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.

Vulnerability to litigation also threatens to undermine the ESA. Presently, the vast majority of the scientific decisions for species conservation are inappropriately being made by the courts, not the wildlife professionals within the federal agencies tasked to administer the ESA. Litigation is dictating the FWS and NMFS’ priorities for dealing with species in jeopardy and depleting the agencies’ personnel and financial resources. Millions of dollars are paid from the U.S. government to lawyers who represent non-profit organizations with multi-million dollar budgets. These groups have turned frivolous ESA litigation into a fundraising bonanza. Litigation reform is absolutely necessary to restore the ESA’s effectiveness. The undersigned groups believe that Congress should review the attorney fee provisions of ESA as well as other fee-shifting provisions applicable to ESA litigation to reduce windfall fees being paid to affluent non-profit corporations. In addition, DOI and Congress should amend these fee shifting provisions so that prevailing parties must use these awards exclusively for true wildlife conservation instead of as membership incentives or fuel for additional litigation.

The ESA also fails the American public by detrimentally impacting jobs and the economy, particularly in rural communities. There are numerous examples of sustainable human development projects with carefully planned wildlife mitigation measures being blocked and private property rights being infringed by the ESA. While protecting species and promoting biological diversity are vital, these aspirations cannot come at the price of a family not being able to put food on the table or an entire region being forced to lay fallow as promised irrigation water is diverted by judicial fiat. As mentioned above, public confidence is essential to the success of species conservation. When the public perceives that the ESA places species above personal livelihoods and the faltering economy, the public’s support for the ESA’s goals will further dwindle. The DOI and Congress must review the ESA to determine whether there are ways to reduce the ESA’s drag on the economy and recalibrate the ESA’s balance between protecting species and economic growth. To maintain public and business support, DOI and Congress must modernize the ESA to significantly reduce regulatory burdens and to promote economic development while continuing to protect at-risk species.

Instead of expanding the reach of the ESA, DOI and Congress must restrict the law to its original goal – species recovery. The ESA should not be used as a tool to regulate greenhouse gasses. Radical anti-hunting and protectionist organizations, such as the Center for Biological Diversity, the Humane Society of the United States and the Sierra Club, have spent millions of dollars in an effort to manipulate the mandates of the ESA to list animals for the express purpose of regulating greenhouse gases. The ESA is not the correct vehicle for regulating greenhouse gas emissions. Not only do these applications distort the purpose of the ESA, but they stretch the administrative capacities and scientific expertise of the FWS and National Marine Fisheries Service far beyond their limits. It is vital that DOI and Congress address this critical issue before the agencies becomes so overloaded that conservation comes to an absolute standstill and before public confidence in the goals of the ESA completely fails. While it may be necessary to fund wildlife habitat adaptation due to climate change, it is imperative that the ESA not be manipulated to regulate something for which it was never intended.

Finally, the DOI and Congress should review and repair inconsistencies between FWS policies, international treaties and ESA permit procedures to eliminate regulatory burdens wherever possible. For instance DOI and Congress should review whether to maintain the ESA’s “enhancement” requirement for permitting. The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES), of which the U.S. is a party, uses non-detriment findings exclusively to determine whether international trade of a species is allowed. The FWS imposes an additional burdensome requirement that trade in a species “enhances the survival of that species” before it will issue import permits for threatened and endangered species even if allowed under CITES. The additional enhancement finding requirement by FWS is a significant burden to international hunting, which has been shown to be the most effective means of funding sustainable wildlife conservation in developing countries. Hunting is vital to the economies of developing nations because it results in high revenues, most of which remain in the local economy and are used to support wildlife conservation efforts. It has been reported that hunting generates U.S. $200 million annually in remote rural areas of twenty-three African countries. Hunting operations in Africa contribute funding and resources to conserve wildlife on 540,000 square miles, which is 22% more land than is found in the national parks of Africa. The additional substantive and bureaucratic burdens imposed by the FWS discourage U.S. hunters from engaging in sustainable use wildlife conservation in developing countries thus undermining foreign species conservation efforts. The undersigned groups believe that DOI and Congress should review these inconsistencies and find solutions that reduce regulatory burdens to hunting while still proactively using the ESA to protect at-risk wildlife.

We suggest that DOI and Congress establish a working group of wildlife professionals consisting of federal agency biologists and selected AWCP professionals to develop an improved science-based revision of the ESA. We welcome the opportunity to work with you to secure the future of wildlife while reducing the unintended consequences and unnecessary burdens that are caused when recovering species. AWCP members have spent generations working to protect wildlife and hope that we can assist to secure that future.

Sincerely,

Archery Trade Association
Bowhunting Preservation Alliance
Campfire Club of America
Catch-a-Dream Foundation
Conservation Force
Dallas Safari Club
Masters of Foxhounds Association
Mule Deer Foundation
National Association of Forest Service Retirees
National Trappers Association
North American Bear Foundation
Pope & Young Club
Quality Deer Management Association
Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation
Safari Club International
Shikar Safari Club International
Texas Wildlife Association
TreadLightly!
Wild Sheep Foundation
Whitetails Unlimited

CC: Acting - Director Gould,
CC: Majority & Minority Senate Leadership
CC: House Speaker, Majority & Minority Leader
CC: Congressional Sportsmen’s Caucus

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

The most recent wolf hearing in this Court took place this past week, on March 24. The purpose of that hearing was supposedly for Judge Molloy to listen to the verbal arguments of attorneys representing more than a dozen environmental groups, including the Defenders of Wildlife and the Center for Biological Diversity, who were seeking changes to the “experimental” and “non-essential” classification of the Canadian wolves released in Montana, Idaho and Wyoming. However, the dozens of protesters out on the sidewalk adjacent to the court building felt that the hearing had been scheduled for an entirely different reason, to facilitate a scheme that had been in the planning stage for months by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the environmental organizations which had filed the lawsuit to have the classification definitions changed, or eliminated altogether.

Those feelings were due to a chain of related events the previous week, that for many western residents has looked more and more like an orchestrated plan by a number of parties, with one ultimate goal — and that is to kill two pieces of wolf legislation back in Washington D.C. And that would be Senate Bill 249 (Hatch-UT) and House Resolution 509 (Rehberg-MT). Both share a common purpose, and that is to remove the wolf from the Endangered Species List, turning over wolf management to the state wildlife agencies in each and every state.

That “coincidental” chain of events began on Thursday, March 17, when the environmental legal firm known as EarthJustice announced they were dropping out of the litigation, and would no longer be representing the 13 groups which have been the “Plaintiffs” who have brought the wolf issue to Molloy’s court on a number of occasions. Then, the very next day, the U.S. Department of the Interior and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service issued a joint press release, announcing that an agreement had been struck with “some of” the plaintiffs that have repeatedly fought wolf management. However, four organizations had split away from that coalition, and vowed that they would maintain their opposition to any wolf management hunts. Those groups were the Alliance for the Wild Rockies, Western Watersheds Project, Friends of the Clearwater, and the Humane Society of the United States.

Part of that “settlement” is that the agreeing parties will not take wolf management hunts back to court for five years. It also means that Montana and Idaho would get much needed management hunts…but not in Wyoming, Minnesota, Wisconsin and Michigan, where wolves are now making an extremely negative impact on big game populations and on livestock production. Nor in Oregon, Washington, Utah or Colorado, where wolves have begun to habituate, nor in any other state which may decide that wolves are not wanted or needed.

With four of the original environmental groups proclaiming they will keep this issue tied up in court, and the others poised to jump right back in after five years, what does this “agreement”, this “settlement” gain? Sportsmen, ranchers and rural land owners hardly see it as anything more than a very thinly veiled compromise, and anything but a victory. How this chain of events unfolded has thrown up a red flag. Was it all just coincidental - or was it a very well planned sequence to cleverly disguise an entirely different agenda?

Going back to S. 249 and .R. H H.R. 509. If either of these two pieces of legislation was passed and put into effect, both the USFWS and groups like Defenders of Wildlife, the Center for Biological Diversity, the Sierra club, and Natural Resources Defense Council lose… and lose big time. Should wolves be pulled from beneath the umbrella of protection by the Endangered Species Act, the Department of the Interior/USFWS would lose a leveraging tool which they have used to close off public lands, and to literally take away privately owned lands or access to private property. And if you think our government is above such action, you’re likely living in the dark. For the environmental organizations, the loss of ESA protection for wolves is akin to slaughtering their prized “cash cow”.

It has become very clear that this miraculous meeting of minds between a very soiled federal government agency and money mongering environmental organizations is far less than up front and honest. Both sides are now attempting to save a very broken policy that has given the Department of the Interior unprecedented power, and a loophole known as the Equal Access to Justice Act that has allowed these environmental “not for profit” organizations to bilk our justice system of billions of dollars over the past decade. How much money are we talking about? During one six-year period, environmental groups in this country filed more than 1,500 lawsuits, mostly against the U.S. government - and were awarded some $4.7-BILLION in very padded reimbursement of legal expenditures.

Robert Fanning, of Pray, MT is the founder of Friends of the Northern Yellowstone Elk Herd. In regard to how the environmental coalition may appear to be breaking down to some, he claims:

Bureaucrats and extremist lawyers are not going to ‘go away quietly’ with billions at stake, and they are not going to ‘play nice’… or tell the truth. While our side is ‘High Fiving’ each other… their side is planning to cut you off at the knees.

One question has arisen since “The Deal” was made, likewise since four of the plaintiffs have dropped out of the case, and that is, “Can the remaining plaintiffs still legally make that agreement with the defendant, which in this case is the U.S. Department of the Interior?”

Not according to Fanning who says:

The phony ‘Deal’ being pushed through Molloy’s court is a trick designed to derail the state and federal political process and that the tricksters can’t enter into a binding covenant not to sue because four plaintiffs dropped out.

The “reason” for the March 24 hearing in Missoula’s U.S. District Court is now very suspect. Those hunters, ranchers and rural land owners who were there to protest against continued intervention, by environmental groups that want wolf populations to keep on growing and become more widely spread, now fully realize that the agreement between those organizations and the Department of the Interior is nothing more than a ploy to kill support for the wolf legislation now being heavily pushed in Congress.

American citizens are now growing weary of the wolf issue, and the manner in which stalled management plans have resulted in escalated wolf depredation of wildlife and livestock. Many fear that growing wolf numbers are now posing a physical threat to the residents of the six states with the highest wolf populations, and there is now more concern about health dangers. Wolves carry and widely spread more than 30 known diseases and parasites, many of which are infectious to humans. The strong support for S. 249 and H.R. 509, which would pull federal protection and management of wolves, has both USFWS and environmental groups running just a bit scared. And it now seems these two sides have more than an “agreement” between them. They also now share the fear of losing their “Holy Grail” of power and funding - the Endangered Species Act.

The manner in which the Department of the Interior and USFWS entered into secret meetings with the environmental groups, to reach a backroom deal has angered many sportsmen and sportsmen organizations. Some of that nasty taste in their mouths comes from how true hunter-based wildlife conservation groups were excluded from this deal making session. But even more tainted is the deal itself. The federal government would maintain control of wolf management, and states (Montana and Idaho only) would be given five years of managing wolf populations, under strict guidance from USFWS. And at the end of that five-year period, the intervening environmental groups that “settled” with the Department of the Interior/USFWS could jump right back in and once again begin to milk their favored cash cow for hundreds of millions. And the cycle of graft would begin all over.

If passed by the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives, S. 249 and H.R. 509, also known as The American Big Game and Livestock Protection Act, would allow all states to manage wolves, just as all state wildlife agencies manage other wild game. And they have done an excellent job of that.

Ryan Benson, National Director of Big Game Forever, has this to say about this Act:

Under its provisions wolf populations are removed from federal statutes and returned to state wildlife protections. H.R. 509 and S. 249 will allow states to manage wolf populations along with other wildlife in balance and with much needed flexibility. Wolf populations are highly resilient and will do fine under state wildlife management. If numbers fall too low, Congress can once again relist the species. States and sportsmen will not let that happen. No one wants to go through this mess again.

Nowhere in the press release on the deal struck between federal wildlife officials and environmental lawyers does it mention a dollar figure paid to those groups, but it does use the term “settlement”. The sportsmen and citizens who have watched these groups repeatedly file for reimbursement under the Equal Access to Justice Act know they did not settle this issue for nothing. They have never done anything for nothing.

Before this “agreement” can be finalized, it must have Donald Molloy’s approval. The speculation is that he has been a part of this deal making from the very start. If not, and he just learned of the “agreement” on March 18, like the rest of the country, he could be feeling left out of the loop… and more than a little bit used.

As more and more details of “The Deal” become available, especially the money part, the legislation back in Washington D.C. could see more support than ever. Short term fixes like the USFWS-Enviro “agreement” solve nothing, and ultimately carry an extremely high price tag.

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.