Budgetary reprieve for wolves short-lived

Senator Tester gets delisting added to Senate version of the budget-

Tester amends federal budget bill to declare wolves recovered in Montana, Idaho. By Rob Chaney. Missoulian.

The recent CR (Continuing Resolution) that passed Congress avoiding a government shutdown for two weeks provided short term relief on wolf delisting by Congress, but it is just a short term measure while the Senate and the House argue over the budget.

As he said he would, Montana’s U.S. Senator Jon Tester got language added to the Senate’s final budget bill.  It seems to match the language on the House side that was inserted by Mike Simpson of Idaho. It delists the” wolf in Idaho and Montana, but not Wyoming. It prevents legal challenges to the delisting.

Here is the language, “SEC. 1709. Before the end of the 60-day period beginning on the date of enactment of this division, the Secretary of the Interior shall reissue the final rule published on April 2, 2009 (74 Fed. Reg. 15123 et seq.) without regard to any other provision of statute or regulation that applies to issuance of such rule. Such re-issuance (including this section) shall not be subject to judicial review.

Provision of this on both chambers of Congress pretty much guarantees the wolf will be delisted in Idaho and Montana. In Idaho, Governor Otter seems determined to have a wolf killing spree as soon as he and the GOP Tea Partiers are  done gutting the state’s education system, busting unions, and cutting Medicaid for those who are sick and poor.

You can contact U.S. Senators about this, asking that it be removed. We are still an uncertain distance from a budget because to the extreme differences between Republicans and Democrats on many parts of the budget. I expect sniping, possible government shutdowns, and unstable budgets to continue for quite a while.

 

99 Responses to “Budgetary reprieve for wolves short-lived”

  1. william huard Says:

    The key here is Senator Harry Reid. I don’t trust him. If Democrats think that by doing this will help them they are delusional. Republicans as deranged as they are at least stick to their principles. Allowing Tester to get away with this will create a major backlash with Democratic voters. If Tester would do this for his ranching interests then there is no difference between him and his predecessor Conrad Burns

    • Savebears Says:

      Tester is playing a very dangerous game, he is trying to appeal the republican base in Montana, as he is probably going to have quite a fight on his hands with Denny trying to win his seat. I don’t know how it will come out, the Democrats hold strong bases in a couple of towns in Montana, but as a whole, the state is more inclined to go republican in most elections.

      I know I campaigned for Tester because I did not like Burns at all, but I don’t know if he will be able to retain his seat against Rehberg, who despite all of the bad press he gets does have a very strong following in Montana..

      • william huard Says:

        Tester is screwed, because Democrats that value the ESA and environmental protections will not vote for him in 2012, and republicans will not vote for him in 2012 because of his support for other dem initiatives like the health care bill. The democrats would fare much better sticking to their core principles rather than to appear to be sacrificing wolves on the alter of one democratic senate seat

      • Savebears Says:

        Well if they don’t vote for Tester, then at this point there is only one alternative and that is Rehberg, the republican…like I said, it will be an interesting fight, but I suspect that Tester will be a one term senator…and I don’t believe that Rehberg is the right choice…

      • jon Says:

        There is no chance Tester is going to win. Anyone can see that he is trying to appeal to the hunters and he wants their vote. Montana is a republican state.

      • Savebears Says:

        Being honest, I think it the Dem’s want to retain the seat, the only person that might be able to do it, is the current sitting Governor…and he has not made any noise about running as of yet..

      • william huard Says:

        Well Tester beat Burns, and i bet most people in Montana didn’t see that coming. Burns did have some ethical issues where he was associated with Abramoff right? I know the environmental groups were happy to see him gone, but it doesn’t appear they are happy right now with Tester’s pandering to his rancher outfitter buddies

      • william huard Says:

        I was just going to say Schweitzer, but his positions on wildlife are baffling

      • jon Says:

        Speaking of Tester, looks like there is a little war going on on his facebook page with pro-wolf and anti-wolf advocates.

      • Savebears Says:

        Brian actually might make a good senator, knowing personally I have a different take on many of his positions, looking at him as Governor, as opposed to senator, gives a very conflicting picture to many people…but time will tell…

      • Savebears Says:

        Nothing new Jon…

      • Savebears Says:

        One thing I will add, if Tester is successful with his rider on the budget bill, then he might have a chance at winning..those that are not in Missoula are very focused on this wolf issue, which might be one of the big reasons he attached it…

      • jon Says:

        sb, tester can attach as many riders as he wants, but I still think he isn’t going to win. Montana is considered a republican state and republicans tend to vote for their own kind.

      • Savebears Says:

        Jon,

        We voted for Tester last time a democrat as well as electing and re-electing a democrat as governor, don’t be so quick to think you know so much about politics in Montana…

      • Elk275 Says:

        Jon Tester represents the State of Montana and it’s voters not the voters of the nation at large. The large majority of voters want the state to control the state’s wildlife not the federal government , that does not mean that the populous wants wolves removed only controlled. Montana has the largest percentage of licensed hunters to the total population of any state in the union. It was the hunter’s and fisher’s that stopped Senator Burns from additional environment deficiencies

        People do not want wolves to limit hunting or reduce hunting opportunities. Montana has a 5 week archery hunting season and a 5 week rifle season with most elk hunting over the counter tags. We do not want this reduced

      • jon Says:

        sb, Yes, I get that, but Montana is still and will always be known as a republican state.

      • Savebears Says:

        Jon,

        Boy I sure wish I knew how the political machine in your state works as much as you seem to think the political machine in the state I live works…one thing for sure, we will all know the outcome in 2012.

        Elk, I agree 100%

      • jon Says:

        You said it yourself. You said Rehberg has a very strong following and the main 2 reasons are is because he’s a republican and because he hates wolves.

      • Savebears Says:

        Seems to me, that with the upcoming elections that people would be focused on what their state senators position on the issues are, instead of what the state senators in Montana, Idaho and Wyoming’s positions are, we have very few representatives, so if you stick to getting those elected in your state that support your position, it would be prudent, because they can overrule our representatives..

      • william huard Says:

        Elk 275
        Although your points have merit adding a rider to a Senate CR bill to fund the government is not the right way to proceed on this wolf issue! Whatever happened to Wyoming’s role in this whole disaster?

      • Ralph Maughan Says:

        jon,

        Montana is not an inherently Republican state. Montana does have a progressive tradition of sorts and also a green tradition.

        Montana was long dominated by abusive corporations such as the Anaconda Corporation and Montana Power. Unions and other folks battled against them for years and with success. The result was suspicion of corporations among a significant part of the electorate.

        Idaho, on the other hand, had very little of this. When unions organized in the 1890s, the Republicans had the union (Wobbly) mine workers in northern Idaho thrown into concentration camps (called “bullpens”). Idaho unions finally had a little success, but they were always excessively cautious (in my opinion).

        The Mormons of agricultural Eastern Idaho were always conservative once the Great Depression hit.

        Montana and Idaho started to become more conservative in the 1980s as outsiders moved in and Republicans became increasingly successful at union busting. Republicans passed a “right-to-work-law” in Idaho in the late 1980s. This union busting measure worked quickly and by 1994 Idaho was a Republican lake. Today, there is little base for Democratic voters, and the Idaho legislature is busy attacking public school teachers right now in an effort to destroy the Idaho Education Association (one of the few influential organizations not controlled by Republicans). As in Wisconsin, the poor teachers are being demonized and attacked under the guise of budgetary problems.

      • Ralph Maughan Says:

        william huard,

        Regarding your question to Elk 275, Wyoming’s lone US Representative Cynthia Lummis tried to add Wyoming to the delisting measure in the budget, but her amendment was ruled out of order.

      • william huard Says:

        Thanks Ralph.

        My point is that the merits of Judge Malloy’s ruling seems to have been lost in all the political wrangling……At least at one point Idaho and Montana both had wolf management plans……Now with their true motivations made clear about wolf management it makes this rider by Tester seem even more ominous

      • WM Says:

        Ralph,

        I think you missed one very strong and wealthy influence, Denny Washington, who has tentacles in everything from Montana Rail Link (a former part of Burlington Northern, and union busting purchase), heavy construction and a number of out of MT interests.
        ________________________

        William,

        ++The democrats would fare much better sticking to their core principles rather than to appear to be sacrificing wolves on the alter of one democratic senate seat++

        You and other “purist” environmental advocates just don’t get it (Brian E, you monitoring this?). The more you stay on the sidelines, miffed by your view that compromising Democrats are selling out, you are going to get even less and less than what we with more moderate views want. The R’s love your attitude, and that is what cost D’s this mid-term election if Ralph and Brian are correct – nothing to motivate the D base. My view is simpler. If you don’t play (or vote even when while holding you nose) at all you get absolutely nothing. The sad part is that the rest of get nothing either, and the redneck reactionaries and teaparty folks carry the day. Yeah, your purist strategy works, but for what I am not sure. —–NOT winning!

      • william huard Says:

        WM
        If Tester produced a bill to strip ESA protections for wolves and it passed through the Senate I would feel alot better than the way Tester is trying to do it now, with a rider attached to a Senate Budget Bill. This IS NOT the way to get anything passed, with all the distraction it is not the democratic process. Remember when the democrats did all their vote buying during the health care bill, I was as disgusted with that process as anyone. It turned off alot of people. People don’t like all this backroom crap and dealmaking, but that is how Wash DC works

      • WM Says:

        william,

        You are right, unfortunately. The problem is that D.C. is twenty-six square miles surrounded by reality. And with each year reality gets further and further away from the self-dealing folks who smuggly think they can govern it- reality that is.

    • wolfsong Says:

      According to what I heard yesterday they feel that Harry Reid will support delisting.

      [audio src="http://archive.northernbroadcasting.com/nbs/VoicesOfMontanaSeg1-Friday.mp3" /]

      This is Raul Labrador from Idaho, first part is the wild lands issue, second part is on wolves.

      • william huard Says:

        Reid worries me- remember he was quoted by nutjob peabrain Peay as saying that he “wanted to get something done’ on the wolf issue. I don’t know if that was accurate or just another of Peay’s hallucinations

    • Phil Says:

      I am not a political follower, william, but I have learned more about politicians through the wolf issue then I have through any other issue. It is sad that the rest of the country is finding it difficult to put food on the table for their family and here are the senators of Montana, Wyoming and Idaho worried about wolves because a handful of people are throwing money in their faces to do so.

    • JimT Says:

      ELK 275,
      Last time I checked, Montana was still a state and subject to Federal laws, like it or not. And Testor took an oath to uphold those laws, not subvert them based on very parochial interest groups like hunters, grazing and outfitters. This isn’t the days of the Colonies, where states were independent contractors of sorts and the idea of a federal government was still new. Nor is it the days of yore when everyone depended on hunting for survival. Your prioritization of what is for most people a recreational pursuit does not justify the kind of gutting of a Federal law like the ESA. Wolves are part of a healthy Western ecosystem and have missing too long to allow a state to take ove “management” disguised as intent to extirpate them..again.

      • Elk275 Says:

        Jim T

        If they change the law they change the law. The last I knew congress can pass laws or rescind laws. Tester is upholding his oath of office; he is allow to introduce legislation than will make a new law or change an existing law. How exactly is he violating his oath of office by introducing any legislation. Or has the ESA become so sacred that it sacrilegious to even think about change.

        If he is subverting the ESA based on very parochial interest groups then I think every congressman and senators are doing the same thing with their own parochial interest groups whether it is finance, education, housing, military, health care, etc. What ever happens is democracy and politics. There are those who are going to like or dislike a given legislative action regardless of what it is. That is the workings of a republic.

      • JimT Says:

        The method he is using is cowardly and feckless.. If enough federal legislators feel the need to debate changing the ESA, do it openly during the normal process. He is posturing to keep his job at the expense of a species who BELONGS in the West after too many decades of absence; and he is now opening the door for other states to kowtow to big campaign contributors like he is doing to grazing, guiding and yes, hunters who think that tens of thousands of elk are never enough.

        Sure, he can introduce legislation, but don’t expect me to believe you would calmly support such an action as this if it was threatening the existence of elk, for example, or limiting land open to hunting. I don’t support this kind of crap for any major changes; The Senate needs to change this kind of nonsense, along with some other dysfunctional rules.

        The substantive reasons are objectionable enough–politics instead of science, special interest power at its worst and most destructive, extreme marginalization and probably extinction of the wolf again. The mechanism he is using to accomplish such a substantive change in a major environmental law is craven, plain and simple.

  2. william huard Says:

    People should not underestimate the influence Senior Senators like Kerry, Boxer, Durbin, and Schumer will have at stripping this ill-informed rider from the Senate Resolution Bill. Next week wolves, the next grizzlies. Dangerous path we are on

    • Phil Says:

      william: I called a few senators earlier today and left a message in their DC offices. One of the senators I called was Boxer, along with Cardin, Udall and Stabenow. I got the phone numbers from an email sent to me from “Living with Wolves-Dutches”.

  3. william huard Says:

    Jon-
    Tester’s facebook page is hilarious. You have the toothless wonder Bruce calling everyone that doesn’t share his distorted world view a NAZI, and WTT Billie Joe BOB is debating a teenager who is holding his own very well.

  4. Phil Says:

    SaveBears: Wow! There goes that perception of “leave us living in ____ alone and let us do what we want to do.” The problem is that the issues that your senators are bringing up are not valid just to people who live in the states, they are shared by all of us. It is NOT your wildlife, it belongs to the ecosystems in the country we ALL live in. Without the rest of the country, your two biggest money drawings to your economy would not occur (tourism and the meat industry). We will worry what people like you and your senators will do about the wolf and wildlife issue because it is it does not belong to you, it belongs to the country that we all belong to.

    • Savebears Says:

      Phil,

      There you go again, trying to infer what I was saying, I said, if you get the right senators elected in your state, then it can and often does make our senators a moot point..

      I am not for slaughtering wolves you jerk, I never have been and never will be, I was in favor of wolf re-introduction, I was there the day they were released on Yellowstone, I lobbied to get them re-introduced…

      As far as who owns them, I have just as much ownership as you do when it comes to wildlife..

      As far as Tester goes, believe me your going to hate it a lot more if Rehberg is elected..he is not a moderate at all..he wants wolves gone!

      Do you have a brain block going on? Because you try to tell me what I said, when it fact it is completely different..

    • Savebears Says:

      I did not say, leave us alone, I said worry about your senators..

      I would love to see the results of a national poll on wildlife issues, because you will find most people don’t really give a crap about them, they are worried about jobs, retirement and health care…

    • Savebears Says:

      And to add, I have wrote enough hard copy letters as well as made phone calls to stop the legislative de-listing of wolves to fill a 5 drawer file cabinet on wolves…as well as letters for bison issues and bears..

  5. Phil Says:

    SaveBears: Leave the wolves, cougars, bears, etc alone, and the rest of us will leave what you and your senators do alone. Deal? Because the mass slaughtering of wolves is not an issue that all, or even most people who live in Monatana agree with. You say management, but we see from your “Tester” slaughtering. You really need to look at the latest survey on your statement. Tester confides not to “Montanans”, but to hunters and ranchers.

    • Savebears Says:

      No, I won’t leave wolves, cougars and bears alone, I have just as much at stake as you do…

    • Elk275 Says:

      Phil

      Most voters in Montana are hunters, ranchers, farmers, miners, weekend campers, skiers and fishers. Those who are not, really do not care one way or another. I just saw a number of them who do not care — obese and morbidly obese people pushing a overflowing grocery cart of sugar carbs with a new wide screen TV to Cosco’s check counter.

      People are here for a reason, the nation’s best hunting and fishing. More people are moving here to hunt and fish than to be a “non consumptive” user of wildlife. Nobody or is going to slaughter wolves. Wolves are here and will be here and should be here but they will be managed, not for an eco system but for the tolerance of the population, carrying capacity of the land and their effect on ungulates. Like it or not that is the way it is going to be.

      • william huard Says:

        It doesn’t say alot for humans when we have to kill them to show tolerance- sounds crazy. “If we can kill a bunch of em then we can let a few live” That’s mighty white of you

      • william huard Says:

        “Wolves are here and will be here and should be here but they will be managed, not for an ecosystem but for the tolerance of the population” Therein lies the problem. You just said it, it has nothing to do with science and everything to do with the politics of humans feeling superior to nature

      • Phil Says:

        Elk: You don’t think that going from 1,700 wolves in the region to around 300 is slaughtering? “People are moving here to hunt and fish than to be a “non consumptive user of wildlife”. Not all, elk, but some do. A lot of people move to those states for retirement and mainly fishing rather then hunting. No doubt some do for hunting, but you make it seem like everyone does. So, anyone who does not care about hunting or the wolf issue is obese and overweight? You really need to think what is realistic and what is not. I am nearly 6 feet and weigh almost 200 lbs with less then 6% body fat on me, does that make me obese? I am a vegetarian who barely eats carbs (I do at times because carbs are vidal for survival). From what I have seen, most hunters I have seen and been in contact with are out of shape.

      • jon Says:

        Elk, are you forgetting that Idaho now wants only 100 wolves in their state? There are over 1000 wolves now in Idaho. That is over 900 wolves that are going to be killed. You don’t feel this is a slaughter?

  6. Savebears Says:

    Christ Phil,

    We did have a productive conversation going on here, then you show up with your bullshit and try to take it another direction.

    And no, I am not angry, but I am amazed at your ability to presume what someone means…

    • Phil Says:

      It is not bullshit SaveBears. You do not want anyone who does not reside in Montana to have any say in what should occur with the wildlife that makes your state so beautiful. Tourists do not come to see the hunters, ranchers or the small towns the state has, they come to see nature and the abundant amounts of wildlife that other states with larger human population have. Just because you live there does not mean that you own rights to wildlife or nature.

      • Savebears Says:

        Well Phil,

        I do happen to feel it is bullshit, you have a tool available to you, that actually can control us that live in Montana, but yet, your more interested in directly engaging us, we have very few senators, in fact if I remember right, it is 44 against 6, paying attention to what your senators are doing and what their positions are, would seem to be more productive..

      • Phil Says:

        SaveBears: The tool that the rest of the country has to Montana is bringing an economic stature to your state. No one has complete control of your state with the exception of your freedom and your senator’s responses to your freedom. Certain people in your state want to use this freedom for their own criteria and not what is in the best interest for all involved. Here in Michigan, where the hunting seasons are at or better then in Montana, we do not have the “It’s my state and we will do what we want with aspects in issues relating to everyone in the country.” Hunters and tourists come to the upper portion of Michigan for either the beauty of wildlife and nature, or for hunting. I am sure there are people who have similar “My state and not yours” theory, but as a state, we do not feel this way. Without people buying cars the state is basically immobilized, so we need the country for our economy, just like Montana needs the country in regards to the meat industry and tourism.

      • Savebears Says:

        Well Phil,

        As our state legislature voted to nullify Federal law, and forgo, 2 billion dollars worth of Federal aid, it seems those elected feel differently than you do..

        And really for the most part, I could care less what Michigan does..

      • Elk275 Says:

        Phil

        You sound more like a pissed off non resident hunter who cannot draw a western states hunting license and feels that he/she should have an equal chance in the allocation of tags than a wildlife advocate because it is federal land. Then feels that both non resident and resident should pay the same price for licenses because it is federal land and we all pay taxes for the maintenance of federal lands.

        But they forget that the courts in 1978 rule:
        Baldwin v. Fish and Game Commission of Montana, 436 U.S. 371 (1978), is a United States Supreme Court case that affirmed the right of the state of Montana to charge higher fees for out of state elk hunters.[1] The Court held that the Montana statutory elk-hunting license scheme is an economic means not unreasonably related to the preservation of a finite resource—elk—and a substantial regulatory interest of that State, and hence does not violate the Equal Protection Clause or the Privileges and Immunities Clause.

  7. Savebears Says:

    Another thing, the only way your going to get this thrown off the budget bill is talk to your senator, talking to the other states senators has little effect, lobby your senator to remove this rider…lobbying my senator will do no good at all, he introduced it and he is all for it…

    Phil, you might know something about wildlife, but you seem to have very little understand of how politics work..

    • Phil Says:

      SaveBears: I spent 45 minutes earlier today calling many different senators, including my own. They were not in office with it being the weekend, but I left a message. Some that I called was Stabenow and Peters (Michigan), Udall (New Mexico), Cardin (Maryland) and Boxer (California).

      SaveBears: The topic is wolves and you come with statements basically to excluse anyone’s opinions in wildlife related issues in your state. Your name is “SaveBears”, what is your opinion in people who hunt bears because of their belief of the similarities between bears and wolves?

      • Savebears Says:

        Phil,

        I have no opinion on that, because I don’t know anyone that believes bears and wolves are similar…

        Again, I will say, I have no interest in engaging with you, and I would hope that you won’t engage me..you live in a fantasy world, the rest of us have to live in the real world..

        And if you will review my statements, I have never said I want to exclude anyone’s opinion, just because I disagree, does not mean I want them excluded..

        I am a conservationist, I fight for wildlife every single day, I engage many more people than are just on this particular blog, I go to Helena quite often…and believe it or not, I do actually care about your opinions, but your bullshit way of saying we mean less than you is quite condescending..

        Part of what is going on with Bison in Montana, is because of the feasibility studies I have done over the last few years, in looking at where they can be relocated on Montana public lands..

      • Phil Says:

        SaveBears: When I say certain hunters believe bears and wolves are similar, I mean in the affects of ungulate, livestock, etc and not behaviors, traits, characters, etc. “Fantasy world”, but it is you that stated that hunting should occur to a species with a low population, right? I am also a conservationist, but I also spend time in the NRM region helping out the economy to states, and for you to basically disregard non-Montana residents in their opinions to your wildlife is saying “We don’t need you or anything you do for our state.” Maybe you did not directly say that, but from some of your statements you made to me previously, jon and a few others, that is what it seems like.

  8. Mtn Mama Says:

    Phil & Savesbears, We wolf advocates need to present a unified front. All of this fussin between each other is a wate of energy. time out please. Breathe. Thank you.

    • Savebears Says:

      Problem is Mtn Mama, there are some that think if you don’t do it their way, then your opinion is not valid and has not meaning, Phil happens to be one of those type of people..

  9. timz Says:

    I don’t supposethere is much chance the nutless one, Obummer will veto it.

    • william huard Says:

      I doubt it, he’s probably relying on rancher Ken to handle the situation

    • Rita K.Sharpe Says:

      Timz,I don’t think Obummer will veto it.He doesn’t seem to stand up under pressure or hold his own.I don’t think I would ever hear him say”If you can’t stand the heat,get out of the kitchen.”(Harry S.Truman).

      • Phil Says:

        Rita: I voted for Obama, and I now strongly regret it. I agree with your statement in that Obama has not grown any balls of his own and done anything that he believes is right. He is a “yes” man to basically any congressman/women in anything they want, and has carried a large amount of Bush’s decisions with him.

      • Phil Says:

        The problem was that it was either Obama or McCain with Palin on his side. Bad choice no matter who, and I did not know much about the thrid party, if there was one in that manner.

      • Savebears Says:

        Well Phil, you should have paid attention to the third party, I did and that is who I voted for..

    • Savebears Says:

      Nope,

      The Anointed one, will not veto it..

      • Phil Says:

        SaveBears: It was the “change” portion that I followed from Obama which is clearly now a load of crap.

      • Savebears Says:

        Phil,

        If you had really paid attention as I did, it was a load of crap the day he burst on the National scene, I said that 2 years ago on this blog and got blasted…Obama was nothing more than a patsy for the party…

      • timz Says:

        If you held a drop trouser contest between Barry Hussein and the first lady no doubt in my mind, she would have bigger gnads.

      • Phil Says:

        SaveBears: I was never a follower of the political world. I had the right to vote and use my voice in what should and should not occur in this country, and I did. I chose the best person I thought at the time, but both were speaking out of their asses. If it weren’t for Palin and her “soccer mom” poser mentality, then I would have definately voted for McCain.

      • Phil Says:

        At that time, and hopefully she will in 2012, I was hoping that Hillary Clinton would be the candidate for the Democtratic party.

      • Savebears Says:

        Problem is Phil,

        Really think back in history, how important has the Vice President been? Palin didn’t mean a damn thing, it was the policies of McCain we should have been paying attention to, not the fact he chose a nobody from Alaska…

        And really when it comes down to it, the important elections are for the representatives, they are the ones that can make of break us, not the President..

      • Phil Says:

        SaveBears: Palin was bigger news as the vice-presidential candidate then McCain was. There was a higher spotlight on her then McCain and Obama from people who approved her and ones that did not. I truly believe she would have had a large amount of power on many issues no matter how much past vice presidents had.

      • Phil Says:

        Didn’t the Republican party give here more money for her travels, clothes, etc then they did to McCain?

      • Savebears Says:

        Phil,

        The problem is, you and many others listen to the for profit media in this country and don’t really dig in and find out what is going on…it is a sad state of affairs when our presidents are chosen this way..when we should be focusing on the congress, they are the ones that actually control things in this country..not the President or the Vice President…

      • Phil Says:

        SaveBears: I did follow the news on both the candidates, but also listened in (for the first time) on the debates and how the candidates answered questions, body posture, eye contact and tone of voice. I saw Palin in her debate with Biden and basically did not try to compete with him, instead putting the spotlight on Obama through Biden. She was not speaking out of term of the vice-presidency, she was speaking out of understanding that she would have enough power in say that McCain would have had if he won.

      • timz Says:

        “it is a sad state of affairs when our presidents are chosen this way..when we should be focusing on the congress, they are the ones that actually control things in this country..not the President or the Vice President…”

        Absolute bull shit, they are all controlled by wall-street and big money. It’s laughable to say anyone in government controls anything. They are all puppets with their strings attached to the money brokers that put them their. We have the best government money can buy and if you ain’t got any, too bad for you.

      • Phil Says:

        timz: Good point.

      • Savebears Says:

        Timz,

        for once I am going to have to agree with you, Wall Street has far to much power..

      • timz Says:

        And the sad fact is most everybody with have a brain knows it’s the way it is and we just seem to shrug our shoulders and say “oh well”, and sit back and watch the press and staus quo beat down any one who tries to say it shouldn’t be this way.

  10. Alan Says:

    Any budget bill that he can half-way live with (that is: doesn’t de-fund his health care bill and slash and burn too much of the government), he is going to sign, and claim a victory. We need line item veto in this country, plus restrictions on what can be attached to what bill. We need them but will probably never get them.
    Besides, isn’t it the policy of this administration that they want wolves de-listed too? Ideal chance to say, “Hey, we had to sign this bill to keep the government running”.
    More and more it really is the “lesser of two evils” when you vote. One thing I know is that Rehberg will not get my vote, EVER. Hopefully someone half-way decent runs againt Tester in his own party (Schweitzer would be just that ‘half-way’). We really need to keep the right-wing-nuts from taking the Senate, though; even if that ultimately means a vote for Tester.

  11. Nancy Says:

    Rita – The sad (and very confusing) fact is, from what I can gather, the numbers don’t add up as in elk & livestock depredations by wolves, yet “the heat” is on full blast in order to get that concerned minority “out of the kitchen” where that lifestyle has been pampered and cuddled for decades.

    • Rita K.Sharpe Says:

      Nancy sorry I was talking about obama ,which I do not feel like he will veto the bill.if it passes the kitchen. I don’t think he will stand up to the repulicans and send it back..

  12. mikarooni Says:

    Ralph, you’re a former political science prof and there are plenty of the rest of you who are in practice. I may not have seen it; but, have any of you weighed in here someplace on the constitutionality of law that is internally written to be above judicial review? I understand that the current SCOTUS is dominated by less than stellar justices, to say the least; but, checks and balances and judicial review are pretty well established in constitutional law. Why am I wrong to think that this amendment is ridiculous and won’t pass muster?

    • Salle Says:

      Not wrong.. only how does one bring the SC to rule in favor of a Constitution that half of them don’t support or maybe don’t understand? And who would back such a case until it is “ripe” for the SC? And how to keep a just case from getting scuttled along the way? And will they grant certiorary or deny it? ~ after all, they do pick and choose what cases to hear.

      I was just reading some rather damning essays on our government and how it selects people like Bradley Manning and Tim DeChristopher to use as examples of what they won’t tolerate with regard to justified civil disobedience, it’s scary and who would be willing to sit in a prison or federal brig without recourse if the gov’t isn’t going to allow civil disobedience?

      Those are the kind of things that worry me to the point of grinding my teeth at night and justify my cynicism.

      Con Law is great if you can get others to understand it but I think that the current powers that be have other ideas and I think that some of those alleged conspiracy theories aren’t exactly conspiracy theories but actual reality. A worrisome set of concerns, this topic is only one of the many we are being hit with by those who can’t stand to have equality.

    • Dude, the bagman Says:

      There’s a difference between limiting judicial review of the reinstated delisting rule, and limiting the judicial review of the constitutionality of the law itself.

      Congress has the power to exempt legislation it creates from the judicial review requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act (itself just a law Congress created). The APA applies to rules created by administrative agencies (like the delisting rule that this law reinstates, which was created by FWS). This bill would essentially turn that rule into a law of equal status of the APA, which would therefore not be subject to the APA’s “arbitrary and capricious” standard of review.

      However, Congress can’t exempt its laws from judicial review of constitutionality. That would blatantly violate the separation of powers doctrine.

      This bill just says that you can’t judicially challenge the rule’s reasoning, supporting evidence, or whether the APA’s rulemaking process was followed. This is permissible because it’s no longer just an administive rule, but a law.

      • JimT Says:

        Congress can also overturn this travesty in the future if it doesn’t get derailed.

        Next battle…drilling in ANWR..Again.

    • Salle Says:

      “What’s disturbing is he says it’s none of the voters’ business how he votes for the laws of the land…”

      Geezuz. I think we’re there… the gig is up, democracy seems like an off-ramp that just went whizzing by back there somewhere.

  13. Alan Gregory Says:

    Media coverage continues to hammer away at the “save the elk” mantra. As if wolves are supposed to eat granola bars, instead.

    • william huard Says:

      Then they would be called hippie, liberal, tree hugging wolves. Chinese take out would be better

    • jon Says:

      It’s save the elk so we hunters can kill them. Bob Fanning runs the organization friends of the northern yellowstone elk herd. Do friends usually shoot their friends? I think not.

  14. JimT Says:

    Tell me if I missed the proclamation in Montana from Testor establishing the Church of the Elk as the official state religion…:*) And the footnote declaring the Wolf is the Anti-Christ…

  15. william huard Says:

    I hope people are continuing to call Sen Reid’s office. I have called every day. I politely ask if the reports are true that Sen Reid would actually sell out wolves and the ESA

  16. JimT Says:

    Reid will do it; no wolves in Nevada means he doesn’t have to deal with the vote impact. Don’t look to Reid to derail this…

    • WM Says:

      The very interesting thing about this approach, which JimT describes above, is that the issue of delisting through a backhand change to the ESA limited only to wolves in the NRM DPS is that it may be politically expedient for those wishing to avoid political liabilities of a fight. Think D’s who have mixed feelings over this and may even strongly oppose it, and who would find it a political liability to vote in favor of, or even opposing, a change to the ESA in open debate. This allows them to seek cover, while reluctantly saying they could not oppose it, because it was more important to keep the government funded and running with an approved budget.

      Think about it for a moment and see if you don’t reach the same Machavelian conclusion – as distasteful a sellout it might be for some.

      • JimT Says:

        I think WM is (sadly) onto something. Lord knows that Senators and Reps from both sides of the aisle are more than happy to duck an issue when they can, even if it goes against their (ahem) announced principles and stands. I am and will remain puzzled about Mark Udall’s lack of a public stance on this issue. Frankly, he is risking a strong backlash from environmental supporters in Boulder and Denver..two political areas he cannot win an election without. And I think..slowly, Western Dem voters are getting sick of their elected officials rolling over, or running to the Center when the Right gets louder and get their way more often because they stand firm no matter how ridiculous the stand.

        I find this kind of legislative sleight of hand to be reprehensible no matter the party. Substantive changes to any major laws should be debated in open session. It is hard enough to get something through in the Senate especially, but law making needs to be in the open. And the waiver of judicial review is just a slap in the face of citiizens who may hold a different opinin.


Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: