Man threatens to sue FWP over wolf-ruling coalition

Tired of one-sided wolf management

Jerry Black, a frequent commentator on this site, is challenging Montana Fish Wildlife and Parks for its attempt at building a coalition with hunters, outfitters, and livestock interests for the purposes of overturning Malloy’s wolf decision.

He’s tired of the one-sided state management which benefits only those special interests who want wolf management to have a heavy handed approach. It also looks like the FWP’s meeting violated state’s open meeting laws because it did not invite everyone in a timely manner.

Man threatens to sue FWP over wolf-ruling coalition.
Great Falls Tribune

38 Responses to “Man threatens to sue FWP over wolf-ruling coalition”

  1. Linda Hunter Says:

    The comments after the article show the same tone and predictable phrases that I see with any article like this. Sort of school yard bully mentality peppered with poor use of the English language and less constructive or informed than the reporter who wrote the article, if that is even possible.

    • jon Says:

      Linda, when articles about wolves are posted online, the first people to usually comment on them are the extreme anti wolfers and ofcourse, we can expect their comments to involve using poor english and referring to wolf advocates as tree huggers and liberals.

      • Layton Says:

        jon,

        Do you drink ALL of the green koolaid??

        When you first came to this blog all you did was cry and pout about people hurting wolves, now you learnedly spout off about “welfare ranchers”, “wolf haters”, etc.

        Is following along with the stereotypes about people that don’t love wolves as much as you think you do just the latest phase of the koolaid addiction? I’d be willing to bet that, if I did a bit of research, I could find just as many grammar and spelling mistakes on the wolfie side.

  2. Mike Says:

    Good for him! I can tell you I was sickened by the anti-wolf and anti-wildlife mentality during my visit to the Rockies this summer. Idaho seemed to be especially poisoned by this mentality. I noticed that Idaho never had a “wildlife” crossing sign, but rather a “game” crossing sign, as if these creatures are just something for us to put a boot on.

    • jon Says:

      Hi Mike, I am not surprised by the Idaho anti-wildlife mentality when it comes to wildlife. To them, wildlife only includes the game animals they hunt and all predators are viewed as vermin.

  3. Save bears Says:

    Hmmm,

    I don’t seem to be able read the comments after the news article…

    • jon Says:

      I don’t think they show up right away sb. Try waiting a bit and the comments should show up. May I ask what kind of web browser you are using? Using a good browser makes all the difference.

      • Save bears Says:

        Jon,

        I am running the latest version of Firefox, I also tried the latest version of IE, and just for kicks and giggles, I have Chrome on my machine as well.

      • Elk275 Says:

        Save Bears

        Down by the comments in the middle of the page is an arrow that says hide comments. Click on it. It worked for me.

    • JB Says:

      You’re not really missing much. Same old polarizing garbage.

      BTW: Best of luck in obtaining that job!

      • jon Says:

        sb, I think it would be in your best interest to get out of MT while you still can. This wolf war will only get cause. With emotions running high on both sides, something bad will most likely happen. I even hear some complaining about wolves in WA. Do you have any idea how many wolves are in WA right about now?

      • jon Says:

        I meant this wolf war will only get worse. I don’t see the anti wolf extremism stopping or going anywhere and I don’t see the lawsuits stopping.

  4. JimT Says:

    Maybe one has to register first before you can see the comments?

  5. Virginia Says:

    Good for you, JB! You have a lot of courage to file this complaint. You are definitely putting “your money where your mouth is” and I thank you for doing this for the wolves. You speak for those of us who agree with you that predators are not just annoying vermin who interfere with the hunters who want to kill other wildlife and the ranchers who are too lazy to monitor their animals.

    • jon Says:

      I already respected Jerry Black a lot, but now he gets a lot more respect from me for doing this. I don’t think there are very many lone environmentalists doing things like this, so it is good to know that one is willing to step up and try to do something about what he believes is something very wrong. No doubt he will most likely be a target for doing what he did from the opposition.

    • Ken Cole Says:

      A point of clarification, JB and Jerry Black are different people on this Blog.

      • Save bears Says:

        I can say, this should turn out to be an interesting turn of events!

      • Virginia Says:

        Thank you Ken – I should have known that you or Ralph would clarify that it was “our” JB, if, in fact, it was him. Well, I still say – whomever he is – good for him to be willing to fight for wildlife.

    • STG Says:

      Great comment Virginia.
      Wolves have become a symbolic target for political, economic and social fear that some individuals feel. Their reaction to wolves is so over-the-top, emotional and irrational. The wolf issue is not just content driven.

      • Ovis Says:

        The wolf issue has been gathered into the general Tea Party, I-hate-the-government; let’s-secede-from-the-United States issue.

        These people will destroy the United States. They should be investigated to see if they are getting money from foreign, anti-American interests.

      • Save bears Says:

        Oh Brother Ovis…anytime someone is unhapy with the government, they are automatically a Tea Party member, or they are trying to take the government over!

        That line is getting real old real quick!

  6. WM Says:

    Looks like I won’t win a popularity contest with this comment.

    My take is a little different. MT was a party to the suit, and its interests were affected by Judge Molloy’s ruling. If the interests of some of these other groups, who were also involved in the suit, or who were aligned with interests of those parties why should they not be allowed to meet to discuss next steps, without inviting those on the other side of the issue? Geez.

    And, on the other hand, when Jerry Black raised the issue on this forum a few days back, my inclination was to say if MT didn’t follow the “rules” on open meetings, whatever those are in MT, then keep them honest.

    But to be fair, just why would MT want to specifically invite environmental groups that had just defeated their interests in court to a “brainstorming” session, on what next steps to take? That part makes no sense to me at all.

    • Brian Ertz Says:

      the state of Montana is not a private interest – it’s interests are public.

      that being the case, there are public processes and principles which promote and ensure trust responsibilities, which include mechanisms that promote access and transparency to a variety of private interests.

      the state of Montana can’t just take a certain position in court, then expect to be principally (let alone legally) immune to open access/transparency principles or subject to privacy protections that individual private interests may enjoy.

      that’s bullshit

      • WM Says:

        So Brian,

        Are you saying that a state, or any other public entity, should air all of its legal strategy sessions in a public forum in the presence of adverse parties?

      • JimT Says:

        This wasn’t legal strategy; this was a purely political power gathering of like minded interest groups to see how they could develop a strategy for killing more wolves, and getting support for doing it, WM. Try another route.

      • JimT Says:

        Exactly right, Brian. Legally, the status of Montana being a government places upon it extensive responsibilities to conduct its business in a transparent fashion, more than private entities are subject to. WM knows this; he talks like a lawyer. He is just being difficult…;*)

      • WM Says:

        I am just trying to understand where the boundaries are for a state (public entity) to hold meetings to discuss “policy” or next steps in a “legal” matter. It appears there was ambiguity in the purpose of the meeting, how it was noticed, who was intivited/should be there and, from Jerry’s perspective, whether it complied with MT “open meeting” laws.

        I grant the idea of governemnt transparancy is very important, but I certainly don’t know where the line needs to be drawn for addressing next steps and “public involvement” with like minds or opposing interests. Seems there might be some gray area here. I simply don’t know.

        Those were my points, and as I said, if MT wasn’t playing by the rules, whatever they are, a challenge might be in order.

  7. Rita K.Sharpe Says:

    Why can’t everyone go to the meetings that lives there? I think everyone should have been given adequate time to attend.Everyone should have had the chance to attend;environmental groups or not.

  8. jon Says:

    What the anti wolfers don’t understand or want to accept is that wolves are apart of their wildlife, but they are treated as vermin instead.

  9. Virginia Says:

    Brian and JimT – you nailed it – the people are the states – citizens and taxpayers. States and other entities sometimes forget that we all are affected by their decisions. Power can corrupt and is a heady thing – and some do let it go to their heads. The federal government at this time is trying to keep state secrets from being divulged – we cannot allow these powers to destroy our rights as citizens.

    • WM Says:

      Virginia,

      I am curious. Do you consider yourself, first, to be a citizen of the state in which you live, or a citizen of the United States, and why?

      • Elk275 Says:

        We are residents of the state that we live in and citizens of the United States. But I am like Robert E. Lee, I will never draw my sword against my native Montana.

      • Alan Says:

        What a great question WM! If someone were to ask me that question I would say that I am a citizen of The United States first. Why? Because states are just invisible lines drawn on a map; The United States is an idea, one that had never been tried before, that all men are created equal. An idea of freedom and self-government; an idea that allows us to voice our opinions openly, as on this blog. An idea that says that we have a right to disagree with our elected officials, knowing the we elected them and we have the power to remove them.
        “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.” Have greater words ever been written?
        When I travel from state to state it goes mostly unnoticed, but when I travel outside of the United States you better believe I take notice!
        You and I may disagree about everything. We may disagree about wolves, wildlife management, guns, whether or not a mosque should or should not be built, etc. But we have a right to those beliefs, and to voice those beliefs, and to vote as we choose, not because we live in Montana or Wyoming or Idaho, but because we live in The United States of America. Too many people seem to forget that.

  10. Virginia Says:

    WM – both, because I am.

  11. STG Says:

    What about conflict of interest? Is the Montana FWP operating more like a advocacy group or lobbyist? Who or what interests are they suppose to represent as a public agency? What about transparency in government? What is their mission in terms of defined public policy?

  12. CaptainSakonna Says:

    Representative Denny Rehberg (Montana) now has a special place on his web site where people can leave comments about wolf management. Please let him know how you feel about Montana’s efforts to worm out of giving wolves their protection, especially if you are a Montana resident. http://rehberg.house.gov/index.cfm?sectionid=92&sectiontree=2%2C92


Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: