Congressman Denny Rehberg holding “Wolf Impact Hearings” in Montana

Don’t expect facts, just politics and ranting.

Do you want to speak your mind and tell Denny Rehberg what you think about wolves? Here’s your chance. Of course these “hearings” are just grandstanding and are being held only in areas where anti-wolf sentiment is strong but you can attend and let your voice be heard.

Issues like this are just a distraction from other real problems in Montana. Jobs, education, and other concerns are subservient to those of ranchers and the noble landed elite.

Don’t expect much factual information at these hearings. Oh, and while you are there you can meet Toby Bridger…. or is that Toby Bridges of LoboWatch fame.

Congressman Denny Rehberg : YOU`RE INVITED: Wolf Impact Hearings in Dillon, Hamilton, Kalispell.

20 Responses to “Congressman Denny Rehberg holding “Wolf Impact Hearings” in Montana”

  1. Cody Coyote Says:

    Yes, you have to wonder what Rehberg would hear if he held a further hearing in Bozeman . If he chooses to hear it at all….

    What a sham.

  2. Elk275 Says:

    Cody

    The last wolf meeting I went to in Bozeman there were about 150 people. Non of the pro wolf people said a word. There were only a few pro wolf people.

    • Daniel Berg Says:

      Why do you think none of the pro-wolf people spoke up at the meeting? Is that typical of the wolf meetings that you have been to?

    • jon Says:

      How did you know there was only a few pro wolf people there elk? Did you go around and ask everyone if they are pro wolf or anti wolf?

  3. Layton Says:

    Seems to me that a little while back, when there was an effort to build some sort of a coalition in Montana, there was much wailing and gnashing of teeth from a large number of participants on this blog about NOT being invited to attend.

    Now I see an invitation from a congressman that says “you’re invited” and the lead in says “it’s a sham”.

    I guess what needs to be said to make it all OK is something to the effect of “PLEASE wolfies, come and sing to the choir, we’ll just turn the whole meeting over to you”.

    Or would that even be enough?? Just askin’. 8)

    • JimT Says:

      It wasn’t an effort to build a coalition in the terms you imply, Layton. It was a very one sided partisan and inappropriate effort by state officials to rally folks to their viewpoint; opposing viewpoints and advocates were not invited. It was a joke. This is different in that is nominally an open process. Let’ see..pick the most liberal place in Montana…if there is one ;*), place a wolf hearing there, and hear the screaming of the anti wolf folks yelling FIX!! You think they would show up?

      As far as your point on participation….
      Geez, could the reason be the level of open rhetoric from the anti wolf folks threatening harm to supporter and a Federal judge? Could that have a chilling effect on open speech in places where names and home locations are known?

      I was recently warned by a friend in the Priest River area that if we came up to visit, we should sanitize our car from pro wildlife stickers or fact the real possibility of someone taking matters into their own hands. And this person is as apolitical as they come…I can just imagine if I lived there and took a public stance on the anti wolf views.

      Not that it would stop me..mind you..Someone has told me more than once that my totem animal is a badger…I tend to agree. Agreeable most of the time if left alone..but don’t threaten or back into a corner…~S~..

  4. Mike Says:

    The lunatic is on the grass
    The lunatic is on the grass
    Remembering games and daisy chains and laughs
    Got to keep the loonies on the path
    The lunatic is in the hall
    The lunatics are in my hall
    The paper holds their folded faces to the floor
    And every day the paper boy brings more

  5. william huard Says:

    Considering all the “voices of reason” in the hunter- rancher crowd, all these reasonable intelligent folk, it is not a stretch for people that favor wolves to feel intimidated by these “people”. Not to mention the fact that these people have no problem striking women just to prove their toughness! Like you Layton, I wouldn’t be afraid of you but I would think it would be best to leave my wallet at home.

    • Save bears Says:

      Jon,

      Layton didn’t make any statements that could be in support of Gillette, get off your freaking high horse and read what has been said..

    • ProWolf in WY Says:

      Ryan, I think he means where people understand that wolves will not eat all of the prey or they themselves would go extinct, where people do not believe animals exist only for us to shoot, and where people do not have irrational fears about animals like wolves and grizzlies.

  6. Barb Rupers Says:

    When was the first public announcent for these “impact hearings” made? The first reference I have found was on October 1; if so, it seems a bit short on lead time.
    As expected, it certainly looks like a stacked deck for a one way presentation.
    I used to live in Kalispel and would have second thoughts about speaking up for wolves at that hearing.

    • Save bears Says:

      Barb,

      It is a very short notice, but the writing was on the wall, as soon as the ruling came down, all the representatives stated what they were going to do, if the judge ruled to re-list them, so really it has been quite a bit of time in the making. I live north of Kalispell and I am not afraid to call a nut a nut when I am out and about…makes for good dinner talk! LOL I imagine, I am going to attend the meeting and I will call Denny on his shit when it gets out of hand..

      • jon Says:

        sb, are you going to ask Denny or Toby Bridges any questions? When you go to these type of meetings, are you one to ask questions or one that just sits there and observes what goes on? Have you met Denny before in person and Toby as well? If you have, have any opinions of them?

      • Save bears Says:

        I have never met Toby, really have no desired to meet him, he is another nutcase, that speaks from emotion and no knowledge, Denny, I have talked with many times as I have Baucus and Tester, I have no problem asking questions or calling bullshit, when I know for a fact what is being said is not as truthful as it can be…

        I worked against Conrad Burns when he was a congressman, and he knew me, I visited his office quite often and we beat that son of a bitch, I know he is now sick, but I never wished him ill well as I don’t Tester, Baucus or Rehberg, but when I don’t agree with what they are promoting, I have no problem telling them, so I imagine, I will ask questions as well as make statements based on my experience and what I know.

      • Save bears Says:

        In other words Jon, I am a vocal person, not a sit in the wings and listen person..probably why I got in so much trouble when I worked for FWP!

      • Barb Rupers Says:

        Save bears
        I appreciate your objective approach to wildlife issues and knowledge of so many. Keep up the dialog.

  7. Cody Coyote Says:

    For what it’s worth , the dtae time and location of the three Rehberg choir practices are posted in the story .

    I do note that the Bozeman rep for the Defenders of Wildlife, Mike Leahy , scheduled to wade into the Dillon session tomorrow ( October 5), amid a ledger of decidely anti-wolf reps of all stripes. My sympathies, Mike.

    The other two sessions are devoid of anyone remotely pro-wolf ( the Sierra Club -Misspoula rep didn’t confirm his token invite at Hamilton ….yet.).

    • Cody Coyote Says:

      P.S. I forgot to mention that Rehberg’s site is also accepting written comments via his website, Facebook , and Twitter.

  8. montucky Says:

    I wonder if, in his “hearings” Denny will make note of this story in the Flathead Beacon which notes, among other things that “Elk harvest totals, according to FWP, began rising in the early 2000s and have remained stable over the past four years.”.


Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: