Wildlife and People

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.

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.

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

Moose Decline in Minnesota

The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) has released a Moose Advisory Committee report and a 2011 moose survey [here] that avers that “Northwestern Minnesota’s moose population has declined from a population of several thousand in the late 1980s to fewer than 100.”

In NE Minnesota the moose population has dropped 25% over the last seven years:

Figure 2. Point estimates, 90% confidence intervals, and trend line of estimated moose numbers in northeastern Minnesota, 2005-2011.

and the cow/calf ratio has dropped to below 10%.

Figure 3. Estimated calf:cow ratio and % calves from aerial moose surveys in northeastern Minnesota.

As a rule of thumb, cow/calf ratios must be above 20% to maintain population levels. The current ratio portends continued moose decline. Indeed, the report states, “Estimated recruitment from this year’s survey was at an all time low.”

Surprisingly, the Moose Advisory Committee (MAC) report makes absolutely no mention of wolves or other predators. None, zip, zero, nada. This despite the fact that there are now over 3,500 wolves in Minnesota [here], ten times the population in 1974.

more »

Another USFWS Cover-Up

by Jim Beers

The White House is determined to make Dan Ashe (the former political partisan at the heart of the USFWS theft of $45 to 60 Million from the Pittman-Robertson excise taxes on arms and ammunition during the 1990’s) Director of the USFWS.

This is very bad news because there was no justice when the General Accounting Office reported an Audit documenting that theft to the US House of Representatives Resources Committee a decade ago. No one in USFWS was held accountable and the state fish and wildlife agencies never even asked for the funds to be replaced. In other words, state fish and wildlife agencies and state hunting and fishing programs were and are probably more than $60 Million dollars poorer thanks to the unholy alliance between the “New Green” USFWS and the state agencies that are steadily more dependent on a federal mammary.

* Mr. Ashe and the current FWS managers are the ones responsible for the wolves and grizzly bears that are decimating elk, moose and deer herds.

* They are responsible for the state agencies becoming more and more like federal subcontractors in the drives to kill hunting, fishing, gun ownership and private property up to and including the redefinition of federal “Navigable Waterways of the US” to include every periodically damp spot and its watershed throughout the US.

* They are the driving force to give federal bureaucrats primary jurisdiction over all “Invasive Species” that are pictured as killer bees and kudzu but in reality will be pheasants, brown trout, Great Lakes salmon, Hungarian partridge, west coast striped bass, Russian Olive trees, and myriad other plants and animal species that are desirable and useful parts of the American environment circa 2010.

* They are the driving force behind the movement to give the federal government the overarching job to restore “Native Species” and “the Native Ecosystem” to the great detriment to rural economies, rural families, private property rights, and American liberty.

* They are the linchpin for environmentalists and animal rights radicals to implement their extremist agendas.

* They are the federal agency doling out public funds to give all of the above a patina of “science” that is simply Middle Ages alchemy, a combination of lies and mirrors meant to enrich those thought to be “wizards” and impoverish the populace by making impossible promises in return for money and power.

more »

IDFG Joins the Wildlands Project

The Idaho Fish and Game Commission and Department have joined Earth First! in promoting the Wildlands Project, the radical pan-ethnic cleansing plan favored by international communists and other anti-American neo-fascists.

IDFG News Release, November 22, 2010 [here]

Contact: Ed Mitchell
(208) 334-3700

[At the] Idaho Fish and Game Commission meeting, November 18… Assistant Director Sharon Kiefer presented.. two interstate projects involving Idaho, which are part of the Western Governors’ Wildlife Corridors and Crucial Wildlife Habitats Initiative.

The projects, one involving Idaho, Oregon and Washington and the other involving Idaho and Montana, would help identify key migration corridors, crucial habitat and recommend tools for landscape conservation as part of a state based integrated decision support system.

The projects would help ensure wildlife information is considered early in planning and decision making processes. And they allow states to develop a transboundary picture of crucial habitat and corridors across jurisdictions. They would look regionwide, rather than just statewide, include climate change adaptation strategies and develop a standard framework for mapping wildlife corridors. …

See also:

Corridor to Hell [here]

The War on the West [here]

The Wildlands Project Bill [here]

The Secret World Inside the Animal Rights Agenda — Part One

by Lowell E. Baier, President, Boone and Crockett Club, Fall 2010 issue of Fair Chase Magazine [here]

Queen, country and fox hunting are dear to England’s landed gentry, all part of the rarefied world of inherited privilege and tradition. However, when the British Labor Party banned fox hunting in England in 2004, the victory went not to the liberal politicians, but rather to the secretive, clandestine, Machiavellian worldwide animal rights and liberation movement begun in the early 1960s by a group of United Kingdom Oxford University academics known as the “Oxford Group.” Animal rightists and liberationists are of a very different orientation than the anti-hunting movement, which is a minor component of their agenda.

Rightists are a distilled, radical extension far beyond anti-hunters, driven by intellectuals, academics and the scholastic legal community in a global political movement. Animal rights advocates seek to end the rigid moral and legal distinctions drawn between humans and animals, end the status of animals as property or prey, and end their use in research, food, clothing, hunting and fishing, and the entertainment industries. Their aim is to remove an animal’s current status as “property,” and to recognize and grant animals “personhood”; that is, to award them legal rights and standing on the same terms humans enjoy fundamental rights to protect their basic interests. The “bible” of the modern animal rights movement, Animal Liberation, was authored in 1975 by Professor Peter Singer from Princeton University.

The philosophical and moral foundations for the animal rights position are that animals have the ability to suffer and feel pain, and that capacity is the vital characteristic that gives every creature with a will to live the right to equal consideration which must be recognized in any moral community and philosophy of natural law. Contrarians argue that animals lack rationality to distinguish between right and wrong; they lack language and are not able to enter into a social contract, make moral choices, assume moral obligations, nor have a moral identity; and hence, cannot be regarded as a possessor of rights. Only humans have duties, therefore only humans have rights, and rights must be accompanied by duties. …

Full text [here]

USFWS Responds to ID Gov Otter

On Oct. 18th Gov. C.L. “Butch” Otter terminated Idaho’s “Designated Agent” status with the US Fish and Wildlife Service regarding wolves [here].

Yesterday the USFWS responded, announcing that they would enforce federal wolf regulations, take over investigation of all wolf-on-livestock depredation incidents, and “take appropriate action”.

In the news release the USFWS also acknowledges that the IDFG has been in charge of much more than that:

The Governor’s order ended efforts by the Idaho Department of Fish and Game to act as the Service’s designated agent for wolf management. In that capacity, the state was responsible for monitoring wolf populations, conducting investigations into illegal killings, responding to illegal takings, and implementing a livestock depredation response program.

IDFG also designated a wolf hunt last year. They have at least a nominal concern for elk, deer and other wildlife impacted by wolves, which the USFWS does not.

The USFWS also announced that they opened “a 24-hour, toll-free line to report “wolf mortality”. So if it’s 3AM and you want to turn in your neighbor for “shooting a wolf”, there’s some poor sap of a federal employee who has to answer the phone. It’s pure Big Brotherism. If it’s 3AM and wolves are killing your livestock, you call a different number, which is not toll-free and not manned 24/7. Please leave a message.

The message in the news release is clear: back at you, Otter. There is a high-level shoving match going on. Or a dog fight. Pick your own metaphor.

The entire USFWS news release follows:

more »

RM Grey Wolves Genetically Connected

In July, 2008, U.S. District Judge Donald Molloy enjoined the delisting of grey wolves in the Northern Rockies (thus placing them back on the Endangered Species list) [here, more].

Molloy based his ruling on a faulty understanding of genetics in wolf populations. A quote (with emphasis added):

Plaintiffs argue (1) even though the environmental impact statement on wolf reintroduction specifically conditions the delisting decision on a Finding of Subpopulation Genetic Exchange, the Fish & Wildlife Service delisted the wolf when there is no plausible showing of that genetic exchange between the Greater Yellowstone core recovery area and the northwestern Montana and central Idaho core recovery areas. …

As recently as 2002, the Service determined genetic exchange between wolves in the Greater Yellowstone, northwestern Montana, and central Idaho core recovery areas was necessary to maintain a viable northern Rocky Mountain wolf population in the face of environmental variability and stochastic events. The Fish & Wildlife Service nevertheless delisted the wolf without any evidence of genetic exchange between wolves in the Greater Yellowstone core recovery area and the other two core recovery areas.

Now wolf experts from the US Fish and Wildlife Service, Yellowstone National Park, the Nez Perce Tribe, and UCLA have published a study showing that Rocky Mountain wolves are fully genetically connected — due to their (the wolves) propensity, as members of the Dog Family, for having multiple relations with whatever all the time (or words to that effect). The study is behind a pay wall [here]:

VONHOLDT, B. M., STAHLER, D. R., BANGS, E. E., SMITH, D. W., JIMENEZ, M. D., MACK, C. M., NIEMEYER, C. C., POLLINGER, J. P. and WAYNE, R. K. (2010), A novel assessment of population structure and gene flow in grey wolf populations of the Northern Rocky Mountains of the United States. Molecular Ecology, 19: 4412–4427. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-294X.2010.04769.x

Abstract The successful re-introduction of grey wolves to the western United States is an impressive accomplishment for conservation science. However, the degree to which subpopulations are genetically structured and connected, along with the preservation of genetic variation, is an important concern for the continued viability of the metapopulation. We analysed DNA samples from 555 Northern Rocky Mountain wolves from the three recovery areas (Greater Yellowstone Area, Montana, and Idaho), including all 66 re-introduced founders, for variation in 26 microsatellite loci over the initial 10-year recovery period (1995–2004). The population maintained high levels of variation (HO = 0.64–0.72; allelic diversity k = 7.0–10.3) with low levels of inbreeding (FIS < 0.03) and throughout this period, the population expanded rapidly (n1995 = 101; n2004 = 846). Individual-based Bayesian analyses revealed significant population genetic structure and identified three subpopulations coinciding with designated recovery areas. Population assignment and migrant detection were difficult because of the presence of related founders among different recovery areas and required a novel approach to determine genetically effective migration and admixture. However, by combining assignment tests, private alleles, sibship reconstruction, and field observations, we detected genetically effective dispersal among the three recovery areas. Successful conservation of Northern Rocky Mountain wolves will rely on management decisions that promote natural dispersal dynamics and minimize anthropogenic factors that reduce genetic connectivity.

more »

Rep. Rehberg (MT) Seeking Your Solutions To Wolf Problems

by Tom Remington, Black Bear Blog, September 10, 2010 [here]

Ed Note: this is another excellent commentary from the Nation’s premier hunting, fishing, and outdoor activities pundit, Tom Remington. I strongly encourage you to visit and bookmark Black Bear Blog [here].

Montana Representative Denny Rehberg (R) Montana, in an editorial [here] in the Missoulian, is asking us for our ideas and solutions to the ancient and stalled atrocity known as Wolf Introduction.

If you think there’s a snowball’s chance in hell that anything other than what can easily be described as “Groundhogs Day”, (a la, the movie with Bill Murray, where he wakes up each day to the exact same events over and over again.) can be done to blow up that damned alarm clock, then jump on Rep. Rehberg’s bandwagon and give him an earful (be nice now).

He says he listens first to his people and then reacts to what they want. Is this true? If it is, this is at least your chance to take action so you can say you tried. Sounds like Rehberg is suggesting a legislative solution.

He offers sample questions, assuming these are answers he’s also looking for. Let’s see if we can help him out.

What is the responsibility of the government to reimburse producers for livestock killed by predators that are protected by federal policy? The private funds that have been used for these reimbursements in the past ended on Sept. 10, 2010.

Reimbursement for damages never should have been put in the hands of private entities. You can read this as environmentalists. But this is water under the bridge and they have reneged anyway.

This entire debacle was the doings of the Federal Government and they should be held solely responsible for reimbursements to all citizens who have lost property and damages of any kind, physical and emotional. They should be held responsible for all costs of litigation, damages amassed over the years and what lies down the road. The Federal Government should be paying for all costs of wolf management, if you want to call it that, and directly paying the states for all revenues lost and expenses accrued due to wolves and the destruction they have done.

If this liability bill gets large enough and angry taxpayers realize how much of their money is being spent to aid and abet the perverts who think wolves are above humanity, then perhaps efforts to do something legislatively can be done.

[My thoughts: the Federal government has 100% responsibility, since it was through the Fed's horrendous decision-making and intransigence that these damages were inflicted.]

Do we want to use a legislative scalpel to address the gray wolf issue narrowly, or is it time for a much broader reform of the entire Endangered Species Act? One option will be easier and faster, but the other may prevent similar fights down the road.

Why not both? What Idaho needs or wants may not exactly match what Montana or Wyoming, Oregon, Utah, etc. wants. Those needs, based on geography as well as social demands, will be different. However, in line with the answer to the first question, it’s time to wake up all of America to the intrusion of Government. It isn’t just taxes, health care, and mosques being built. The berries are ripe. People are waking up and pushing back against totalitarian governmental control.

Many people have been asking me what my bone of contention is in this fight? The answer is simple. I’m an American. Wolves forced dishonestly onto American people and them being held as prisoners in their own land by environmentalism, the Courts and the Federal Government, is a hammer looking for any place else to fall. I want to prevent that from happening.

Actions need to be implemented to assure that nothing like this EVER happens again, that no peoples will be rendered to such dictatorial uselessness.

[My thoughts: reform the ESA. The idea that Constitutionally guaranteed human rights have been usurped for the alleged rights of animals is the most unAmerican thing ever perpetrated by our government. All of Congress took an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution. Abide by it.]

Is it better to focus only on Montana for now, or should we expand our effort to national solutions that will include other impacted states like Idaho and Wyoming?

Answered already!

The truth is Montana, Idaho and other states, including the Great Lakes and Southwest Regions can’t wait for the long legislative processes. Emergency actions need to take place. If Washington was burning, I don’t think Congress would let it burn while they argue about how much to appropriate for a fire truck… or maybe they would. The good people of these states want to run their own affairs. No effort of the Endangered Species Act should be this far reaching and locally destructive, leaving citizens at the mercy of ridiculous court rulings that aren’t even based on existing laws; only political agendas.

Rep. Rehberg, let’s not turn this into a dog and pony show. If you are serious, then it’s time to get serious enough to do something that will immediately relieve the problems and then we can get to work on long term, long lasting solutions. Let’s give the citizens back their power of self government and sovereignty and then find a long term solution to stop the travesty that has become the Endangered Species Act.

[My thoughts: The issue is national.]

These are only some of my ideas. What are yours? Speak up! Let Mr. Rehberg hear what you have to say. You can send him an email. Or you can write or call. All that information can be found [here].

It’s time to call the good Congressman out on his offer to LISTEN. Give ‘em hell, Harry! Let freedom ring!

Nutty Grizzly Decision Appealed

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has appealed last September’s ruling [here] by (who else?) Judge Donald Molloy relisting grizzly bears.

Molloy ordered the USFWS to place the abundant bears back onto the Endangered Species list because, as the Judge alleged, global warming is killing the white pines which are a principal food of grizzly bears [here].

The problems with Molloy’s ruling are that:

1. The grizzly bear population is exploding. The species is in no way going extinct;

2. Global warming is a hoax and a scam. Average temperatures have been falling globally and in North America for 12 years;

3. White pinenuts are not a principal food of grizzly bears, which are omnivorous and eat almost anything. Grizzly bears are abundant where there are no pinenuts at all.

Strike three! Judge Molloy fancies himself to be a biologist, but in fact he is a fraud and a nincompoop.

The USFWS under Obama has aborted the Spotted Owl Recovery Plan, relisted non-endangered wolves, relisted non-endangered grizzly bears, and acted in general like a bad day at the insane asylum.

But after a year of dithering, they have decided to appeal one of the many pathetic nutzoid rulings by Molloy.

So that’s something. Don’t count on the USFWS to prevail, however. This is a toothless crocodile appeal, just going through the motions for PR purposes, without any real desire to overturn Molloy’s ruling.

Yellowstone Grizzly Court Decision to be Appealed

FWS Appeal 2009 Decision Putting Bears Back on Endangered Species List

U.S. Sportsmen’s Alliance, 8/26/10 [here]

Wolves are not the only controversial animal recently put back on the Endangered Species List. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) recently appealed a 2009 court decision, made by Judge Donald W. Molloy of the Federal District Court for Montana that placed the Yellowstone Grizzly back under Endangered Species (ESA) protection. The outcome of the appeal will lead to an important precedent as to how difficult it will be in the future to delist any species once placed under federal protection even when their populations have recovered.

Judge Molloy’s decision came in response to a suit brought against the FWS by a coalition of anti-hunting and environmental groups seeking to overturn the agency’s 2007delisting of the bear. The Service has publicly stated that the Yellowstone Grizzly’s have surpassed recovery goals and they strongly oppose the decision.

Among the reasons cited by Molloy for relisting the grizzlies was a determination that the FWS relied on state regulations to assure protection of the bears after being delisted that he did not believe were adequate.

“We disagree with every point [Judge Molloy] has,” stated FWS grizzly bear recovery coordinator Chris Servheen according to press reports.

Judge Molloy’s decision could have far reaching implications. This case may establish a precedent that could be used by anti-hunters to block the delisting of healthy and sustainable animal populations, such as the Northern Rocky Mountain wolves and the Great Lakes wolves.

The Yellowstone Grizzly population has reached approximately 600 bears. At this number, many biologists believe that the Yellowstone ecosystem is at full saturation level with grizzlies. In fact, the target recovery population to trigger the delisting was set at 400-500.

Molloy Relists Wolves

Thursday U.S. District Judge Donald Molloy ordered the US Fish and Wildlife Service to place Rocky Mountain wolves back on the Endangered Species list.

Judge orders protections reinstated for wolf

By MATT VOLZ, AP, Idaho Statesman, 08/05/10 [here]

A federal judge has ordered endangered species protections reinstated for the gray wolf in Montana and Idaho.

The federal government last year removed protections for wolves in those two states but not Wyoming. U.S. District Judge Donald Molloy says in his ruling Thursday the government’s decision was a political solution and does not comply with the federal Endangered Species Act.

Molloy says the entire Rocky Mountain wolf population must be either listed or removed as an endangered species, but the protections can’t be separated by state.

The implication include:

* Wolf hunts in Idaho and Montana have been canceled. State fish and game departments are offering refunds on purchased wolf tags [here].

* Wyoming, Oregon, Washington, and Utah wolves are also now relisted [here].

* The USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service - Wildlife Services (APHIS-WS) proposed program to control wolves in Idaho is now moot [here].

Canadian wolves were (illegally) introduced into Yellowstone by the USFWS in the mid-1990’s. By 2002 wolf populations had exploded, leading the USFWS to recommend delisting (removal from the Endangered Species list). Despite numerous attempts to do so under two Administrations, all delisting efforts have been thwarted by Judge Molloy.

An estimated 5,000 to 6,000 wolves now roam the Northern Rockies in the U.S. Ungulate populations have fallen 90% or more as wolves have decimated deer and elk herds. Livestock losses to wolves have skyrocketed.

Judge Molloy’s decision is [here]. With flowery language (”stentorian agitprop”, “Talmudic disagreement”) Molloy ruled:

…[I]t is not necessarily the case that threatened or endangered status can be determined solely on the basis of scientific evidence alone. Beyond the question of risk is the issue of the acceptability of risk. kl at 73. The decision that a risk is acceptable regarding a specific species is, in turn, an ethical and policy judgment. That means, in many respects, the complications are political. …

…[T]he Court finds:

* 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.

Accordingly, 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. …

The plain language of the ESA does not allow the agency to divide a DPS into a smaller taxonomy. For this reason, the Rule delisting the northern Rocky Mountain gray wolf DPS must once again be vacated and set aside. …

Thus the ruling hinged on the way the USFWS subdivided the wolf population into “distinct populations segments” — illogical, unscientific, and political chicanery that the USFWS has indulged in with many species.

However, when seen as a whole, the introduced Canadian wolf population is in no way endangered of going extinct. The population of introduced wolves has exploded. There is no evidence that the wolf population has or will decline, and ample evidence that wolves are spreading into states hundreds of miles away from the original dumping ground.

But Judge Molloy did not rule on that point. Instead his ruling was based on a technical interpretation of certain specific language in the ESA.

The USFWS brought on this tragedy in so many ways. First they illegally dumped the Canadian wolves into Wyoming in 1995. Then they immediately declared the (illegal alien) population “endangered” based on no evidence. Then after the wolves multiplied, the USFWS decided to backtrack, but in a manner that twisted the ESA into knots never intended.

Meanwhile the States were cowed and subservient, with the exception of Wyoming and Utah. Idaho Dept. of Fish and Game welcomed wolves with open arms, a misguided gesture that eventually decimated Idaho elk herds and has cost the state hundreds of $millions in mitigation and lost hunting revenues. The IDFG is today under extreme duress from outraged citizens and is hugely disrespected by the taxpayers who fund it.

No informed observer, including Judge Molloy, the USFWS, IDFG, etc. still maintains that wolves are endangered. The USFWS, however, maintains that wolves are endangered in Wyoming but not elsewhere. That is a backhanded way to inflict special punishments on one state by power-drunk Federal civil servants. Judge Molloy ruled that the USFWS cannot hack off Wyoming wolves from the rest of the population, and that if Wyoming wolves are endangered, then they all are.

Further, in 2008 Judge Molloy ruled that Wyoming wolves are genetically isolated [here]. The lunacy of that ruling is that Wyoming (Yellowstone NP) is where the Canadian wolves were dumped in the first place. All the wolves in the Rockies came from wolf genes in Wyoming. Instead of being genetically isolated, Wyoming wolves are the infection pustule that spawned all the wolves.

For some reason Congress has not fired every last USFWS employee and shut the doors of that supremely incompetent and worthless agency.

One Congressman, Rep. Chet Edwards of Texas, has introduced H.R. 6028 which would prohibit treating wolves as an endangered species under the ESA:

H. R. 6028

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, JULY 30, 2010

A BILL — To amend the Endangered Species Act of 1973 to prohibit treatment of the Gray Wolf as an endangered species or threatened species.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. PROHIBITION ON TREATMENT OF GRAY WOLF AS AN ENDANGERED SPECIES OR THREATENED SPECIES.

Section 4(a) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1533(a)) is amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:

“(4) The Gray Wolf (Canis lupus) shall not be treated as an endangered species or threatened species for purposes of this Act.”

That would solve the wolf problem but not the USFWS problem.

Meanwhile, state fish and game departments and commissions should prepare for a thorough housecleaning as they have failed miserably to protect citizens from a Federal system gone mad.

Who Is Stupid?

The following very annoying piece of accusatory idiocy drained into the Internet last week:

When It Comes to Wolves, It’s the Habitat, Stupid

Leaders with the Montana Wildlife Federation argue increasing habitat functionality is the conservative, financially smart way to boost game herds where needed.

By Skip Kowalski and Tim Aldrich, New West, 7-30-10 [here]

We originally set out to write a piece about wolves and how hunters can manage all wildlife, even large carnivores, under the North American Model of Fish and Wildlife Conservation. We quickly realized that this topic has been “rode hard and put away wet” so to speak. What we discovered, through our own reflection, is that there seems to be an important lesson learned and not being adequately applied by those who hunt – the lesson of the importance of habitat. …

Whether it’s noxious weeds, loss of winter habitat due to fragmentation, or the loss of access that helps disperse wildlife across our public lands, it’s the habitat, stupid, as the saying goes. …

Skip Kowalski is chairman of the Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat Committee and Tim Aldrich is president of the Montana Wildlife Federation.

All of which demands a rejoinder.

*****

Dear Skip and Tim

No, it’s predator prey relations, you stupids, not “habitat”.

Population dynamics in animals is governed by predator-prey interactions [here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here].

That is true of elk, deer, sage grouse, spotted owls, you name it.

There is no shortage of habitat. The Feds own 30 percent of the land in the U.S., twice that much in some Western states [here].

In 1995 wolves were introduced into the Lolo Wildlife Management Zones 10 and 12 of the Clearwater River watershed in Idaho [here]. The elk cow count subsequently dropped 90%, and the calf count dropped 94 to 96%. Did 90% of the habitat suddenly disappear? You stupids blame that prey population crash on “habitat”, whereas every other analyst blames the wolves!

Is everybody stupid but you? Or is it the other way around?

In 1994 25 million acres were set-side into No Touch Zones for the Northern Spotted Owl. Since then the NSO population has crashed by 60 percent or more. Looks like your stupid “formula” didn’t work.

Nowhere has the “habitat” formula worked. Setting aside habitat has no effect of wildlife populations. Instead predator-prey relations govern population dynamics. Where predator control has been applied, prey population flourish. Where predators have been uncontrolled, prey populations crash. In every single case.

So-called “fragmentation” is eco-babble garbage, stupids. Animals move around through all kinds of “habitat” including cover habitat, foraging habitat, and “edge”. The same people who decry “fragmentation” swear by the vegetation “mosaic”, yet the mosaic and fragmentation are exactly the same thing. The latest eco-babble desire is to “diversify forest continuity” [here], which is fragmentation by holocaust. If “fragmentation” is such terrible thing, why do you promote it via catastrophic fire?

You stupids are not promoting wildlife conservation, you are promoting environmental destruction.

You stupids are perpetrating a war on the West [here]. You are war-mongers. You seek to drive humanity out of the West, by any means, including through the extirpation of prey populations by uncontrolled predators.

You regurgitate junk science and Big Lies in order to inflict suffering on your fellow human beings and wildlife. Your motivations are repulsive.

We are smart enough to realize that. We have you pegged. We know exactly what you are.

So go easy on the “stupid” remarks. You are not fooling anybody.

Mike