rest of the fiscal year (because the Democrat-majority Congress last year failed to pass a budget for 2011). The emergency spending bill is expected to be approved this week.

The rider is a fake, a fraud, and will not accomplish what the sponsors claim. The rider allegedly reinstates the 2009 USFWS partial delisting of wolves (only in Idaho and Montana) that was thrown out by Judge Donald Molloy [here].

The USFWS’ 2009 partial delisting was fraught with multiple Catch-22’s. It set new, higher lower limits for the wolf population. It divided wolf populations along state lines. It forced impossible restrictions on all states. It was based on faulty science. Judge Molloy was right to throw it out.

The budget wolf rider not only reinstates a defective delisting, it is based on language that forbids the Judiciary from review of the new law. That is unconstitutional. The Legislative and Executive Branches do not tell the Judicial Branch what laws they may or may not review. Not under our Constitution. Congress has tried that trick before, and the judges laugh at them for it. It’s a challenge to the judges, one they jump at. It will not take “unparalleled legal maneuvering” to get a judge, any Federal judge, to throw it out.

The enviro-litigious groups are not scared; they are enthused about it. Don’t be fooled by their PR rhetoric. They are not known for their honesty. They create false crises to attract donations. The budget wolf rider is a false crisis.

Already the USFWS is ratcheting up the minimum wolf numbers. They are about to be given carte blanche to do so. They are now shielded from Congress, although not from Federal judges. Let’s not forget that USFWS caused the wolf crisis in the first place.

Yesterday the USFWS declared Great Lake wolves to be a different species. The more species there are, the fewer individuals in each, and therefore they are all more “endangered” than they were day before yesterday. Many of us tried to warn against exactly that outcome. It’s not scientific. There is only one species of wolf. But the USFWS doesn’t care about valid science. They care about money, and all their money comes via one of the worst laws ever enacted in this country, the ESA.

Congress had another bill in the hopper, HR509 [here]. It would have simply declared all wolves to be not endangered. It was simple and direct. It had equivalency to the ESA. It did not need a special “no review” clause. In effect, it modified the ESA, and since Congress created the ESA in the first place, that modification was eminently constitutional. HR509 was supported by a majority of state delegations. The budget wolf rider effectively kills HR509.

Note that the new budget wolf rider does not modify the ESA. It modifies a court ruling, and attempts (ineffectually) to modify the U.S. Constitution by limiting the powers of the Judiciary. Note that Sen. Tester is very clear on that point [here]:

“We didn’t amend the Endangered Species Act,” Tester said in an interview with E&E Daily.

Congress could (and should) amend or rescind the ESA. The ESA is the source of a host of problems. It is a weapon used to wage war on the West. It does not “save species”. It does, however, cause untold suffering, hardships, and violations of human rights.

I understand that many feel the budget wolf rider is a “victory” for rational wildlife management. I disagree. It is a setback.

A “wolf hunt” will not control the wolf population. They breed faster than sport hunters can reduce them. The wolf population will continue to grow, and prey populations will continue to shrink.

Wolf populations need to be controlled with effective predator control methods. That means comprehensive hunts, trapping, and probably poisoning as well. If comprehensive methods are not employed, wolf numbers will continue to grow. The real solution is to rescind or modify the ESA so that species which are not actually endangered of going extinct do not get special protections.

Tester, Baucus, and Simpson jury-rigged the law. Their budget wolf rider is a farce. It is a slap in the face to folks who demand responsible wildlife management. I hope the Tea Party takes notice. We do not want any more backstabbing from liberals and RINO’s. Congress has failed on this issue. We need to throw the frauds and failures out next election.

Federal Wolves - States Rights

by Idaho State Rep. Phil Hart

Full text [here]

Selected excerpts:

Today there are many issues that confront our political institutions. We are living in interesting times. For state governments the big issues are balancing budgets and federal government encroachment. And for the state of Idaho, the face of federal government encroachment is that of a Canadian Gray Wolf.

Under the authority of the Endangered Species Act, in the mid-70’s Washington D.C. bureaucrats began to contemplate the introduction of wolves into parts of the so called lower 48 states.

Over the objections of the Idaho Legislature, the governor of Idaho, and Idaho’s congressional delegation, in 1995 the federal Fish and Wildlife Service introduced 35 Canadian Gray Wolves into central Idaho. A like number of wolves were introduced into Yellowstone Park in Wyoming, just across the Idaho border.

The plan was to protect this population of Gray Wolves such that their numbers would increase to 300 and at least 30 breeding pairs across the three state region of Idaho, Montana and Wyoming. The Idaho Legislature, with a gun to its head, agreed to this scheme in a 2002 Wolf Management Plan it ratified; while at the same time passing a resolution stating that its real desire was to remove the wolves from Idaho all together. The DC bureaucrats were going to introduce the wolves no matter what the state of Idaho wanted; and the negotiated 2002 Wolf Management Plan reflected Idaho’s effort to at least have a say in the process. …

The Canadian Gray Wolf was introduced as a “nonessential experimental” species as defined by the Endangered Species Act. The ESA only allows the introduction of an “experimental species” when the original native species is extinct. But the Idaho Timberwolf was not extinct; we had about 80 of them. These Timberwolves were documented by recognized experts. No problem for the federal government, they just solved that dilemma by lying. Consequently, the introduction of the Canadian Gray Wolf into Idaho was based on fraud.

It gets worse. Under the original agreement Idaho was to have 100 wolves with 10 breeding pairs (our share of the three state total of 300 wolves with 30 breeding pairs). That goal was achieved in about 2002. Today, nine years later the Canadian Gray Wolf is still listed as “endangered”. The wolf issue has been tied up in endless lawsuits promoted by the environmentalists. Demonizing the wolf opposition and litigating on the issue has proved to be a money making machine for these left of center folks. Each time the environmental advocacy groups file a pro-wolf lawsuit, they rake in the bucks and contribute to the mismanagement of the wolf introduction process. …

In 2002, the Idaho Legislature agreed to manage a population of one hundred wolves. We now have somewhere between 800 to 2,000 wolves. The wolf population is out of control. And experts predict unacceptable consequences to the people of Idaho and their livestock, pets and the big game resources of the state. As the Canadian Gray Wolf consumes itself out of its natural food sources, it will turn to those areas inhabited by people for something to eat. There are already areas of Idaho where the big game numbers are so diminished that the big game herds are now in what is called a “predator pit”, a condition where the number of animals left in a herd are not enough to sustain that herd given the depredation rate unless there is aggressive human management.

Today, wolves are increasingly visiting areas occupied by humans. They have been seen numerous times within the city limits of small towns. Wolf kills have been found as close as three miles from the Statehouse located in Boise. The experts say that wolves are becoming habituated to the rural and urban fringe areas of Idaho. When this occurs, the experts tell us to expect the worst.

Idaho has an emergency. And according to the Idaho Constitution, the first and foremost duty of the state government is found at article I, section 1, “All men… have certain inalienable rights, among which are enjoying and defending life and liberty; acquiring, possessing and protecting property, pursuing happiness and securing safety.” Both the legislative and executive branches of state government are empowered to declare an emergency.

For some of those who live in rural Idaho today, all of those rights referred to in article I, section 1 of Idaho’s state Constitution is now at risk, or has already been completely taken away. Those who have wolves frequent their neighborhoods have lost the quiet enjoyment of their property and are physically at risk. Idaho has an emergency, and we need to reduce the number of wolves in Idaho.

“The promotion of safety of persons and property is unquestionably at the core of the State’s police power….” Kelley v. Johnson, 425 U.S. 238, 247 (1976).

When the states met in Philadelphia in 1787 to draft the Constitution, they met as individual sovereign states, each of whom possessed all the power of any sovereign government on planet Earth. In the process of drafting the Constitution, they delegated portions of their sovereignty to the federal government through the express language of the Constitution. And just to make it clear as to what the limits of that delegated power was, they included the Bill of Rights the Tenth Amendment of which states, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the state, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.”

The police power of the sovereign has been retained by the states, and in no way has it been shared with the federal government. And when lives, peoples’ safety and the protection of property are at risk, our state government has a duty to exercise its police power and protect Idahoans and their property. …

Worldwide, there are several hundred thousand gray wolves. From a global perspective, the gray wolf is not threatened. Under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), the Canadian Gray Wolf has been categorized as “nonessential – experimental.” This is the lowest category in terms of importance that can be given to a species by the ESA. In any balancing analysis that might be made judicially, something that is “nonessential” is not going to trump the necessity to protect the life and safety of American Citizens. …

These are federal wolves, as it was the federal government who introduced them into Idaho over our objections. They told the state of Idaho that the wolves would be considered recovered when we had a total of 100 wolves in Idaho. Now we have between 800 and 2,000 wolves and the situation is out of control.

Idaho’s wolf emergency is a state issue. And in this situation, the state of Idaho has both a duty and the authority to protect its people and their property. House Bill 343 lays out the facts, the argument and the authority to do so. And the governor can devise a process, outlined in an executive order, that is dignified and methodical in confronting this emergency. Now is the time for Idaho to exercise its sovereign power, expressly retained by states as evidenced by the Tenth Amendment of the United States Constitution.

Of Wolves and Men

by Jim Carrell

I attended the Wolf Disaster Declaration rally at the Idaho state capitol on April 6, 2011. I and several others present resent being labeled (By Fox 12 in their April 6 article “Idaho Wolf Emergency Looming”) as part of an “Anti-Wolf Coalition” or being part of a “rabid crowd” for simply showing up and supporting our belief that wolf numbers need to be managed.

I am not anti-wolf; I am anti-unmanaged-wolves. The animal itself is simply being what it is: an apex (pack) predator. The need for wolf management is supported by clear evidence that shows massive damage to many of the ungulate populations (namely elk, moose, and deer) of ID, MT, WY, MN, WI, and MI. Some prime examples of the damage already done are below (it’s not global warming or habitat loss):

Lolo Zone of Idaho Elk Herd:

* 80% population decline since Canadian wolves were introduced in 1995.

* Average age of the cow elk in this herd: 9 to 10 years old — the age they begin to lose ability to produce calves. Many of the cows that are able to breed are aborting their fetuses due to constant harassment by wolves.

* Calf recruitment: Almost zero. Of the calves that are being born, most will not make it through their first winter before being killed, primarily by wolves.

Northern Yellowstone Elk Herd:

* 75% population decline since Canadian wolves were introduced in 1995.

* Average age of the cow elk in this herd: 9 to 10 years old — the age when they begin to lose ability to produce calves. Many of the cows that are able to breed are aborting their fetuses due to constant harassment by wolves.

* Calf recruitment: Almost zero. Of the calves that are being born, most will not make it through their first winter before being killed, primarily by wolves.

Moose of Yellowstone:

It is my understanding that prior to 1995 over 1,200 moose were in Yellowstone. It is also my understanding that today they number fewer than 100, a 92% population decline.

In short, these elk herds and moose are in danger of being lost forever. Wherever Canadian Gray Wolf numbers remain unchecked in ID, MT, and WY, as well as several Midwestern states, similar ungulate population declines are occurring. The myth that wolves only kill the sick and the weak, or just what they need to survive, has been busted. The statement “…there is no wolf emergency right now,” made by Suzanne Stone, Rocky Mountain Wolf Coordinator for the Defenders of Wildlife, at the rally on April 6, 2011, is unreasonable and conveys a hidden agenda in my opinion. As long as there are people or organizations covering up the damage wolves are doing to other wildlife and the threat they present to humans, there will be people or organizations that will counter them — some louder than others.

More consideration should be given to the people who live in rural areas who are being personally affected by wolves. There is evidence supporting that their way-of-life, economy, and well-being — both physical and psychological — have been dramatically affected by an over-population of wolves. Given these reasons, some are beyond fed-up with the situation, which may be understandable if one were to walk in their shoes. It is simply not the desire of the majority to eradicate wolves. Most of us just want them controlled before their numbers are uncontrollable — and before further damage is done to the ungulate numbers, rural living, ranching, and the use of public lands.

Many other people (who may or may not live in rural areas) who hunt, fish, berry-pick, camp or enjoy viewing all wildlife (not just wolves) have been adversely affected as well. State revenue has certainly been impinged. Almost every hunter both resident and non-resident recognizes the quality of hunting has been severely compromised in areas that have too many wolves.

My personal belief, in light of all the damage that mismanaged, introduced Canadian Gray Wolves have caused, is that we should reduce their numbers to what was originally agreed upon before all of the “goal line” changing occurred in this “Non-Essential” and “Experimental” project (as stated in the terms of the Northern Rocky Mountain Wolf Recovery Project). The Canadian Gray Wolf is nowhere near extinct — there are at least 50,000 in Canada alone (a country that has strict wolf management). Many believe there are over 10,000 in the lower 48 and they reproduce at a rate of 25-30% per year.

Since its beginning, the Northern Rocky Mountain Wolf Recovery Project has been one deal broken after another. The documentary “Yellowstone is Dead” [here] takes an in-depth look at this and I highly recommend watching it.

Recently, Congress stepped in and delisted wolves in Idaho and Montana. Where this is a step in the right direction, it leaves out several other states like WY, MN, WI, and MI who are also experiencing severe losses because of unmanaged wolves. That is why I support H.R. 509 — a bill that delists the non-endangered wolves completely and in the process secures all states’ equal rights of sovereignty to manage all wildlife within their own borders.

Many of the facts are not being publicized by the mainstream media. This matter is utterly polarized and the media should stop fanning the flames and practice ethical, unbiased journalism.

Molloy Rejects Suckling Wolf Fraud Deal

District Court Judge Donald Molloy has rejected the fraudulent “compromise agreement” [here] proposed by Kieran Suckling of the Center for Biological Diversity.

Judge blocks deal on protections for wolves

By Keith Ridler, AP, April 10, 2011 [here]

BOISE, Idaho (AP) — A federal judge has blocked a proposal to lift the endangered species protections for wolves in Montana and Idaho that had been hammered out by U.S. wildlife officials and conservation groups. …

In the 24-page decision, U.S. District Judge Donald Molloy in Missoula, Mont., cited the court’s lack of authority to put part of an endangered species population under state management and expose that population to hunting, noting “Congress has clearly determined that animals on the ESA (Endangered Species Act) must be protected as such,” and the court couldn’t “exercise its discretion to allow what Congress forbids.”

He also said he couldn’t approve the settlement proposed in March because not all the parties involved in the case agreed with it. …

We will pursue the 24-page opinion/decision, and read it, and link to it after we corral it. If you have a copy, please forward it to us by email. Thank you.

Idaho Enacts Wolf Bill

Yesterday Idaho Governor Butch Otter signed the Idaho Wolf Disaster Bill [here].

Correction: As of Sunday afternoon, Otter has NOT yet signed the bill. Rumors that he had already were wrong, and I was wrong to rely on them. He is expected to sign the bill soon. I will report the signing when (and if) it occurs.

On Tuesday the bill passed the Idaho House by a vote of yes 64, no 5. On Wednesday the Senate approved on a 27-8 vote. Saturday, Gov. Otter signed it into law.

The full text of the Bill (now law) is [here].

The new Law directs the Governor to declare a “state of disaster” with regard to wolves, and to order actions to resolve the crisis, including wolf removal (specifically, the eradication of wolf packs) by the USDA-APHIS Wildlife Services and/or County Sheriffs.

The new Law also reasserts Idaho’s federally-approved 2002 Wolf Conservation and Management Plan (ILWOC 2002). That plan, drawn eight years after the USFWS illegally dumped Canadian gray wolves in Idaho, calls for retention of 15 breeding pairs (150 wolves).

There are currently between 800 and 1,500 wolves in Idaho [here].

Of interest is that the new Law designates the Governor´s Office of Species Conservation [here] as the primary implementer, rather than the Idaho Department of Fish & Game (IDFG).

The Idaho Legislature is fed up with the IDFG and no longer trusts that agency to do anything right, and with good cause [here, here, here].

The test now is whether the Feds and the courts will allow Idaho to exterminate wolves or will instead put up legal roadblocks. This issue is nowhere near resolution, but Idaho has made a significant step forward.

Idaho Wolf Disaster Bill To Be Considered

Next week the Idaho Legislature’s Senate Resources Committee will consider a “wolf disaster bill”. The bill declares an emergency and authorizes the Governor to direct state agencies and sheriffs to control gray wolves.

The full text of the draft Bill is [here]. It reads in part:

LEGISLATIVE FINDINGS AND INTENT.

(1) Section 1, Article I, of the constitution of the state of Idaho provides: “All men are by nature free and equal, and have certain inalienable rights, among which are enjoying and defending life and liberty; acquiring, possessing and protecting property; pursuing happiness and securing safety.” It is the duty and right of the legislature and the governor to protect the state, its citizens and property.

Section 36-103(a), Idaho Code, provides: “All wildlife, including all wild animals, wild birds, and fish, within the state of Idaho, is hereby declared to be the property of the state of Idaho.” The state of Idaho therefore has the responsibility to manage the big game animals of the state.

(2) The Idaho legislature finds and declares that the state’s citizens, businesses, hunting, tourism and agricultural industries, private property and wildlife, are immediately and continuously threatened and harmed by the sustained presence and growing population of Canadian gray wolves in the state of Idaho. The Idaho legislature, therefore, finds the population of gray wolves in Idaho, having been introduced into the state in 1995, over the united objection of the Idaho congressional delegation, Idaho legislature, Idaho governor, Idaho counties and numerous Idaho agricultural groups who were gravely concerned with the negative effects this action would impose on Idaho and Idahoans, is now many times exceeding the target number originally set by the federal government and the number set in Idaho’s federally-approved 2002 wolf management plan. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) has delisted the gray wolf in Idaho in 2008 and 2009 returning management to the state, only to be sued both times by environmental groups forcing the wolf to be relisted as endangered.

As a result of all the above, the legislature finds that public safety has been compromised, economic activity has been disrupted and private and public property continue to be imperiled. The uncontrolled proliferation of imported wolves on private land has produced a clear and present danger to humans, their pets and livestock, and has altered and hindered historical uses of private and public land, dramatically inhibiting previously safe activities such as walking, picnicking, biking, berry picking, hunting and fishing. The continued uncontrolled presence of gray wolves represents an unfunded mandate, a federal commandeering of both state and private citizen resources and a government taking that makes private property unusable for the quiet enjoyment of property owners.

An emergency existing therefore, it is the intent of the legislature to reg1ulate the presence Canadian gray wolves in Idaho in order to safeguard the public, wildlife, economy and private property against additional devastation to Idaho’s social culture, economy and natural resources, and to preserve the ability to benefit from private and public property within the state and experience the quiet enjoyment of such property. …

The draft Bill was carefully written to avoid challenges under the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution. Idaho attorney John L. Runft of Runft & Steele Law Offices in Boise writes:

In drafting this act, one objective was to avoid the claim that this bill was attempting to “nullify” a federal act (the ESA), thereby violating the Supremacy Clause (Art VI of the U .S. Constitution) aka “federal preemption”. The recitations and findings of fact were to demonstrate that this matter had transcended from a federal matter under the ESA and had become an emergency affecting the welfare of the citizens of the State of Idaho.

The express objectives of the wolf “reintroduction” under the ESA, enacted pursuant to the Commerce Clause (Art I, 8 of the U .S. Constitution), have long since been achieved. When mismanagement of a federal program creates a disaster emergency that remains unconstrained, the Commerce Clause and Supremacy Clause do not work to shelter the results of such federal mismanagement from action by a state to protect the welfare of its citizens. Article 1 Section 1 of the Idaho Constitution provides that the State of Idaho is “mandated” (pursuant to its “police powers”) to protect the rights of its citizens, among which are “enjoying and defending life and liberty; acquiring possessing and protecting property; pursuing happiness and securing safety.”

The preemption doctrine derives from the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution which states that the “Constitution and the laws of the United States… shall be the supreme law of the land… anything in the constitutions or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.” This means that any federal law–even a regulation of a federal agency–trumps any conflicting state law. Federal “occupation of the field” occurs, according to the U.S. Supreme Court in Pennsylvania v Nelson, 350 U.S. 497 (1956), when there is “no room” left for state regulation. Courts are to look to the pervasiveness of the federal scheme of regulation, the federal interest at stake, and the danger of frustration of federal goals in making the determination as to whether a challenged state law can stand.

The police powers of a state (those inherent powers exercised by a state for the order and welfare of its citizens) are not automatically superseded by acts of Congress. From the standpoint of federal constitutional law, states have general police powers except where restricted by the federal Constitution. Because the Congress has limited powers granted in the Constitution, the Federal government does not have a general police power, as the states do. The exceptions are laws regarding Federal property and the military. On the other hand, Congress was granted by the New Deal Court a broad quasi-police authority from its power to regulate interstate commerce and raise and spend revenue.

Nevertheless, as stated by Justice Stevens in Levine v Wyeth, 555 U.S. ___ (2009), “We start with the assumption that the historic police powers of the States were not to be superseded by the Federal Act unless that was the clear and manifest purpose of Congress.” The U.S. Supreme Court ruled, 6 to 3, in Levine v Wyeth, 555 U.S. ___ (2009) that state juries may award damages for harm from unsafe drugs even though their manufacturers had satisfied federal regulators. (See also, Silkwood v Kerr-McGee, 464 U.S. 238, (1984) In Gonzales v Oregon, 546 U.S. 243 (2006) the Court considered whether Congress, in enacting the Controlled Substances Act, intended to pre-empt state laws such as that of Oregon’s which authorized physicians (under strictly controlled circumstances) to prescribe lethal doses of controlled drugs for terminally ill patients. The Court, ruling 5 to 4, held that the Act did not authorize pre-emption of Oregon’s Death with Dignity Act.

This proposed act does not intrude into federal management of wolves. In fact the act abjures management, and lists wolves as a “predator.” The proposed act focuses on the results of federal mismanagement. he measures taken by the state in this act are analogous to measures that might be taken to control a disease that was negligently released from federal experiments in a federal laboratory that was under federal control and management; and especially, as in this case, where the federal government has failed to control the outbreak.

The federal government has already repeatedly acknowledged that the objectives of the wolf “reintroduction” has been met and greatly exceeded. This proposed legislation is not in conflict with those objectives.

Inquiry under the Supremacy Clause begins with a presumption that the state law is valid. (Pacific Gas and Electric Co. v State Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission, 461 U.S. 190, (1983)) The Pacific Gas case stands for the proposition that a state act will not be preempted if the federal and state interests and objectives are distinct. Here, the interests are clearly distinct and different. The federal law’s objectives are preservation of species (an objective achieved in this instance) and the state’s objectives are the protection of the rights and welfare of its citizens from the continuing federal mismanagement of the federal program. Moreover, the federal law and regulations relating to wolves contain no “police power” provisions for the protection of the state’s citizens or for the reimbursement to said citizens for property loss arising from said federal program. Therefore there is a personable presumption that there exists no conflict and no preemption.

Gray wolves are not endangered; they are rife. The USFWS recognizes that fact and has twice attempted to remove wolves from the endangered species list (under two different administrations). Federal judges, however, at the behest of eco-litigious lobby groups, have refused to allow the delisting on specious technical grounds.

Now the Idaho legislature hopes to assert its rights under the US Constitution to protect the health and safety of Idahoans. While the blood-thirsty, anti-human eco-lobby may protest, the US Constitution provides for states’ rights.

It is interesting to note that the legal foundation of the ESA rests on the Commerce Clause (Article I, 8 of the U .S. Constitution) which gives the federal government the privilege of regulating “interstate commerce”. Rabid, spree-killing wolves are not “commerce”, although they have crossed state lines in search of prey. The confounding of commerce with vermin movement is one of the ridiculous and hurtful abuses of language that our judges and legislators are famous for. Orwell called it “newspeak” — language that deliberately disguises, distorts, or reverses the meaning of words in order to violate and usurp fundamental human rights. The lying liars that lie lie for a reason: to do grievous harm to their fellow men.

The Muddier Pro-Wolf Efforts Make The Water, The Clearer Their Intentions Become

by Toby Bridges, LOBO WATCH, March 28, 2011 [here]

Anyone who has followed the gray wolf issue in the Northern Rockies for the past decade or so has seen it make a lot of twists and turns along the way. From the very start, even before the first imported Canadian wolves were released into the Greater Yellowstone Area back in 1995, the introduction of those wolves into an ecosystem that had been “wolf free” for 60 to 70 years came under fire from hunter-based sportsmen groups and many respected wildlife professionals. The very claim that wolves had been extirpated from Montana, Idaho and Wyoming by the 1930s was even challenged, and still is today.

The Northern Rockies Wolf Recovery Project has been plagued with ongoing accusations of relying on manipulated science to dump a non-indigenous wolf into the region, outright lies to camouflage the devastation wolves would deal other wildlife populations, as well as fraudulent claims and predictions purposely made by the “wolf experts” who put the recovery plan together. Among many other reasons for the finger pointing has been the suspected unauthorized misuse of tens of millions excise tax dollars to fund that wolf transplant - tax money that had been collected on firearms, ammunition, fishing tackle and archery equipment, that was to be used exclusively for wildlife habitat and fisheries improvement.

With so many such accusations, an ever growing number of residents in the Northern Rockies are more than a bit perplexed over how the one federal judge who has repeatedly ruled on wolf management issues has turned a blind eye to how unscrupulously this project has been forced upon this country. Instead of questioning the extremely dirty issues which severely tarnish the validity of bringing in non-native and definitely non-endangered wolves from Canada, U.S. District Court judge Donald Molloy, of Missoula, seems to look for the tiniest loophole to jump through in order to decide or rule in favor of the environmental group coalition that keeps wolf management tied up in “his” court. And they’ve gotten good at that. In fact, so good, that even though wolves reached the outlined recovery goal back in 2002, there has been only one wolf management hunt, in 2009, and in just Idaho and Montana. Today, there are 500% more wolves roaming the Northern Rockies than established as a “recovered population” in the original plan.

more »

Rehberg Doubts Wolf Settlement Will Solve the Problem

by Rep. Denny Rehberg (MT), 03/18/11 [here]

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Montana’s Congressman, Denny Rehberg, today released the following statement in response to a short-term incomplete settlement hatched by the Department of Interior and a few environmental obstructionist groups.

Here we go again.  Fool us once, shame on you – fool us twice shame on us.  But I’m not going to sit around and wait for them to fool us a third time with another lawsuit that once again removes Montana’s right to manage our own wildlife.  My bill will fix this mess once and for all, which is why it has broad bipartisan support from around the country.  Wolf management needs to be left to the states.

Endorsed by the American Farm Bureau, American Sheep Industry Association, Big Game Forever, Boone and Crockett Club, Congressional Sportsmen’s Foundation, Mule Deer Foundation, National Association of Conservation Districts, National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, National Rifle Association, National Shooting Sports Foundation, National Trappers Association, Public Lands Council, Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, Safari Club International, Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife, U.S. Cattlemen’s Association, U.S. Sportsmen’s Alliance, and the Wild Sheep Foundation.

H.R. 509 has also been endorsed by the following state groups: Arizona Cattle Feeders Association, Arizona Cattle Growers’ Association, Arizona Wool Producers Association, Arizona Desert Bighorn Sheep Society, Arizona Elk Society, Arizona Sportsmen for Wildlife, California Cattlemen’s Association, California Public Lands Council, California Wool Growers Association, Citizens for Balanced Use, Colorado Cattlemen’s Association, Colorado Wool Growers Association, Florida Cattlemen’s Association, Friends of the Northern Yellowstone Elk Herd, Georgia Cattlemen’s Association, Idaho Cattle Association, Idaho Wool Growers Association, Independent Cattlemen’s Association of Texas, Kansas Livestock Association, Lobo Watch, Maryland Sheep Breeders Association, Michigan Cattlemen’s Association, Minnesota Farm Bureau Federation, Minnesota Lamb and Wool Producers Association, Minnesota State Cattlemen’s Association, Montana Association of Conservation Districts, Montana Association of State Grazing Districts, Montana Farm Bureau Federation, Montana Outfitters and Guides Association, Montana Public Lands Council, Montana Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife, Montana Stockgrowers Association, Montana Trail Vehicle Riders Association, Montana Woolgrowers Association, Montanans for Multiple Use, Nebraska Sheep and Goat Association, Nevada Cattlemen’s Association, North Carolina Sheep Producers Association Inc., Oregon Cattlemen’s Association, Oregon Hunters Association, Oregon Sheep Growers Association, Treasure State ATV Association, Utah Cattlemen’s Association, Utah Wool Growers Association, Virginia Cattlemen’s Association, Washington Cattlemen’s Association and the Wyoming Stock Growers Association.

Judge’s decision unfairly punishes ranching community

By Sens. Ted Ferrioli, Doug Whitsett, Frank Morse, and Fred Girod

Note: Sen. Ted Ferrioli (R-John Day) can be reached at sen.tedferrioli(at)state.or.us. Sen. Doug Whitsett (R-Klamath Falls) can be reached at sen.dougwhitsett(at)state.or.us. Sen. Frank Morse (R-Albany) can be reached at sen.frankmorse(at)state.or.us. Sen. Fred Girod (R-Stayton) can be reached at sen.fredgirod(at)state.or.us.

The Statesman-Journal, March 18, 2011 [here]

U.S. District Court Judge Ancer Haggerty’s decision — to enjoin seven Grant County ranchers from using their forest service grazing allotments — is truly a case of justice gone blind, because it tries to force federal bureaucrats to follow the law by punishing ranching families who had no control over agency failures that brought on the lawsuit.

Cattle ranching in Oregon is already an iffy proposition because of rising costs of fuel and feed and unnecessarily draconian water standards enforced by the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Add to these all the special requirements of the Endangered Species Act and ranchers face the toughest performance standards of any agricultural enterprise.

Does Oregon need its ranchers? You bet! Today, cattle production is one of Oregon’s top income producers and a mainstay of Eastern Oregon rural communities. With the near-collapse of the Eastside timber industry, ranching is the only thing keeping the services and supply sector (mostly small family-owned operations) alive.

Because federal permits are required to authorize grazing in upland areas where snow and rainfall create the headwaters of salmon-bearing streams, a U.S. government document called a Biological Opinion must be prepared to demonstrate that grazing on the allotment will not degrade salmon habitat.

Grazing practices are structured so that cattle are continuously moved to prevent overgrazing and damage to stream banks. Both ranchers and forest service range managers are responsible for monitoring grazing operations. The Biological Opinion describes the protocols, actions and practices that protect endangered species habitat.

Judge Haggerty concludes that the Biological Opinion written by federal bureaucrats is inadequate. He has determined that it will not withstand scientific review and fails to meet the requirements of the Endangered Species Act.

Accordingly, Judge Haggerty has ordered the forest service to prepare a new Biological Opinion. But in our opinion, he has wrongly enjoined the use of grazing allotments until a legally sufficient Biological Opinion is prepared.

In effect, Judge Haggerty is holding the ranching community hostage for the failures of federal bureaucrats, transferring all of the financial and social harm to families that had no control over the agency that so miserably failed to perform its duties under the law to craft an opinion that preserves both cattle grazing and salmon habitat.

While federal bureaucrats suffer no consequences for their poor performance, ranching families face financial ruin. This must not become the model for justice under the Endangered Species Act.

Perhaps it would have been wiser for Judge Haggerty to have ordered the forest service to rewrite the Biological Opinion before June 1, 2011, and to issue temporary “take” permits to the ranchers pending approval of the Biological Opinion.

By doing so, Haggerty would have held the agency accountable for protecting salmon runs without destroying what’s left of rural economies.

Additional Notes:

1. Yesterday Judge Ancer Haggerty modified his ruling to allow 15 of 19 ranchers involved in the case to use their alloments for one more season [here].

2. The lawsuit was brought by the Oregon Natural Desert Association and the Western Watersheds Project. Those eco-litigious sue-sue-sue groups were recently gifted $22 million by the El Paso Corp who are building the Ruby (natural gas) Pipeline. See [here, here, here, here, here]. The “deal” was an extortion payment [here]. The sue-happy eco-monkey-wrencher groups agreed to not tie up the pipeline project in court in return for the huge payoff.

3. Eco-litigious groups also receive huge windfalls in return for suing the government through the “Judgment Fund” and the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA) [here, here, here]. $Billions have been funneled to sue-happy monkey-wrencher groups, much of it directly from Federal land management agency budgets.

4. The Oregon Natural Desert Association is also supported by corporations that include Patagonia, Trader Joe’s, and Bank of the Cascades [here]. Their Board, staff, advisors, and “consultants” are exclusively white liberals with no background in ranching or forestry. In fact, along with WWP, ONDA is virulently anti-ranching and anti-forestry. Their roots go back to monkey-wrencher eco-terrorist groups.

5. More damage to streambanks is done by government protected feral horses and donkeys than by cattle [here].

6. The endangered species allegedly at risk is the steelhead, aka rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss). The species has been introduced for food or sport to at least 45 countries, and every continent except Antarctica [here]. The species is in no way, shape, or form “endangered”. In fact, it is considered (by the USFWS) to be a pest and a competitor to other fish in other watersheds.

Radicals Join Simpson, Tester, Baucus in Wolf Delisting Fraud

In an article prepared by the radical enviro cult and printed in the Main Stream Government Press (MSGP), eco-litigious pro-wolf-anti-everything-else groups have proposed a “compromise agreement” for consideration by retiring Wolf Judge Donald Molloy.

We will parse the news article for your edification.

Feds, wildlife groups agree to delist Montana wolves

By the Associated Press, March 18, 2011 [here]

BILLINGS - Facing mounting pressure from Congress over gray wolves, wildlife advocates reached an agreement with the U.S. Department of Interior on Friday to lift the species’ federal protections in Montana and Idaho and allow hunting to resume. …

Note that there is no author given other than AP. That’s a ruse. Of course somebody authored the article; they just don’t want their name used. And the MSGP accommodates, because they don’t their readers to know who authored the article, either.

It came straight from the radical eco-litigious groups. They write the articles and AP distributes them as “news”. The MSGP newspapers print them as if they were the work of independent “fair and balanced” journalists, whereas in fact they are pure propaganda written by the most extremely biased.

Note also that the radical pro-wolfers are called (call themselves) “wildlife advocates” whereas in fact they hate wildlife and want most species slaughtered to extinction. That’s why they promoted the introduction of exotic wolves in the first place — to slaughter elk, deer, moose, rabbits, and everything that moves, and livestock, and pets, and human children. They don’t advocate for those other wildlife species because some species are more equal than others, in their eyes.

The settlement agreement - opposed by some environmentalists - is intended to resolve years of litigation that have shielded wolves in the Northern Rockies from public hunting, even as the predator’s population has sharply expanded.

That’s false. The so-called “agreement” [here] does not resolve litigation. The eco-litigants promise only to forestall litigation on certain esoteric points of law regarding wolf delisting and only for a period of three to five years:

10. Settling Plaintiffs agree that they will not, either collectively or individually, file a lawsuit, raise claims against, or otherwise challenge in court before March 31, 2016 any final delisting or reclassification rule issued pursuant to paragraph 5, above.

11. Settling Plaintiffs agree that they will not, either collectively or individually, petition Federal Defendants to list either the NRM DPS (as defined by the 2009 Rule), or any wolf population or subpopulation located within the NRM DPS (as defined by the 2009 Rule), for a period of three years after this Agreement becomes operative pursuant to paragraph 1, above.

Read it carefully. The signers promise not to sue for five years over “paragraph 1 above” which is a restatement of Judge Molloy’s August 5, 2010 Order and only that portion of the Order that threw out the USFWS’s 2009 delisting rule in the States of Idaho and Montana. For Judge Molloy’s entire August 2010 ruling see [here]. In addition the signers promise not to sue for three years over “paragraph 5 above” which calls for Wyoming to come up with new wolf management plan. They will sue at the drop of a hat over every other point of law having to with wolves. And their promises aren’t worth spit.

In his August 2010 ruling, peppered with phrases such as “stentorian agitprop” and “Talmudic disagreement”, Judge Molloy wrote:

The Endangered Species Act does not allow the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service to list only part of a “species” as endangered, or to protect a listed distinct population segment only in part as the Final Rule here does; and

the legislative history of the Endangered Species Act does not support the Service’s new interpretation of the phrase “significant portion of its range.” To the contrary it supports the historical view that the Service has always held, the Endangered Species Act does not allow a distinct population segment to be subdivided.

Clearly the Judge ruled that the USFWS may NOT separate wolves into an Idaho-Montana sub-population and a Wyoming-Utah-Washington-Oregon sub-population. But that’s exactly what the proposed “agreement” proposes to do.

If Judge Molloy accepts the “agreement,” then his August 2010 ruling isn’t worth the paper it was written on. He would have to do a complete about-face, a backwards flip-flop as it were.

In November of 2011 United States District Judge Alan B. Johnson ruled that the United States Fish and Wildlife Service’s (USFWS) rejection of the Wyoming Wolf Management plan was arbitrary and capricious [here].

Judge Johnson is in District of Wyoming, subject to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. Judge Molloy is in the District of Montana, subject to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

Molloy cannot overrule Johnson. It’s beyond his jurisdiction. Molloy cannot agree to special strictures on Wyoming because Wyoming is not in his District.

The Obama Administration lawyers know all this. The apparent acquiescence by the USFWS to the “agreement” is just more legal worm food. They know the “agreement” is a crooked one and cannot be endorsed or enforced by Molloy. It’s just more Full Employment for Lawyers. It solves nothing and does not reduce litigation — it expands it.

Those niceties did not stop the Obamaloids, in the form of political operatives Deputy Secretary David J. Hayes, Acting Service Director Rowan Gould, and you guessed it, Mr. Tamper himself, Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar from signing on to the “agreement” [here].

ALL the eco-litigants did NOT sign on, however. From the AP article:

Attorneys for Earthjustice previously represented most of the plaintiffs in the case. They withdrew this week citing “ethical obligations” …

“We’re going to defend the judge’s ruling,” said Tom Woodbury with the Western Watersheds Project, referring to Molloy’s 2010 order that reinstated protections for wolves in Idaho and Montana.

Get that? The biggest and richest eco-litigious law firm in the world, Earthjustice (formerly Sierra Club Legal Defense) had some “ethical” pangs and refused to sign. Another refuser was the Western Watersheds Project, now flush with $22 million they extorted from the El Paso Corp over the Ruby Pipeline [here].

There is no honor among thieves, and some of the thieves are already giving the other thieves the finger. Meaning that eco-litigation will proceed apace, regardless of what the “agreement” promises and whether Molloy accepts it or not.

Speaking of thieves, the “agreement” is exactly the trick that RINO Mike Simpson, Holocauster Jon Tester, and Porkulus Max Baucus are trying to pull in Congress [here].

It’s all a fraud. The only rational and fair thing to do is to take wolves off the ESA list because they ARE NOT ENDANGERED, something that everybody involved now agrees about.

HR509 and S249, the “State Sovereignty Wildlife Management Act,” are supported by Representatives and Senators from over 30 states [here]. The SSWMA removes gray wolves from the ESA:

Notwithstanding any other provision of law (including regulations), the inclusion of the gray wolf (Canis lupus) (including any gray wolf designated as “non-essential experimental”) on any list of endangered species or threatened species under section 4(c)(1) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (7 U.S.C. 1533(c)(1)) shall have no force or effect.

Good-bye, adios, so sorry, that’s it.

HR509 and S249 are what engendered all this fraudulent foo-fraw by the radical eco-litigious crowd and their lapdog comrades in the Obama Administration. Because if the SSWMA passes, then the wolfish legal games are over. And it will pass, because majorities in both Houses of Congress have already signed on. And because if it doesn’t, Tea Party-ers will gang up and throw the recalcitrant wolf-lovers out (and they know it).

The game is coming down to the final minute, and rads are too far behind to win.

Simpson, Tester, Baucus Seek To Undermine Judge Johnson’s Ruling on Wyoming Wolves

Note: the following is excerpted from a March 17, 2011, letter written to members of the Wyoming Wolf Coalition by their able attorney, Harriet Hageman. The full text is [here].

Alert! High Priority! Call to Action!

Please ask Congress to stop throwing Wyoming to the wolves

by Harriet M. Hageman

Executive Summary

We reported to you earlier this week that the Federal Defendants in the above-referenced actions have voluntarily withdrawn their appeal to the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals. We were a bit surprised by the agencies’ move in that regard, but now believe that we have uncovered the reasoning behind it.

* Judge Johnson’s decision has now “gone final” in favor of Wyoming’s Wolf Management Plan, and has the full force and effect of law.

* There are troubling efforts afoot in Congress that are designed to reverse this important victory for Wyoming, to “undo” Judge Johnson’s decision, and to nullify the rights of all States to manage their wildlife resources.

The purpose of this letter is to describe those activities, and to issue a call to action for all of you who have fought this battle over the last several decades.

Ruling in Favor of Wyoming’s Wolf Management Plan Becomes Law of the Land

On November 18, 2010, the Honorable Alan B. Johnson, the Federal District Court Judge for the District of Wyoming, issued his “Order Setting Aside Agency Decision in Part and Remanding Agency Decision in Part,” finding that the Defendants (the Department of Interior (DOI), the Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), Ken Salazar, Rowan Gould, and Stephen Guertin) had acted “arbitrarily and capriciously” in rejecting the Wyoming Wolf Management Plan [here]. More specifically, Judge Johnson concluded (among other things) that the Defendants violated the Endangered Species Act (ESA) when they rejected Wyoming’s proposal to designate wolves as trophy game animals in certain areas, and predators in others. …

Key testimony provided by the top federal wolf biologist (Ed Bangs) concluded that the “2007 Wyoming wolf plan is a solid science-based conservation plan that will adequately conserve Wyoming’s share of the GYA wolf population so that the NRM wolf population will never be threatened again.” Id. at 032183. As you know, Wyoming has since adopted even more safeguards that what existed in the 2007 Plan.

The Defendants initially appealed Judge Johnson’s decision to the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals. On Monday of this week, however, they voluntarily dismissed that appeal. Such action resulted in Judge Johnson’s decision “going final,” thereby ensuring that it is not subject to collateral attack. In other words, Judge Johnson’s decision is now “the law of the land” and cannot be attacked by either the federal agencies or any environmental groups. We are pleased that this common-sense result affirms the science-based reality that Wyoming’s Plan provides adequate protections to Wyoming’s wolf population.

Judge Johnson’s decision was a great victory for all of the citizens of the State of Wyoming, including our livestock producers, our sportsmen groups, and our outfitters. It was a great victory for those cities and counties in Wyoming that have suffered the economic impacts of an ever-expanding wolf population. Judge Johnson’s decision, and the dismissal of the 10th Circuit Appeal, will also allow Wyoming to protect its historically-abundant wildlife species, including those elk and moose populations that have suffered so tremendously as the result of the federal agencies’ intransigence associated with the “wolf experiment.” …

TROUBLING EFFORTS BREWING IN CONGRESS AS IT SEEKS TO REVERSE WYOMING’S VICTORY

I am now writing to you with great disappointment, as I fear that our victory in the wolf saga is now at risk. Once again it appears that politics may prevail over science and good public policy. Wyoming’s Wolf Management Plan and our victory before Judge Johnson are now at risk as the direct result of an amendment that has been introduced by Representative Mike Simpson, a Republican from Idaho, and Senators John Tester and Max Baucus, Democrats from Montana. The amendment would either be added to the “continuing resolutions” that have been in the news lately (to keep the federal government running as the House and Senate seek to hammer out the 2011 budget), or to the budget bill itself.

The purpose of the Simpson/Tester/Baucus amendment is as simple as it is troubling. It is designed to delist the wolf populations in Idaho and Montana, as well as parts of Oregon, Utah and Washington, while the remainder of the States –- including Wyoming -– are left to fend for themselves. Most importantly, however, the very wording of the proposed amendment appears to be designed to nullify Judge Johnson’s decision in its entirety.

Mr. Simpson’s amendment works by reinstating the USFWS’s 2009 Final Rule (the one rejected by Judge Molloy in Montana). There are two sections of the 2009 Rule that are important here, both of which would become law if the Simpson/Tester/Baucus amendment passes. As you remember, the first portion of that Rule approved the then-existing Montana and Idaho Wolf Management Plans, both of which allowed the States to assume management authority over their wolves (although with federal permission and involvement). The second part of the 2009 Final Rule rejected Wyoming’s Wolf Management Plan, stating that “the Wyoming portion of the range represents a significant portion of range where the species remains in danger of extinction because of inadequate regulatory mechanisms.” 74 Fed.Reg. 15123.

Considering the language of the 2009 Rule, if Congressman Simpson and Senators Tester and Baucus were to be successful in including their proposed language as part of either a short-term “continuing resolution,” or the 2011 budget, and such bill passes both the U.S. House and the Senate, we can fully expect that the federal agencies and the environmental groups will argue that Judge Johnson’s decision has been congressionally nullified. Even more troubling is the fact that their amendment includes language that is intended to then block Wyoming from challenging the statute: “Such reissuance [of the Final Rule] shall not be subject to judicial review.” HR 1, Sec. 1713. To state that this is a real and immediate threat to Wyoming’s ability to assume management of the wolf population is an understatement.

You may ask: “why would Simpson, Tester and Baucus seek to impose a rule from 2009 when, from the States’ rights standpoint, and from the standpoint of wolf management, Judge Johnson’s decision is much more favorable to every State in the Union?” I have asked the same question, and none of the answers are favorable.

The actions of Representative Simpson and Senators Tester and Baucus are beyond troubling, and should be cause for concern for anyone who seeks to protect our wildlife populations, our livestock producers, and our States’ rights. Perhaps as significantly (and of grave concern), there are four groups that have endorsed Congressman Simpson’s efforts, and appear to be willing to sacrifice Wyoming’ interests:

* National Rifle Association (NRA)
* Safari Club International (SCI)
* Congressional Sportsmen Foundation (CSF)
* Boone and Crockett

By supporting only limited delisting in just a few of the affected States, these four so-called sportsmen groups have essentially sold out everyone else that has been affected by this issue. While these groups also support all of the wolf delisting bills, including some very good legislation (discussed below), their actions in supporting HR 1 (with Congressman Simpson’s amendment) has allowed the Representatives and Senators to “race for the bottom” in order to take the weakest stand possible on the issue.

While these groups publicly claim that they support delisting in all western States, as well as in Wisconsin, Michigan and Minnesota, their actions are counterproductive. Their support of the amendment described above will likely undermine other pending wolf litigation that will protect all States. Their actions will also have a more dire outcome: the important victory that is represented by Judge Johnson’s decision, and that resulted from years of hard-fought battles and the investment of tens of thousands of dollars, could be lost. This does not hurt only Wyoming, but will hurt every State in the nation that seeks to manage its own wildlife without the federal agencies’ unlawful (and often-times destructive) micro-management out of Washington, D.C.

There are two other bills currently pending in Congress - HR509 and S249, both of which would return management of wolves to all of the affected States. The Simpson/Tester/Baucus approach not only undermines our ability to get either one of these bills passed, but will likely make it more difficult to obtain any additional Congressional action into the foreseeable future. In other words, the actions of Simpson/Tester/Baucus, along with the NRA, SCI, CFS, and Boone and Crocket, have enabled those who seek to prevent the passage of any other bill that would actually provide for legitimate and effective delisting of the wolves.

Passage of the Simpson/Tester/Baucus amendment is not an incremental victory as some would claim. This is not an incremental victory for ensuring that States have the right to manage their own wildlife populations, or an incremental victory under the ESA. Judge Johnson’s decision was a victory. The Simpson/Tester/Baucus effort is designed to take that victory away.

By supporting a weak piece of legislation, these groups have allowed several of the Congressional Representatives and Senators to play both sides of the aisle -– to argue that they support delisting when such claims suit their political aspirations, and to argue that they fought against delisting when such a position will garner them votes from the so-called “environmental” groups. In other words, this amounts to nothing more than obtaining only the slightest and short-term moral victory for a limited number of people, and at the same time ensuring a very troubling defeat for the citizens of Wyoming and for the States’ right to manage wildlife. While we recognize that political compromises are sometimes necessary, I cannot support legislation that is specifically designed to undo Judge Johnson’s finding that the Wyoming Wolf Management Plan is biologically and scientifically sound. This is simply not good science, good public policy or even good politics. …

We fully and whole-heartedly support delisting in Idaho and Montana (and all of the States where wolves exist). Such delisting, however, cannot be done so that Wyoming is sacrificed at the alter of environmental extremism.

Judge Johnson’s decision must stand. We must fight against this effort to use the promise of delisting in Idaho and Montana (and portions of Oregon, Utah, and Washington) as a ruse to nullify the most important decision that the States have obtained in the last seventeen (17)+ years of wolf battles, as well as the rights of States to control their own destiny in terms of wildlife management.

Please contact the offices of Congressman Simpson, and Senators Tester and Baucus and ask them to support only HR 509 and S249. Please request that they not re-introduce the Wyoming-busting amendment described above.

Please contact Representative Lummis’ office and thank her for her strength and continued efforts to fight this battle on your behalf. Please call the offices of Senators Enzi and Barrasso and thank them for their hard work in supporting the right bills on this issue, while fighting against the bad ones. Our Congressional Delegation has stood strong on this issue, and we need to commend them for their efforts on our behalf.

Please contact the NRA, SCI, CFS and Boone and Crocket and ask them to stop their support of an amendment that is specifically designed to undo our important and hard-fought victories. Ask them to instead focus their efforts on passing a solution that protects all of the States that have been plagued by this predator. Ask them to stop throwing Wyoming to the wolves.

Please distribute this letter to anyone you believe could help us to expose what is going on in Congress.

Sincerely,

Harriet M. Hageman

Hundreds Expected To Turn Out For Wolf-Judge Protest Rally At Missoula U.S. District Court Building

By Lobo Watch, March 15, 2011 [here]

Residents of the Northern Rockies have just about had their fill of wolves. Actually, what they’ve mostly grown tired of is how wolves are now making a seriously negative impact on other wildlife populations - namely the elk, deer and moose populations that have made Montana, Idaho and Wyoming famous, and which are now disappearing rapidly in many areas. Rural residents have also become weary of fighting to keep wolves away from their livestock, and worrying about the safety of their children.

Many of those who live close to the land are equally disturbed at how a handful of self-proclaimed “environmental” groups continue to fight the wolf management hunts needed to control wolf numbers at a level where big game herds can still flourish, plus allow ranchers to profitably raise cattle and sheep. Likewise, tax-paying citizens are now realizing that these same groups or organizations have financially benefited from the billions of federal dollars they’ve received through the Equal Access to Justice Act, for the grossly padded legal expenditures for which these “non-profit” organizations are reimbursed. And many Northern Rockies residents are now growing extremely suspicious of the one federal judge these groups continually get to hear their cases, and wonder just what the incentives are for this judge to always decide in their favor.

That anger…that frustration…that distrust will surely be openly displayed on March 24, 2011 as a large crowd of sportsmen, rural land owners, ranchers, and those who have seen their logging careers ended by these same “green” organizations, and the very same Judge Donald Molloy, gather in protest of efforts to once again thwart any control of ever growing wolf numbers, and to stop ever escalating wolf devastation. The issue has reached and surpassed the boil-over point, and hundreds are expected to join in the protest - and there will more than likely be quite the array of protest signs - some targeting wolves, some taking environmental groups to task, and some questioning the motive of the judge inside.

LOBO WATCH has been hearing from groups up and down the western side of Montana…and from across Idaho…and even from Wyoming who fully intend to be standing in front of and alongside the Russell Smith U.S. District Court building on that day. The rally will take place at the corner of East Broadway and North Pattee streets in Missoula, as Judge Molloy once again listens to the wishes of groups like the Defenders of Wildlife, the Center for Biological Diversity, and the Humane Society of the United States, who are opposed to any control of wolf numbers, and especially reducing the wolf populations to an acceptable level. The hearing on March 24 is an attempt by these groups to have the definition changed for the “experimental” and “non-essential” classification of the non-native and non-endangered Canadian wolves that many feel the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service wrongly transplanted into the wildlife rich Northern Rockies. Or to eliminate that classification altogether.

After listening to the arguments of these groups last June, Molloy placed gray wolves back on the Endangered Species List, which cancelled out management hunts that were scheduled for Montana and Idaho. Molloy based that decision on the fact the USFWS did not accept Wyoming’s wolf management plan, and he ruled it was wrong to permit hunts in adjacent states. However, another federal judge in Cheyenne, WY decided that USFWS had been wrong to reject Wyoming’s plan. Still, the management hunts in Montana and Idaho remained canceled - and that will be one part of the issue that draws many angry sportsmen to this protest rally. Some will be protesting for individual state right to manage wolf numbers, others will be calling for the complete resignation or impeachment of Judge Molloy.

This rally is being co-organized by a number of sportsman and land owner based organizations. LOBO WATCH has become the lead organizer. Anyone wanting to participate should contact Toby Bridges at lobowatch (at) yahoo.com. Right now, plans are for protesters to be at the courthouse starting at 12 noon, since the actual hearing begins at 1:30 p.m., and there needs to be a crowd around the courthouse when key players and the media begin to show. Molloy’s court session will likely end around 4 p.m., and some protesters need to be still be on hand. Any time or date changes will be posted on the LOBO WATCH website [here, here].

Rigging the Game in Nevada

Note: The following is excerpted from “Mule Deer Working Group Supports Feeding Deer to Predators Instead of Restoring Healthy Herds”, the lead article in The Outdoorsman, Bulletin Number 42, Jan-Feb 2011. The entire issue is [here]. Back issues are available at Idaho For Wildlife [here].

By George Dovel

In December of 2010, Nevada’s Board of Wildlife Commissioners decided Nevada Department of Wildlife (NDOW) biologists must take the necessary biological steps to restore and maintain mule deer populations as a condition of continued employment. See Outdoorsman No. 41 Pages 10-11 [here] for details.

Like their counterparts in other western states, NDOW wildlife managers have ignored science and state law in order to implement the radical 1991 “Wildlands” agenda adopted by the United Nations in 1992, and promoted by assorted national and international interests. Their goal of “Re-wildling” North America – by replacing rural humans with protected large carnivores and “native” plants in a vast system of “Core Areas” and “Wildlife Corridors” – is already being implemented.

NDOW Director Refused to Obey Commission

As happened earlier in Idaho and in other western states, when a majority of Nevada Wildlife Commissioners directed NDOW to implement predator control in depleted mule deer herds during the past two years, the Director and his biologists refused to do it. Early in 2010 USDA Wildlife Services control agents explained they could not control predators when the state agency that normally gave them direction refused to agree to it.

In November of 2010, after repeatedly refusing to follow Commission direction to control mountain lions and coyotes in selected areas where they were decimating mule deer herds, NDOW Director Ken Mayor was fired by outgoing Gov. Jim Gibbons. But once Nevada’s new Governor, Brian Sandoval [RINO, Mafia Party] was sworn in, he re-hired Mayer as Acting Director and made no secret of his intention not to reappoint Commissioners whose terms expire in June.

Those Commissioners have already solicited applicants for the Director position and are providing Sandoval with three names from which the law says he may hire one. But if Mayer is not one of the three, Sandoval is expected to re-hire him after the Commission terms expire.

With Acting Director Mayer influencing the new governor and his legal counsel, the Commission lost the opportunity to acquire additional funding that was needed to restore a healthy predator-prey balance in areas where mule deer exist in a predator pit.

more »