The state wolf plans have been enjoined by Montana federal district judge Molloy. The wolves are returned to the endangered species list.
We got the news by cell phone while up in central Idaho. It appears to be a giant victory.
Here is the brief AP story. Judge restores protection for N. Rockies wolves. By MATTHEW BROWN.
Update: For those interested ~ The Order
~ be
Quote from the decision :
Congress does not intend agency decision-making to be fickle. When it is, the line separating rationality from arbitrariness and capriciousness is crossed.
Important note:
Dear blog readers, this decison came when I was out of town and just barely had an Internet connection. I am back home now.
July 24, 2008 at 4:38 PM
Jim,
it ought not be the job of the vociferous to silence themselves for the sake of maintaining a space for those unwilling to raise their voice. this posture is far too permissive and prone the apathy that ails this country.
if a hateful sentiment is expressed – even if it intimidates – it is illustrious of a condition. To be averse to the expression of that condition enough to regulate it – or disallow it – robs its respondents of speech (the potentially galvanized condition favorable to response) as well.
I would rather see these existing (whether we see/hear it or not) tensions pounded out than regulate a public realm as if they not exist.
Moderated forums like Ralph’s are nice – because I can visit the site knowing that there is a standard, and I value that standard of exchange – it’s why I am more apt to visit this site than read through the hogwash comments on forums like NewWest. But that self-regulation is all-together a different thing than a publicly enforced regulation of speech.
The problem I have with “free speech” is that it is equated to money – money is seen as a function of speech in our democracy. That is not right.
We (American society) do have to give the “sexists, racists, exploiters in our midst” the opportunity of their forums – because the benefit of a galvanized response to those voices is more valuable than a space that pretends to be free of them.
July 24, 2008 at 5:26 PM
No one should pretend to be free of such voices. They shouldn’t be allowed to intimidate the silence from others.
There are those who would be willing to raise their voices if there weren’t material consequences in doing so. It is not the job of the vociferous to make the voiceless speak, but it is the job of everyone to make sure they have the opportunity to speak – and aren’t drowned out by intimidation or other forms of noise (like money – money is speech; the problem is that it is used to drown out the speech of others.)
My keyboard is broken – so this is difficult to type. I did write about this, however. Please refer to an essay I wrote after protesting against a Klan rally at Harper’s Ferry a couple years ago.
See Why KKK speech is not free speech.
July 24, 2008 at 7:13 PM
who will be the arbiters of “appropriate” speech ?
“we” ?
i have little faith in the systems in place now – the interests who have particular leverage nor the systemic predispositions of that “we” in the context of a centralized administrator – the faith is better left to the merit than the arbiter in a free society.
let Ralph decide – let NewWest decide – let KKK, NRA, etc. etc. decide – and then let the folk who read decide what to read.
This and the following in its paragraph are right.
People who would made wide-sweeping statements about the need to keep ANY voice away from a right to express are more a threat to everyone’s speech than those who might use speech that we don’t like – “intimidating” or not. efforts are better spent helping along or emboldening those unable or unwilling to speak to do so than effort spent snuffing out the speech we don’t like.
July 24, 2008 at 9:40 PM
It’s not difficult to understand the distinction I talk about in my essay.
Your dichotomy is also false. There is a direct relationship between the speech certain groups use as force and the oppression of those groups. To pretend otherwise is to assume an equality that simply doesn’t exist in practice in our society. There is no free speech without dealing with that reality at the same time.
However, the speech that needs snuffing aren’t the people with bad ideas; it’s the people who use those bad ideas as a force of power. Speech which contradicts the ability for the opportunity for others to speak is oppressive noise. That is the speech that must be resisted if freedom is to be a meaningful concept.
You speak with the oppressed in large part by resisting against the oppressor – and where speech is more than mere speech, where it is the force of oppression, then it must be resisted.
This is all this keyboard will allow me to say for now, but the same blog has a lot of discussion on the theory of this, especially as it relates to the defense of home demonstrations we held in DC against some of the worst behaved and powerful people.
July 24, 2008 at 11:36 PM
Cat,
I know it’s not possible to be like I said but what if. All I’m asking is what measues you would take to remedy the situation? Would you control the population of wolves so the elk herd could increase and actually help the remaining wolves or would you just let nature take it’s course hoping that the wolves would reduce their own population? In your last post you started to sound like a politition, talking around the question rather than answering straight. Also, are you always this arrogant or is it just reserved for posting purposes? Since according to you anyway that enviros would never make the comments I saw does that mean that all enviros are above the norm. I know I saw them, I can’t remember where but they were there just the same. I don’t spend hour upon hour on the computer, simply don’t have the time and there are more important things in my life. I might spend 2 hours a week at the very most, however when I find them I’ll be sure and let you know.
July 24, 2008 at 11:56 PM
Cobra,
According to the recent ranching information there are TOO MANY elk. (recent brucellosis infections in WY an MT) Infecting there cattle, etc. and you are saying we need more, now which one of you is right,,,there are either too many or not enough.,,i guess it depends on which industry you tend to back, but i dont see how it can be both.
July 25, 2008 at 6:27 AM
Cobra,
You’re a North Idaho person? And concerned about the North Fork Clearwater/Lochsa area elk?
July 25, 2008 at 8:07 AM
Cobra,
I didn’t answer the question because it is a nosensical hypothetical, never gonna happen in real life waste of brain cells.
When you say “does that mean all enviros are above the norm.” Are you suggesting that it is NORMAL for everyone to make that sort of threats? I couldn’t dissagree with you more. I feel it is sick and depraved for anyone to make the kind of threats that have been seen recently in public papers. There is nothing arrogant about my comments. I simply defend vehemently, the position of conservationists on the wolf issue.
I keep hoping that those apposed to the presence of wolves will do some research on the matter, because if they did, they too would begin to appreciate the important contributions to the ecosystems made by this keystone predator. If those without a complete understanding of the wolf’s role in nature realize how badly we need them, they will begin to accept their presence even when it means some reduction in deer and elk numbers. The only ones left who will remain adamantly apposed will be the ones who stand to proffit from the removal of wolves. Hopefully the majority of the public, including those who are newly educated will not allow the benefits of ballanced ecosystems to be stolen for the proffit of a few stockproducers. Did you read that article?
July 25, 2008 at 5:55 PM
Look at this board at the Bozeman Chronicle – unanimously anti-wolf. It would be great if somebody more educated than myself, who could site research, would post a rebuttal.
http://bozemantalks.com/2008/07/16/gray-wolf-management
July 25, 2008 at 6:12 PM
Travis,
I can’t find the editorial, just the comments.
July 27, 2008 at 11:57 PM
Ralph,
Yes, I live in North Idaho and I don’t really remember saying I was concerned withthe clearwater herds. I hate to see any of the herds in poor shape no matter where they are. A freind of mine I fished with this weekend gave me some information about the clearwater that I haven’t seen posted anywhere. He use to hunt in that area for several years and said that many herds have actually gone through the ice on Dworshak res. over the years.
Myself and other fellow sportsmen are concerned with our elk herds in the St. Joe river drainage and units 3 and 4.