Some groups settle on wolf delisting lawsuit; others don’t

Groups pursue different strategies for a variety of reasons-

I suppose there might be different statements from some of the groups. I think the differences were based on differing perceptions of what the future holds in terms of legislation and the worthiness of the Administration’s position of protecting the existing population of wolves.

Personally, I think the idea that there needs to be 5000 wolves is wrong as well as politically unpopular. The existing wolf population of about 1600 is robust and genetically healthy, but both could change.

Settlement offer splits wolves’ supporters; law firm withdraws.  By Eve Byron. Helena Independent Record.

81 Responses to “Some groups settle on wolf delisting lawsuit; others don’t”

  1. jon Says:

    I’m sure some wolf advocates will be mad by this because some don’t want to see any wolves killed. I’m one of those people, but at the same time, I accepted sooner or later, wolves will be taken off the esl. You know the hunters/ranchers will continue to whine, so this is probably the best way to shut them up. We now need to build up the wolf populations in places like NM, OR, WA, etc…….

  2. jon Says:

    Ralph, will these hunts most likely take place in the fall? You know that nut from MT wants a spring hunt.

  3. Brian Ertz Says:

    asking a judge to vacate a decision for political reasons is a political intervention into the justice system that’s wrong in its own right.

    i don’t believe this question was about number of wolves on the landscape – it’s a rift among parties that tests each’s regard for the legitimacy of the rule of law versus the political.

    groups that want to settle have a higher regard for the political – and it’s a direct consequence of acting from fear.

    you can’t stab a judge in the back the way these groups are posturing at – and from my perspective, to have any integrity at all, you can’t lend a hand to the anti-wolf/anti-ESA crowd by aiding in the political dirty work by extending your efforts in a way that dismantles the just application of the law/ESA as is being proposed.

    this is exactly what is wrong with the corporate conservation paradigm – too afraid of their own shadow, too afraid of the strength and integrity of existing protections for wolves – they back down and lend a hand to those engaged in incremental sabotage so that they can say they had a hand in an outcome that falls somewhere short of their worst projected fears.

    shame.

  4. Daniel Berg Says:

    Forgive my legal ignorance, but what are the potential outcomes now that some groups involved in the lawsuit now want to settle and allow delisting, and others don’t?

    • Brian Ertz Says:

      those that want to settle will have to either ask Judge Molloy to vacate or enjoin his previous decision re-listing wolves – otherwise, the decision stands.

      Those that don’t want to settle will likely have to argue against the judge taking such action.

      It is likely that those that are settling will have to demonstrate that the judge somehow erred in his previous decision.

      There is no indication that a settlement will prevent Tester or others from pursuing legislative delisting anyway, though it seems from what the articles suggest that those who advocate for settlement are calculating that a settlement might prevent such from taking place.

      • wolfsong Says:

        That is my exact concern, if there isn’t anything IN THERE to prevent legislative action, then they are just flat giving up and giving in to politics.

  5. Phil Says:

    I would not mind a settlement if it was properly done, but it seems like the NRDC, DOF and Sierra Club just gave up on the issue because they believed it would eventually go against their beliefs. Does anyone know what the exacts are to the settlement? What ar the plans now going to be? As far as for Earthjustice, they basically threw in the towel. I do not know much regarding the world of lawsuits and such, but no matter what the conflicts were with regards to the groups in favor of keeping wolves on the protection list, Earthjustice should continue their pursuit in protecting wolve and not give to pull themselves out.

  6. Phil Says:

    Never mind on a question I posted on my last comment. I actually found the answer on another article. So, basically the advocate groups that settled are settling to maintain protection of wolves in Washington, Utah, Wyoming and Oregon, as well as for the FWS to change their old population numbers of wolves? It still seems like they are throwing in the towel, but I can see why they are doing what they are. It staed that these groups were afraid that western congressmen would intervene on the issue and is one reason as to why they settled, but hasn’t that already occured? There has to be something deeper behind the scenes as to why these advocate groups settled on the plans.

  7. wolfsong Says:

    What will this do to ESA protection for wolves in states where there aren’t any, such as Colorado?

  8. JimT Says:

    This is a HUGE gamble, and one, personally and legally, I think is a very very very risky approach. As details of the settlement language are released, I think we all will have a better understanding..not necessarily an agreement with..of the reasons behind it, but I think Brian has a good point in the belief of the political vs. legal paradigm.

    Perhaps the reason that NO Democratic Senator has stepped up publicly to denounce this attack on the ESA is that the White House and Salazar have basically told them to stay out of it because of the “tilting at windmills” hope they will keep a majority in the Senate in 2012. It won’t happen; too many seats of the Dems are up, and too many seats are vulnerable.

    Who knows? The anti ESA crowd may not agree to the settlement, figuring that it signals a lack of will to fight in the courts, and that they will get what they want via the budget bill amendment process anyway.

    Ralph, perhaps we may have to agree to a hunt, but there is no assurances that the populations will be left alone enough to stay biologically diverse and healthy if this Gang of Three state alliance is allowed to have its own program.

    • william huard Says:

      Do you trust Idaho and Montana? I sure as hell don’t. Wyoming speaks for itself- they are still living in the 20’s

      • wolfsong Says:

        Wyoming will always live in the 20’s. I’ve lived on both ends of the state my entire life and they never change, and at times seem to prefer going backward!

        I trust Idaho about as much as I do a rattlesnake, in fact I trust the snake more. I have mixed feelings on Montana, Brian is very hard to read.

      • JimT Says:

        No, that is my point with Ralph. There is no trusting this latest version of the Sagebrush nonsense, especially on wolves. Ranchers hate wolves; the elk community hate wolves. Period.

      • jon Says:

        The other day I caught a video on wolves in Wyoming and they interviewed an outfitter by the name of BJ Hill. You should have seen him when he was asked about wolves. With the way he was talking about wolves, you’d think the wolves are the devil’s minions. Some of these people are very extreme and they hate wolves very much. I guess they just want to blame something when they have a hard time finding their clients game.

      • BobofWyoming Says:

        Obviously you ment 1820’s

      • william huard Says:

        I really wish it wasn’t so

    • Phil Says:

      Jim: But, with the current ways of the Republicans that are in office now, can they be assured that they will have this many seats in 2012? I am not a politician, but aren’t local elections of many of the congressmen and women done every 2 years?

    • Ralph Maughan Says:

      JimT,

      I posted the settlement language in the article I wrote about WWP stands firm.

      So folks can read and see if they are impressed. Judge for yourself.

  9. william huard Says:

    WWP understands the issues better than anyone. Let them take the lead and fight!

  10. JimT Says:

    It will be very hard if not impossible for the Dems to get back that many seats in the House in 2012, so that will stay in Republican hands. And normally, I would say you could rely on some strong environmental Dems in the Senate to use the filibuster to keep any kind of separate bills from passing there if that comes to pass, but it appears as if certain Senators in the West who relied on strong environmental support to get elected have suddenly forgotten that support or their promises.

    • william huard Says:

      I know for a fact that Saunders and Mark Udall voted against these budget bills in large part because of the ESA language. Boxer, Cardin, Kerry, Whitehouse, Sherrod Brown, Merkeley, Franken I believe will not let us down. The farther removed this issue is from the budget debate the more in our favor it is

      • JimT Says:

        The last budget bill was easy to vote against; that was a done deal before the House Bill came in, and the Senate Bill came in. What I am looking for a strong, proactive, defense of the ESA and this backdoor attempt to gut it. So far…..

  11. jon Says:

    http://earthjustice.org/blog/2011-march/fight-to-protect-gray-wolf-shifts-to-capitol-hill

    “This is not the end of the fight—not by a long shot. We fully intend to be back in court fighting for the wolves when the time is right. For now, the battle is on Capitol Hill.”

    • Phil Says:

      Jon: This article further proves that I know next to nothing about lawyers and lawsuits. Correct me if I am wrong, but Earthjustice was forced to step down because some of their clients accepted this settlement? How many wolves will be killed by the next time Earthjustice is back in court protecting them?

      • jon Says:

        I think so Phil. 10 out of 14 groups agreed to have wolves delited in Montana and Idaho. When you have 4 groups who don’t want wolves delisted and you have 10 others who do, you will probably run into problems if you are their lawyers.

      • jon Says:

        I imagine a lot Phil. I wonder what is going to happen now in idaho. Their state has said they want only 100 wolves and I believe and others do as well that there are 1000 plus wolves in IdaHO. You are looking at over 900 wolves killed. I hope the federal govt won’t allow this to happen, but I don’t think there is much we can do about it.

      • Phil Says:

        But, if they are fully delisted, wouldn’t the FWS have to revise their set goal of population before the hunts begin? If the “winning” side is settling, then don’t they have the authority to call some of the shots and not the other side? One major implication was to have the FWS revisit their plan of a set population, wouldn’t they have to do that before any form of hunt can occur?

      • jon Says:

        I believe so Phil, but I’m not certain of it. Having a wolf population of 1000 and getting it down to 100 wolves is obviously not a plan based on science. The 4 groups that didn’t agree with delisting wolves will continue their fight. This is not over by a long shot and Molloy still has to sign off on this agreement.

  12. Izabela Hadd Says:

    Jon,
    What’s next? Calling Obama? or Salazar?

    • william huard Says:

      The focus should be on the Democratic Senators. Start with the ten or so that are on the Environment Committee. Nabeki has posted all the contact info on her website
      Keep pressure on the majority leader Reid

  13. jon Says:

    This is just my opinion, but I think certain groups caved in because some people were going after the endangered species act.

    • jon Says:

      And one has to remember that Donald Molloy has to sign off on this agreement. What happens if he doesn’t? jimt? Ralph?

      • Dan Says:

        the beginning of the end for a strong ESA

      • JimT Says:

        It is often NOT a good idea to be seen pleading with a judge to take your side, take your side, and then come in, and say “never mind”. He certainly can refuse to sanction the settlement, but must have grounds based in law to do so. Keep in mind that Malloy is now on Senior Status, which means any new litigation goes to a different and presumably less sympathetic judge.

      • Brian Ertz Says:

        He certainly can refuse to sanction the settlement, but must have grounds based in law to do so.

        the grounds by which to refuse settlement are the very grounds upon which he already decided in wolf advocates’ favor. i think the burden will be on those who want to settle to prove that it’s legal (which it’s likely not), they’ll be the ones asking molloy to effectively sanction a delisting rule the judge as already decided is unlawful.

    • jon Says:

      “Guardians is also concerned that the wolves are being sacrificed due to antagonism from just a tiny portion of the American public – those ranchers and hunters hostile to wolves, and the politicians that are working at their behest. In contrast, wolves are wildly popular with the American public and one of the principal draws to Yellowstone National Park.

      “It doesn’t matter from the wolf’s perspective whether they’re killed because of actions by Congress or this settlement. These animals need more protections, not less,” stated Nicole Rosmarino of WildEarth Guardians. “Biologists have issued peer-reviewed articles documenting that wolves have not yet recovered in the Northern Rockies, and that killing them has profound negative influences on their social stability, ability to carry out their ecological function, and their ability to persist.”

      • JimT Says:

        This has always been the case. Ranchers and other industries..and ranching IS an industry, ,not a family occupation the way they would like the public to believe…have always held way too much power over how the lands and species are managed in the West. Unfortunately, we seem to have forgotten the lessons of the 70s and 80s when we actually fought for our issues; when we had spunk and spine. Now…Western Dems..and I include the polity as well…seem too self involved to fight for what is the heart and soul of the West….not mines, or oil derricks..but vistas and healthy ecosystems. The Eastern US states had gorgeous ecosystems and they were largely sacrificed on the altar of greed and industrial development. I had hoped the Western citizen would understand this, and stand up to protect what was and is the last of the special regions in the lower 48. We will see…

  14. Dan Says:

    Know when to hold’em
    Know when to fold’em
    Know when to walk away and
    Know when to run

  15. Phil Says:

    People like Dan are exactly why I side with protection of wolves.

  16. Ralph Maughan Says:

    I am currently writing a story on why WWP refused to go along with the groups that “settled.”

    I talked with Jon Marvel of WWP. Personally, I am in full agreement with him and indeed WWP’s position is very close to my earlier recommendations on this matter.

  17. Phil Says:

    Mike Clark, head of Greater Yellowstone Coalition, said that conservation group and nine others hope the settlement will provide relief in a region where anti-wolf sentiments have been running high.

    “It’s a way for people to accept that wolves are here to stay and to find a permanent way to manage them,” he said.

    Hmmm. So, to decrease sentiment of some (or many depending on how you look at it) towards wolves these groups are settling and putting the same lives they were once protecting at risk? I still believe they settled for reasons they are not talking about.

  18. JimT Says:

    I find it interesting that the folks sitting on the wolf fence are not weighing in….

  19. Brian Ertz Says:

    the irony is that the settlement doesn’t prevent any of the dire predictions that people are upset about from happening … that’s the kicker …

    … folk must realize that it is entirely reasonable to sit down and talk settlement … nobody denies that … the question of whether to settle or not must be made based on the terms – and the bottom line is that the terms of settlement here are not favorable …

    … the settlement provides no assurances that wolves will not be eradicated beyond their ability to recovery … whether it is likely to happen or not, a reasonable settlement would explicitly provide enforceable stipulations that it NOT happen. no such stipulations were included. how could one agree to a settlement that does not include this basic stipulation ?

    … the settlement provides no baseline protections for wolves in ID & MT … whether whole-sale slaughter is likely to happen or not, a reasonable settlement would explicitly provide enforceable stipulations that identify biologically relevant standards by which management is to take place in Idaho. no such stipulations were included. how could one agree to a settlement that does not include such basic stipulations relevant to wolves’ biological well-being ?

    … the settlement provides no contingency stipulation on whether Congressional delisting takes place or not … whether it is likely to happen or not, a reasonable settlement would explicitly provide enforceable stipulations that the settlement is only effective if Congress doesn’t act – say by including provisions that the settlement dissolves when a congress-person introduces delisting language (passage would moot this out either way, but a provision hinging settlement on the absence of introduced language might deter it from happening to encourage settlement). no such stipulations deterring introduction of delisting language into any future bills were included. how could one agree to a settlement that does not include as a premise the promise that the thing advocates are trying to prevent (legislative delisting) doesn’t take place anyway ?

    whether one agrees in the abstract that a settlement should take place – or not – the deal stinks … it’s a bad deal … that fact ought draw all the wind out of the sails of those who are ideologically predisposed to folding.

  20. Immer Treue Says:

    Phil,

    You’ve got to get it through your head that there are more problems in this country than wolves. Yeah, some wolves are going to get killed, Darn it Phil, they are already being killed. Almost every biologist in this country, including Mech, say that wolves can continue to thrive, even with a hunting season. I’m sick and tired to death of the SSS mentality. It’s going to take time to remove it. If and it’s a big if, the states allow for sound management of the wolf populations, maybe then, and only then, will some of these criminals be turned in/ prosecuted the way other poachers are.

    Man, I don’t want wolves killed! I don’t know how many times I’ve said this elsewhere. But from the beginning of wolf recovery, and reintroduction, I knew that it had to happen.

    Phil, if wolves are to have any chance for acceptance in the Western Culture, something will have to happen soon, or they will be treated like coyotes. Wolves cannot sustain that.

    • jon Says:

      Immer, I don’t think wolves will ever truly be accepted. We just have to accept that hunters and ranchers despise wolves. This is unlikely to ever change. We’ve had over 80 years and it’s still the same wolf hatred from the same exact people who were responsible for their extirpation all those decades ago. Do you think a hunter that hates wolves is going to waste 11 dollars to kill a wolf when he can do it for free and his state probably wouldn’t do anything to him if caught? Do you think any jury would convict a wolf killing hunter that killed a wolf illegally if caught?

    • Phil Says:

      Immer: A understanding of wolves management is acceptable, but not in the form of the current plans. A “proper” method is a bigger and more pronound way in management, not having hunts occur by individuals who have a hateful manner towards wolves. Yes, there are WAY more problems in this country then wolves, so why not tell that to those who have a “sole life purpose” of wanting to eliminate them? I have stated many times that I agree with plans like the one proposed by Minnesota and Michigan. Mech is not the only wolf expert to rely on. He resides in a state that has 2x as many wolves as the entire NRM region. What about Rolf Peterson and Doug smith’s thoughts? They differ from Mech in many forms. Smith once believed that wolves should be hunted until he saw the affects they were having on the Yellowstone population.

    • Phil Says:

      It “had” to happen, immer? Or, it “will” happen?

      • Immer Treue Says:

        Phil,

        At the International Wolf Symposium in 2000 it was all but guaranteed that it would happen.

  21. Immer Treue Says:

    jon,

    As you read this, remember that you and I are on the same side.

    In regression, wolf killers have been caught. It’s going time to change the culture. Wolves have only been back for 15 + years. I’m trying to keep my glass half full. It will take time for attitude and ethics to change. There are probably a number of ethical hunters out there who have tuned the other way, in terms of SSS. I’m not saying they are correct, but their philosophies have changed.

    My biggest fear is alienating the folks who were on the border in terms of wolf reintroduction. I’m not concerned about the Rockholms and Hemmings and Fannings. To use Lincoln’s quote again, “What kills a skunk is it’s own publicity”. There are always going to be wolf haters out there. It’s the folks, the majority of folks who are in the middle that are most important.

    Two quotes from David Mech: The first, is the message we must get through to people, and sharing means the wolf must also yield. The second, the wolf haters are beating us at this game right now. What are you doing to counter this, other than posting on this blog site?

    “The wolf is neither man’s competitor nor his enemy. He is a fellow creature with whom the earth must be shared.” -L. David Mech

    “If the wolf is to survive, the wolf haters must be outnumbered. They must be outshouted, out financed, and out voted. Their narrow and biased attitude must be outweighed by an attitude based on an understanding of natural processes.” -L. David Mech

    • jon Says:

      Immer, you don’t have to tell me. I know you are a wolf advocate.

      • jon Says:

        The esa is not going to protect wolves from those hunters who turn to poaching. If a hunter gets caught killing a wolf illegally, nothing will happen to him. I guarantee it. I am behind the esa all the way, but it isn’t going to stop those from killing wolves. These people know that their states won’t do anything to them if caught illegally killing a wolf.

      • Immer Treue Says:

        I’m working on a review for Urbigkit’s book. This is my opinion and mine only, but the central theme of her book is that wolves were present all along in the NRM states. The whole species subspecies argument…

        She argued against reintroduction as well as some who you would never suspect in order to protect the areas natural wolves. Only problem is SSS was most likely practiced all along. When the Feds brought in wolves, the whole area was under a microscope. More on that later

        My point now is, everybody knows wolves are there. Rather real, or implied, if someone shoots one, the fear is there that one will get caught. That was nonexistent prior to wolf reinto, how could be be accused of killing wolves if no wolves existed in the area. It was the NRM anti-wolfers dirty little secret.

      • jon Says:

        immer, I’ve seen that claim a lot and not one of those people who claim this can provide one shred of proof that they were native wolves. These people would not have been able to tell the difference at all between 2 gray wolf subspecies as these wolves most likely both look the same. These people refuse to accept facts that the government killed off their “native” wolves.

      • jon Says:

        I don’t know if the wolves were protected prior to wolf reintroduction. Could people shoot lone wolves coming into Idaho or Montana before 1995 immer? If not, I would bet my bottom dollar that those who claim there were native wolves were the ones that killed them off, not the reintroduced wolves. And don’t let these people try to fool you. The native wolves would have still ate elk and deer and livestock. Any gray wolf you put into Idaho or Montana. would. And than they will tell you the “native” wolves were shy and timid and you wouldn’t see them around. yeah, that’s because they were being killed off in enormous numbers. They people purposely ignore any science or truth they don’t agree with.

      • Immer Treue Says:

        jon,

        wolves are very resilient. If they were there, they would have bred, and their existence would have been obvious. Transient wolves were never given a chance. As I said before, SSS was the anti-wolf factions dirty little secret. If no wolves were in the NRM states, it was no crime to kill them. Urbigkit did not start making noise until the Feds plan to ring wolves in.

      • Ken Cole Says:

        Jon, Immer,
        There were wolves in Idaho before the reintroduction and they were fully protected under the ESA but they were being shot and poisoned anyway. After the reintroduction it became apparent that there were three male wolves in Idaho that came on their own. One already had a radio collar and formed the Kelly Creek Pack with a reintroduced female, one formed a pack in the Big Creek/Yellowpine area, and the other formed the White Cloud Pack but was accidentally killed after it returned to it’s home range after being relocated because of livestock depredations.

        The claims of a smaller, native wolf subspecies are bullshit.

  22. Ralph Maughan Says:

    My story on Western Watershed’s position is now up.

  23. Phil Says:

    Immer: What you are not understanding is that I RESPOND to wm’s comments he posts to me. If you look back on te conflicts, wm responds to one of my comments not directed to him, then I respond back to them. WM wanted a defensive position to my comments before, so I am giving him it. What am I giving to counter what the wolf haters are giving? How about the educational apsect? Immer, I do not just want to use my research on conservation purposes, I also want to use my teaching background. At the local zoo, they have an educator who moved here from Botswana, Africa a couple years ago. He has a degree in Zoology, but he uses his experience in educating the general public about the wildlife from his country. His most famous story is running home to elude the lions who took territory from his school to his home, but he still educates visitors on conservation of lions. My goal is to research and use my research to educate people. It is up to them on whether or not they will help conservation efforts on species. I volunteered as a docent at the zoo. A docent educates visitors at the zoo on questions they have on the species that you as a docent is staioned to.

    • Immer Treue Says:

      phil,

      A short interview with Mech and Peterson

      http://www.wolf.org/wolves/news/live_news_detail.asp?id=5896

    • Immer Treue Says:

      Phil,

      I don’t agree with everything that WM posts, but most of his comments are supported with a great deal of logic. He makes sense. Most of your comments come from the heart. Brother, we need all the heart we can get, but sound mean logic is more important.

      When you present at Zoo’s you are presenting to a captive audience. It’s the folks “in country” that need to be educated. That takes a pair of big ones. You have to grow some pretty sharp teeth, while at the same time having some pretty thick bark. You will also have to be willing to listen, and that is an art.

      • Phil Says:

        Immer: WM posts comments on here that are truthful, but I give the other side to the comments. Do you really believe that the best methods of reducin “critters” is to kill them? If this was the case, then this would have solved the problem long ago, right? But, all it does is bring in more of a population that will take over the problem. On the other hand, if you build a protected “wall like” surface from the critters, or some form of protection , then you will teach the critters that live near or around the crops not to take from the rancher, correct? This will prevent new members from moving in and creating the problem again. I don’t see wm’s comments as making sense, immer. I see wm as the armchair individual he claimed myself to be. I also see wm posting articles that only back up his views, but you mean to tell me that there aren’t solutions that go against wm’s views? Would you say the FWS is a reliable source?

  24. Phil Says:

    Immer: When I stated I liked Michigan and Minnesota’s plan, I did not refer to the current one. I am in agreeance with Peterson’s statements, but Peterson does not refer to public huntings. I do not whole heartidly agree with this, but accept the fact that if the Midwest wolves are delisted, only the feds and ranchers would be able to kill a problem wolf to livestock, and public hunts, if they occur, would not happen for a few years.

    “Hammill: In Michigan, we have seen a strong negative change in public acceptance of wolves. Once wolves enjoyed very strong support, even among hunters. However, since technicalities in the Endangered Species Act have been used to keep wolves from rightfully being delisted, support has eroded, and now wolves are being killed illegally across their range here. Michigan just experienced its first decline in wolf numbers since wolves reappeared in 1989.”, so, we should give in to individual groups who act upon illegal law manners?

  25. SEAK Mossback Says:

    Obviously this is a difficult strategy decision. I tend to take a practical view of issues like this that doesn’t adequately account for the legal and political issues and precedents — would like to see the states manage wolves but things seem so poisoned to the highest levels it would seem quite reasonable to return them with a significantly higher population floor that could be supported by the habitat while being low enough to provide plenty of flexibility to address specific problems.

    Beyond that, what caught my eye was where the Center for Biological Diversity came down. My impression from years of news reports is that they are very litigation-centric, with the courts being their tool and their objectives being (a) to get as many species/populations as possible on the list and (b) to keep them on the list. When I read that the CBD has petitioned to list a species, I can almost imagine the petition ending with the statement “Do this or we will sue” or when the government moves toward delisting, I can imagine the rapid response “Do this and we will sue”. I never pictured them backing away from a legal fight and figured they would fight wolf-delisting to the end and could be counted on to be one of the last (if not the last) litigants suing USFWS about Great Lakes wolves. To do this, they must really be concerned they will lose their one big hammer . . . . .

  26. wolfsong Says:

    And it is pretty obvious that the Congressional attacks are NOT going to quit – Good old Denny’s response.

    http://rehberg.house.gov/index.cfm?sectionid=26&sectiontree=5,26&itemid=1631

  27. Phil Says:

    wolfsong: Sounds like he is petitioning for re-election instead of actually solving the problem.

    • wolfsong Says:

      Phil – Yes it does and sadly he may get alot of support because of his stance on the wolves. Even if the “settlement” does go through, it still provides no protection from Congress, and I really don’t think the good old boys club is willing to give up.

      • jon Says:

        I don’t think Denny is stupid. I know what he is trying to do and it’s working. He knows by saying we are still going forward with the legislation to delist wolves even with groups saying they agreed to wolf delisting, he is getting support from all those that hate wolves in Montana. I doubt this guy really gives a crap about wolves or hunters. He pretends he does though. He’s willing to do whatever he can to get support and beat Tester and it’s working.

  28. Larry Zuckerman Says:

    what happened to the Humane Society of the United States? are they still sitting on the litigation “fence” or have they sided with the settlement parties or the three orgs still pursuing the protection of wolves in the Northern Rockies?


Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: