Language of the “Wolf Disaster Declaration” published.

Language of the “Wolf Disaster Declaration” published.

Bill Status: H0343.

It is not the same language as contained in the legislation we posted in February.

It essentially provides for a disaster declaration if there are more than 100 wolves in Idaho.

“[T]he legislature finds that public safety has been compromised, economic activity has been disrupted and private and public property continue to be imperiled. The uncontrolled proliferation of imported wolves on private land has produced a clear and present danger to humans, their pets and livestock, and has altered and hindered historical uses of private and public land, dramatically inhibiting previously safe activities such as walking, picnicking, biking, berry picking, hunting and fishing. The continued uncontrolled presence of gray wolves represents an unfunded mandate, a federal commandeering of both state and private citizen resources and a government taking that makes private property unusable for the quiet enjoyment of property owners.”

LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Sixty-first Legislature First Regular Session -2011

 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

 

HOUSE BILL NO. 343

 

BY WAYS AND MEANS COMMITTEE

 

AN ACT

RELATING TO WOLVES; AMENDING CHAPTER 58, TITLE 67, IDAHO CODE, BY THE ADDITION OF A NEW SECTION 67-5805, IDAHO CODE, TO PROVIDE LEGISLATIVE FINDINGS AND INTENT; AMENDING CHAPTER 58, TITLE 67, IDAHO CODE, BY THE ADDITION OF A NEW SECTION 67-5806, IDAHO CODE, TO PROVIDE FOR DECLARATIONS OF EMERGENCY; AMENDING CHAPTER 58, TITLE 67, IDAHO CODE, BY THE ADDITION OF A NEW SECTION 67-5807, IDAHO CODE, TO PROVIDE A PROCEDURE FOR ISSUANCE OF EXECUTIVE ORDERS AND PROCLAMATIONS RELATING TO CERTAIN DISASTER EMERGENCIES, TO REQUIRE THE OFFICE OF SPECIES CONSERVATION TO TAKE 10 CERTAIN STEPS, TO PROVIDE FOR APPEAL, TO PROVIDE FOR THE DURATION OF AND TERMINATION OF EXECUTIVE ORDERS AND PROCLAMATIONS, TO PROVIDE FOR CONTENT OF EXECUTIVE ORDERS AND PROCLAMATIONS AND TO PROVIDE FOR THE DISSEMINATION OF FILING OF EXECUTIVE ORDERS AND PROCLAMATIONS; AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY.

Be It Enacted by the Legislature of the State of Idaho:

SECTION 1. That Chapter 58, Title 67, Idaho Code, be, and the same is hereby amended by the addition thereto of a NEW SECTION, to be known and designated as Section 67-5805, Idaho Code, and to read as follows:

67-5805. LEGISLATIVE FINDINGS AND INTENT. (1) Section 1, article I, of the constitution of the state of Idaho provides: “All men are by nature free and equal, and have certain inalienable rights, among which are enjoying and defending life and liberty; acquiring, possessing and protecting property; pursuing happiness and securing safety.” It is the duty and right of the legislature and the governor to protect the state, its citizens and property. Section 36-103(a), Idaho Code, provides: “All wildlife, including all wild animals, wild birds, and fish, within the state of Idaho, is hereby declared to be the property of the state of Idaho.” The state of Idaho therefore has the responsibility to manage the big game animals of the state.

(2) The Idaho legislature finds and declares that the state’s citizens, businesses, hunting, tourism and agricultural industries, private property and wildlife, are immediately and continuously threatened and harmed by the sustained presence and growing population of Canadian gray wolves in the state of Idaho. The Idaho legislature, therefore, finds the population of gray wolves in Idaho, having been introduced into the state in 1995, over the united objection of the Idaho congressional delegation, Idaho legislature, Idaho governor, Idaho counties and numerous Idaho agricultural groups who were gravely concerned with the negative effects this action would impose on Idaho and Idahoans, is now many times exceeding the target number originally set by the federal government and the number set in Idaho’s federally approved 2002 wolf management plan. The U.S. fish and wildlife service (USFWS) has delisted the gray wolf in Idaho in 2008 and 2009 returning management to the state, only to be sued both times by environmental groups forcing the wolf to be relisted as endangered. As a result of all the above, the legislature finds that public safety has been compromised, economic activity has been disrupted and private and public property continue to be imperiled. The uncontrolled proliferation of imported wolves on private land has produced a clear and present danger to humans, their pets and livestock, and has altered and hindered historical uses of private and public land, dramatically inhibiting previously safe activities such as walking, picnicking, biking, berry picking, hunting and fishing. The continued uncontrolled presence of gray wolves represents an unfunded mandate, a federal commandeering of both state and private citizen resources and a government taking that makes private property unusable for the quiet enjoyment of property owners. An emergency existing therefore, it is the intent of the legislature to regulate the presence of Canadian gray wolves in Idaho in order to safeguard the public, wildlife, economy and private property against additional devastation to Idaho’s social culture, economy and natural resources, and to preserve the ability to benefit from private and public property within the state and experience the quiet enjoyment of such property.

SECTION 2. That Chapter 58, Title 67, Idaho Code, be, and the same is hereby amended by the addition thereto of a NEW SECTION, to be known and designated as Section 67-5806, Idaho Code, and to read as follows:

67-5806. DECLARATION OF EMERGENCY. A disaster emergency, as defined in section 46-1002(3) and (4), Idaho Code, is in existence as a result of the introduction of Canadian gray wolves, which have caused and continue to threaten vast devastation of Idaho’s social culture, economy and natural resources. The geographical extent of this emergency shall include any part of the state of Idaho where gray wolves have been sighted and whose sighting has been documented or otherwise confirmed by the office of species conservation or the department of fish and game.

SECTION 3. That Chapter 58, Title 67, Idaho Code, be, and the same is hereby amended by the addition thereto of a NEW SECTION, to be known and designated as Section 67-5807, Idaho Code, and to read as follows:

67-5807. GOVERNOR –EXECUTIVE ORDERS. (1) Pursuant to this act, the governor may issue executive orders and proclamations and amend or rescind such orders and proclamations. Executive orders and proclamations have the force and effect of law. A disaster emergency may be declared by executive order or proclamation of the governor if the governor finds any of the following:

(a) Any Canadian gray wolf within the state is a carrier of a disease harmful to humans, livestock, pets and wild game and that there is a risk of transmission of such disease to humans, livestock, pets or wild game;

(b) The potential of human–wolf conflict exists and that the Canadian gray wolf is frequenting areas inhabited by humans or showing habituated behavior toward humans;

(c) That the potential for livestock–wolf conflict exists and that the Canadian gray wolf is frequenting areas that are largely ranchland with livestock or showing evidence of habituated behavior toward livestock;

(d) The numbers of Canadian gray wolves are such that there is an impact to Idaho big game herds as identified in the wolf management plan of 2002, and that there is evidence that increasing the number of wolves beyond one hundred (100) has had detrimental impacts on big game populations, the economic viability of the Idaho department of fish and game, outfitters and guides, and others who depend on a viable population of big game animals;

(e) The numbers of big game animals have been significantly impacted below that of recent historical numbers and that there has been a measurable diminution in the value of businesses tied to outfitting and 11 other game or hunting based businesses.

(2) The executive order or proclamation shall direct the office of species conservation to initiate emergency proceedings in accordance with section 67-5247, Idaho Code. Any person may challenge an action or proposed action of the office of species conservation by following the appeals process prescribed by the Idaho administrative procedure act, chapter 52, title 67, Idaho Code.

(3) The state of disaster emergency shall continue until the governor finds that either gray wolves are delisted in Idaho with full state management restored or the threat has been dealt with to the extent that emergency conditions no longer exist. When either or both of these events occur, the governor shall terminate the state of disaster emergency by executive order or proclamation. Provided however, that no state of disaster emergency pursuant to the provisions of this act may continue for longer than one (1) year. The legislature by concurrent resolution may terminate a state of disaster emergency at any time. Thereupon, the governor shall issue an executive order or proclamation ending the state of disaster emergency. All executive orders or proclamations issued pursuant to this section shall indicate which of the conditions in this section exist, the area or areas threatened and the actions planned to resolve the issue, including contracting with USDA APHIS wildlife services. An executive order or proclamation shall be disseminated promptly by means calculated to bring its contents to the attention of the general public and, unless the circumstances attendant upon the disaster prevent or impede, be promptly filed with the office of species conservation, the department of fish and game, the office of the secretary of state and the office of the sheriff of each county where the state of disaster emergency applies.

SECTION 4. An emergency existing therefor, which emergency is hereby declared to exist, this act shall be in full force and effect on and after its passage and approval.

 

65 Responses to “Language of the “Wolf Disaster Declaration” published.”

  1. JimT Says:

    In essence, this negates the role of science in wolf protections under the ESA, and makes it a strictly political volleyball. I doubt very much if it would stand up in court, but it again shows just how stupid it would be to trust wolf management to the State. So long as the ranchers and the elk industries play brinkmanship, there will be no trust, no support for this kind of travesty from the sane side of the aisle.

  2. jburnham Says:

    What!? Wolves have in some way “altered and hindered” activities like walking, picnicing, biking, berry picking, and fishing. How?

    • timz Says:

      I have yet to hear one person in Idaho say they do not do any of those things because of wolves. Fact is the woods are more crowded than ever.

  3. timz Says:

    This should be declared null and void strictly on the basis there is no such thing as a “Canadian gray wolf”

  4. Savebears Says:

    Kind of an interesting chart on Wiki, with many pictures as well as description, although I know classifications have changed over the years, I still thought it was interesting:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subspecies_of_Canis_lupus

  5. Daniel Berg Says:

    If this has no chance of standing up in court, then the authors of this bill should be billed for the cost of creating it.

    Take their yearly salaries, divide it by the total average hours worked per year, and then multiply that figure by the number of hours worked. Add up the administrative costs, as well as the time taken up on the floor/in committee in consideration of the bill, and charge them back for all of it. Since they are screaming about wasting taxpayer money, why should the taxpayers be on the hook for symbolic gestures?

    In Washington State there were a couple of House Bills regarding wolves. One was particularly nasty and had no real chance of passing. I wonder how many bills get created every year that are purely symbolic and do nothing but waste time? I don’t pay 9.5% in sales tax for symbolic gestures.

    • Daniel Berg Says:

      should say…….”number of hours worked on the bill”.

    • Savebears Says:

      “I don’t pay 9.5% in sales tax for symbolic gestures.”

      Daniel,

      I lived in Washington for a long time, despite what you think, yes you do…!

      If Montana’s legislature this year is any indication every single bill introduced has been symbolic!

      • Alan Says:

        A-men to that, SB. Can’t wait until this farce is over for another two years! At least we don’t pay sales tax, though we pay plenty of other taxes.

      • Alan Says:

        BTW, I nullified my property taxes this year.

      • timz Says:

        I owe Idaho about $150 in state taxes, I’m tempted to not pay it and see how long before they come for me. Rep. Phil Hart owes a couple hundred thousand and they haven’t come after him yet.

  6. MAD Says:

    Savebears, I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt since I remember you saying that you worked as a biologist (I may be wrong, I easily confuse things). But honestly, the chart on wikipedia is crap and is seriously out of date. It does not reflect genetic work that has been done worldwide in the last decade and a half.

    For example, the Red Wolf is NOT a subspecies, it is a distinct, separate species and has been recognized as such for at least 10 years. Similarly, the Eastern Timber Wolf or Canis Lycaon has also been genetically proven to be a distinct species from the Western wolves.

    Taxonomy from 50-150 years ago was mostly centered on physical morphology and appearance, rather than true scientific examination (physiology, chemistry, behavior, etc). The anti-wolf zealots erroneously believe that the big, evil Canadian killing-machine machine wolves are markedly different than the historic wolves in the Northern Rockies. Size has more to do with prey base, environmental factors like breeding grounds and weather than it does with being a foreign, alien wolf.

    I’m not one those folks who believe that wolves should remain untouched, or shouldn’t be managed, quite the contrary. I believe that since they have reproduced successfully. it’s time to sit down and talk about management to keep the population stable (where it is now). Unfortunately, an EIS from 10 or 20 years ago that was politically influenced is not the correct way to set baselines for these animals. 300 animals per state will result in stable, healthy populations.

    • Savebears Says:

      MAD,

      I claim no endorsement of condemnation of the list I found on Wiki, I just found it interesting, knowing that things have changed over the years..don’t give me the benefit of the doubt, simply take it for what it was, information that has been posted on the internet..

      This illustrates a strong point, just because you read it on the internet, does not mean it is true..

    • mikarooni Says:

      This situation just points out the annoying central flaw in wikipedia; anyone can post information. The information on wolves there could have come from anybody, even Toby Bridges or Fanning, either directly or through a surrogate. There is just not a reliable filter system on contributors. You have to use it to pick up some early information, then check every detail of it.

  7. Nancy Says:

    +Section 36-103(a), Idaho Code, provides: “All wildlife, including all wild animals, wild birds, and fish, within the state of Idaho, is hereby declared to be the property of the state of Idaho.” The state of Idaho therefore has the responsibility to manage the big game animals of the state++

    Property of?……….My gosh! For most of my 60 years, I was under the impression – because of our so called superior intellect – we humans would be far more capable by now of understanding the simple fact that we need wildlife around, far more than they need us around.

    • Mark Gamblin (IDFG) Says:

      Nancy –
      How would you re-word the state statutory status of wildlife – in this case – for Idaho?

      • timz Says:

        MG- please comment on this ridiculous legislation and these absurd statements about how Idahoans are afraid of going to pick berries and walk in the woods. Have you seen any fear amongst your colleagues as they have to go out all the time and face this terror.

      • MAD Says:

        Mark-
        The way that I would word the statute would be inaccordance with legal doctrine and precedent which spans back hundreds of years, namely the Public Trust Doctrine. Wildlife cannot be “owned” in the sense that it is chattel to be disposed of or dealt with upon whimsy. It is held “in trust” by the Gov’t, for the people – all the people. And in the case of animals on federal land, under the trust of the federal Gov’t, then Idaho residents have no more right to destroy the wildlife than any other American.

        This concept of regional and local territoriality is close-minded, destructive and breeds contempt between people. Simpletons posturing and throwing out their chests and acting like 5 year olds in a schoolyard belies the fact that we are adults tasked with preserving the natural environment for future generations, not manipulating and contaminating it for our instant gratification.

      • Mark Gamblin (IDFG) Says:

        timz –
        As a state employee, representing the Idaho government, it is not my appropriate role to critique state laws or proposed state legislation. Proposed legislation, this bill included, is between elected legislators and the Idaho electorate. My purpose on this blog is to explain principles of wildlife management and IDFG programs and policies – when appropriate.

        MAD –
        My open question to Nancy was to better understand her (or your) views of who should be public wildlife resources be entrusted to. Thanks for offering your perspective on that important concept. In the United States, public ownership/trusteeship of wildlife is based on the principles of the Public Trust Doctrine – which specifically endows state government with the responsibility to hold wildlife in trust for the residents of each respective state – not to residents of other states. Those principles of the Public Trust Doctrine are broadly reflected in state and federal natural resource managment policy and law. With narrow and very specific exceptions (MBTA, ESA, etc.), the history and tradition of wildlife management in the United States, embodied in the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation, has been affirmed and re-affirmed under the principle of state trusteeship of public wildlife resources.

      • Jon Way Says:

        Mark,
        Thanks for your explanation and willingness to post here. I wish you would offer more personal explanations especially if you do this on your own time – but obviously given the members of your gov’t you would pay for not pushing the party line.

        I just wanted to add one thing (in quotes below). You should add the following, however, to your last post:

        …embodied in the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation, has been affirmed and re-affirmed under the principle of state trusteeship of public wildlife resources “that hunters are the dominate stakeholder and wildlife should first revolve around their interests despite now being a minority of the population at large”.

        Why else would this ridiculous legislation be proposed?

      • WM Says:

        Jon Way,

        ++Why else would this ridiculous legislation be proposed?++

        While Mark G. considers how, and whether, to respond you question, you might want to contemplate that the word “livestock” appears at least 7 times in the proposed legislation, and “pets” appears 4 times, while “Canadian wolves” appears 8 times, if my browser word counter is correct.

        This ridiculous proposed legislation is also the forum (as a policy statement) to remind everyone that wolves were reintroduced over the objection of the state of ID, which has management authority over wildlife within its borders, and it makes no difference whether the wildlife is on federal, state or private lands. The management authority is also independent of any property “ownership” claim asserted by the federal government (which does not in fact make such a claim unless by specific statute, and none apply here, only the ESA protection status, which once eliminated results in management authority back to the state).

        So, this proposed legislation which likely has no real chance of passing (I hope), is an opportunity to once again express the tension in state – federal relations, which goes well beyond this particular topic. It is done in a way that allows the legislature to puff itself up to make the statement that they, once again, don’t want wolves shoved down their throats and won’t stand for it.

        Pretty juvenile and downright stupid, in my view.

      • jon Says:

        wm, there seems to be quite a few co-sponsors of this bill 343. 50 to be exact as of now. Why do you say it has no likely no chance of passing?

        http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,73955.0.html

        BTW, I hope you’re right and it doesn’t pass, but who really knows.

      • JEFF E Says:

        WM,
        an accurate assessment, and I agree with your conclusion

      • WM Says:

        jon may be on to something. There are 70 representatives and 35 senators in the ID legislature. Apparently fifty have committed to sponsorship of this doofus bill. Don’t know the mix as between the houses for votes needed to pass. Maybe the senate will show some restraint. Otherwise this may be a case of “stupid as stupid does,” so the saying goes.

        _____________

        By the way, if one ever needs reminding of who the average American adult, or almost adult is, check out the folks around you when you go into a driver license office to renew (even if you don’t need to renew you can just take a few minutes to check it out). I can think of no better snapshot or barometer of a cross-section of our society. If clues from topics of conversation and personal appearance/hygiene are any indication, it may not be a real encouraging future for topics discussed here.

      • Nancy Says:

        http://www.nrpa.com/public_trust.htm

        Spent the day thinking about your question Mark and the application of state statutory status of wildlife is archaic at best in the west, needs badly some new insight.

        Much better minds out there than mine who could re-word it, but who would really listen, or give a crap, given the fear mongering and political atmosphere so prevalent right now?

      • JB Says:

        Nancy, MAD:

        It is instructive what they have chosen to leave out:

        “36-103. Wildlife property of state — Preservation. (a) Wildlife Policy. All wildlife, including all wild animals, wild birds, and fish, within the state of Idaho, is hereby declared to be the property of the state of Idaho. It shall be preserved, protected, perpetuated, and managed. It shall be only captured or taken at such times or places, under such conditions, or by such means, or in such manner, as will preserve, protect, and perpetuate such wildlife, and provide for the citizens of this state and, as by law permitted to others, continued supplies of such wildlife for hunting, fishing and trapping.” (emphasis mine)

      • JB Says:

        These legislators better hope that federal efforts to delist wolves are successful, because this type of legislation (which has been passed again and again in Idaho) virtually ensures wolves’ continued listing. Recall that Judge Molloy found that the MOUs between the FWS and state governments/agencies were insufficient regulatory mechanisms for ensuring the continued existence of grizzly bears in the GYA. In contrast to these MOUs, in which states pledge to perpetuate grizzlies, this legislation sends a chilling message regarding states intentions with respect to these species.

        This type of action only serves the interests of those who will be campaigning for reelection. What a phenomenal waste of time and resources.

      • WM Says:

        JB,

        Glad you re-posted that statutue. It is here that ID does assert property ownership of “all wildlife….within the state of Idaho.” Of course the federal government does not assert an ownership interest in any wildlife under the protection of the ESA, only the federal statutory right to manage the identified wildlife until delisted (cooperating with the states, of course as the law requires). And federal law generally trumps state law if there is a conflict.

        HOWEVER, this state legislative proposal attempts to lay the groundwork for the Governor to unilaterally declare an “emergency” to deal with ESA listed wolves if certain conditions are met (and I gather by the wording of the last Section 4, such conditions are already deemed to exist for purposes of declaring the emergency, and veritably commands the governor to take action as soon as the law is passed. The issuing of an executive order to deal with an “emergency” is quite streamlined and procedurally efficient.

        So, if this thing passes the Senate and the governor signs, and declares the “emergency,” then what?

        Do state black helicopters show on the horizon at the crack of dawn the day following after Butch’s signing it into law, ready to do their “emergency” work on state owned wolves, but under the protection of federal law?

        Maybe there is more to this thing than a bunch of puffing. Is this serious and does somebody need to be prepared to stand on the federal courthouse steps seeking to enjoin any emergency action the moment the law is signed?

        Just thinking outloud, here. Does anyone else see this less so than I just described?

      • JB Says:

        WM:

        Good points and questions. Declaration of “disaster” or not, anyone who kills a wolf in violation of the provisions of the ESA is violating federal law. As you have pointed out, the supremecy clause makes federal law the “supreme law” of the land. Thus, I very much doubt whether the state will take any action after this thing passes. However, I suspect that the combination of this legislation and Otter’s previous refusal to enforce federal law will embolden people who would shoot wolves illegally. If illegal take is high enough, FWS won’t have to worry about the adequacy of regulatory mechanisms, as they will have a biological reason for keeping wolves listed.

    • JimT Says:

      http://www.huntright.org/where-we-stand/public-trust

      Some interesting views by Orion Institute for Hunters…

  8. Steve C Says:

    Glad they didnt leave out the berry pickers.

    • Immer Treue Says:

      I know it’s Minnesota, but a state where wolf densities are much higher than Idaho, and wolves have proved no “hindrance” to ***any*** of the listed activities, including berry picking🙂

  9. Mtn Mama Says:

    Will this madness over wolves ever end? I sometimes have nightmares about the whole situation so I am trying to remove myself from the politics of it all- I am sick of it.

  10. Tom Says:

    Wolves are “unfunded mandates”? Wait, God created the heavens and earth, then put man in charge of tending after it. Did he provide funds for that? So creation itself is an unfunded mandate??
    The end times are a self-fulfilling prophecy.

  11. JEFF E Says:

    Two years ago at this time of year, give or take a couple of weeks, I was heading home on my motorcycle, traveling on the Sun Valley Hwy. I was about to top out into the Camas prairie when I was passed by a Maroon coloured pickup like I was going backwards. I was doing 62mph in a 60mph zone. The licence plate was Senate 35. That would be Jeff Siddoway. One of the sponsors of this legislation. Obviously the most basic rule of law means less than nothing to this individual who, if anyone, is possessed of a basic sacred responsibility to, as one who is entrusted by the public to create a rule of law, uphold all rules of law.
    Fail.
    Your word means nothing. Your endorsement means nothing. you are a lie. you disgust me.
    Yes, I have this documented

    • Savebears Says:

      Don’t feel bad Jeff,

      One of our reps here in Montana, in fact the head of the chair on revisions in drunk driving laws was sighted for an open container of beer just a few weeks ago and had to resign his chair…

      • JEFF E Says:

        Sb,
        Montana ,along with Nevada was the last two states to do away with a law allowing open containers(of alcoholic beverages) while driving.(not to be confused with DWI, which was always illegal). but your point is made. these are the individuals that make the rule of law. Is it too much to ask that they follow it??

  12. STG Says:

    Great comments. This is such a refeshing website: I enjoy reading intelligent comments from people that understand the value of wildlife and get the big picture.

  13. Larry Zuckerman Says:

    House passed the bill on to the Idaho Senate after some hair-raising testimony by the Speaker of the House and Lenore Barrett. Did not know we were under attack by wolves – grab the women-folk and children and head for the stockade.

    The Senate is up next, but needs to pass before Friday ends, the predicted end of the Idaho Legislative Session

  14. Barbara Bussell Says:

    It is not the wolves which are a hindrance, but is the hunters,ranchers and the politicians that are the hindrance. Tell them to back off and maybe the wolves would have a chance to live free and wild.

  15. wolf moderate Says:

    It is not the wolves that are the hindrance, rather it’s the wolf proponents. Perhaps if they would back off and allow the states to manage their own animals, it may turn out that the wolves would be able to live free and wild.

    • mikarooni Says:

      The problem is that, the minute Idaho gets a shot (pun intended) at state management, we instantly see proposals to allow hunting and depredation takings that would drop the wolf numbers below reliable genetic sustainability levels. The truth is that the states, especially Idaho and Wyoming, have already repeatedly demonstrated that they cannot reliably be trusted to manage their own animals. The fiasco over the spread of disease by domestic sheep, in which Idaho’s vaunted institutions demonstrated both rampant conflicts of interest and bottomless mendacity, had nothing to do with wolf proponents, buy everything to do with the lack of maturity and reliability in the state government in Idaho.

    • timz Says:

      Yes it was wolf proponents who passed this legislation. Just when I think you couln’t look any more of an ignoramous you show up and post something more absurd than your last.

    • Immer Treue Says:

      Wolf mod,

      I hope you understand my take on wolves. Yes, they are recovered, and management just like any of the other wildlife is necessary. Perhaps I’m wrong, but I would think that a good many of us on this blog have similar feelings. However, we are not the ones making the decisions.

      That said, most true wolf proponents look at this type of proposed legislation as the result of addled minds. The operative question is, do the states, such as Idaho, have fair management practices in mind, or slaughter. Gosh, but here we go again with the “Canadian” wolves….

      Language such as this causes all wolf proponents to think twice about “allowing” states to manage their own animals. I would argue that states should be able to manage their own animals. The state, however, includes many more people than the small number of ranchers, hunters, and politicians who are in their hip pocket who are making all the noise.

      I am not anti-hunting, or anti-ranching, but I am anti-insanity. At a time when a movement by environmental groups has been made to delist wolves, would it not be more rational to derive management plans that at least attempt to appease those who have worked so hard, and those who have supported wolf reintroduction.

      The complete opposite course has been taken. Why should any wolf proponent put trust in that?

      • timz Says:

        Immer I have it from a relianble source that wolf m. is nothing but a blog troll with absolutely zero knowledge of biology or ecology, proven out by the fact he has never posted a single thing of substance. So trying to logically explain anything in that realm to him is a lost cause. We can all just hope he lives up to his former promise to just go away.

      • jon Says:

        wolf moderate on April 5th, 2011 4:17 pm

        Cool. Nice area for gold but not for elk lol. I didn’t see any around GJ. Have fun, I’m getting ready to head out May 14th for a couple of weeks. No gold mining, just fishing and camping.

        Well, I’m burned out about wolves. They are here to stay and once they get delisted they will be reduced in numbers…hopefully. The bouty of $500 a wolf is an interesting idea. Good luck looking for the big nugget.

      • wolf moderate Says:

        If the states do reduce the population of wolves below what has been agreed upon, then they just go back onto the ESA.

        Timz, I don’t know how many times I have to tell you people that I have no educational background in the sciences. LOL. Personally, I think that not having been indoctrinated by a bunch of Berkeley hippies might be better than a PhD in Ecology though…🙂

        Now it is time to watch the US economy tank in the next few weeks and watch as the Patagonia wearing hipsters wet there pants. Funding for the ESA will be the last thing on your mind TIMZ! I can’t leave this site, it’s too good. 20% of the posts are enlightening and 80% are complete bull…

        Thanks.

      • timz Says:

        “and 80% are complete bull…”
        If we count your posts it’s 85%

      • wolf moderate Says:

        I was going to put that, but wanted you to. You are easier to read than a comic book. Thanks for the laugh.

        Good day.

  16. william huard Says:

    Wolf Moderate- Maybe you can hang out with the rejects and social misfits over at the BBB. They can benefit from your astute knowledge of Sh^&%bagger logic.

    • wolf moderate Says:

      🙂 I will continue to frequent many sites. Kind of like watching MSNBC and FOX news. Don’t get all your info from one source.

      Thanks for the tip though!
      Some of you are really crazy. I know I’m crazy but some of you need some serious help.

      • william huard Says:

        Yes, some of us are really crazy. Here’s an idea- let’s balance the federal budget on the backs of poor and the disabled. Let’s turn Medicare into a voucher program where seniors will be at the mercy of the fu%^&ing Vampires in the Private Health Insurance market! Sounds reasonable to me. Let the wealthy keep all their income- and perhaps their altruism will sustain the masses!

      • wolf moderate Says:

        Yes. There is no such thing as “poor” in the US. “Poor” in the US means that you have to drive a 20 year old car, live in “only” a 1000 sqft apartment (subsidized by govt), use prepaid cellphones (not Iphones)😦 etc…

        There is no excuse to be homeless in the US. If one is, it’s due to mental illness, a choice (I’ve been homeless before to save $$$) etc…

        Sorry, when only 50% of the country pays taxes it gets to be a little ridiculous. Flat tax please! Why can’t the poor or lower class pay 10% flat tax? If you make $1000 a month that’s only $100 a month. If you make 10 zillion you pay 1 zillion in tax. That 9 zillion will be used by the rich dude to create jobs. Either he will put it in the bank (not likely) and the bank will loan it to small businesses and consumers. If he decides to buy a zillion dollar yacht, that will put people to work also. If the rich dude had to pay another 4 zillion in tax, that 4 zillion would have been spent at McDonalds and Wendy’s by the poor.

        How in the hell do we “balance the federal budget on the backs of the poor” when they already do not contribute to society? The poor don’t pay taxes. Sorry, but ANYONE who wants to work can get a job, even in this economy. They may have to humble themselves and wash dishes or mow lawns, but there are jobs.

        Through childhood (yeah I know I’m still a kid), my Mom, me, and 2 brothers lived on $1300 a month. Personally, I think it was a mistake to have kids if she couldn’t afford them but whatever…So yeah, I know a bit about being poor.

      • wolf moderate Says:

        William,

        How about this. These hypocritical right wingers are against abortion, YET want to cut funding to Social Services and mental health. How about whoever is “prolife” has to “sponsor” a kid and pay 1/2 the costs to raise it?

        I can’t stand those clowns. Make the dirt poor 18 year old w/ no prospects give birth to a child that has little to no chance at a successful life.

    • Salle Says:

      Not only that, I read that they actually like you over at the BBB. I think you sound somewhat hypocritical, wolf moderate, when you claim that you hate the idea of young teens having kids and losing their “chances” at living a live beyond poverty. Did you know that the poor actually do pay taxes, maybe not so much in income tax but they pay all other taxes sans refunds, and for that matter, most of the services that those taxes pay for. If your experience with poverty is from childhood, whenever that was, it ain’t nothin’ like what the poor face today.

      AND, most of the poor are women and children, not just vets with PTSD and other problems created when indoctrinated to become a killing machine with little to no debriefing afterward. Women and children, wolf mod, that’s often not something you can choose, having children isn’t always by choice so I wonder where you come off “knowing” anything about present-day poverty.

      There are more educated poor today than ever in the history of education, and don’t forget the underground discrimination network who systematically discriminate against women, the already poor, and the not-exactly-pearly-white folks who are immediately dismissed as a job/housing candidate as soon as they arrive because their skin isn’t the “proper” shade.

      I think you need to get some actual facts going on in your head and, like the song says… “Go take a step outside, see what’s shakin’ in the real world…” The real world, outside Idaho and its spud-cellar mentality… (I can’t see it so it doesn’t exist, seems to be the mantra.)

      • wolf moderate Says:

        Will do Salle. Only been to 40 states in the union, Central America, Mexico, Canada etc…

        Also, worked rebuiliding LA and MS after Katrina. Also was deployed for the RNC, DNC, and G8 Summit in Savannah, GA. I’m 30 and being “poor” wasn’t too long ago lol. Since being out of the military I’ve been “homeless” also…Lived in the mountains on and off and would move my truck and camp trailer between Walmart parking lots every 48 hours so that Walmart Management wouldn’t catch on…

        Between Katrina, Rita, childhood, and living in Walmart parking lots🙂, and working for the VA I’d say I have very good knowledge of homelessness and the issues that face the poor. Also was stationed it the Bay Area and frequented SF which is ground zero for the homeless due to there government policies.

        Anywho, maybe you should also get out some Salle. That cushy government job or whatever won’t be around for too much longer most likely!

        Good luck🙂

      • JB Says:

        Actually, policies are only one of the reasons San Francisco has a high rate of homelessness. They also have a very mild climate–where would you rather be homeless San Francisco or Fargo? Additionally, it is one of the most expensive places to live in the nation–meaning you can have a relatively good paying job, and not afford to own (or even rent) a home. When I lived in the Bay Area (most recently 2000-2002) we paid $1350/month for a 875 sq ft., single bedroom apartment in Oakland. When I lived in Logan (Utah) a few years later, we paid less than half of that amount to rent a 3 bedroom home that was more than twice the size.

        Things are never as simple as you desire to make them.

      • wolf moderate Says:

        Yes, I understand the housing situation in the Bay Area. I’ve lived in Alameda, Hayward, Petaluma, Novato, Rohnert Park, and Cotati. Never lived in SF due to the high rental costs. SF’s policies in the part are one of the major reasons for the high homeless population. SF weather is not very good at all, if I were homeless i’d live in San Diego or LA.

      • JB Says:

        Don’t want to make it a pissing contest, but I’ve lived in San Leandro, Oakland, San Carlos and Palo Alto (over about 4 years). Not sure where you’re from if you don’t like San Francisco weather, but I can tell you it is a whole lot better than any other place I’ve lived (mostly the West and Midwest). The temp rarely dips below 40 and rarely gets above 80, and it doesn’t rain all that often. Where I’m from, that’s piratically paradise! 😉

      • JB Says:

        Sorry, should have read “practically paradise”.

      • wolf moderate Says:

        Agree to disagree. I draw the line when the talk goes to the weather😉

      • mikarooni Says:

        Gosh, I thought he’d never leave.

  17. PointsWest Says:

    How about designating some areas for wolves and grizzlies like an enlarged Yellowstone Park and maybe a special designation for the wilderness areas of Central Idaho? Inside these designated areas, wolf numbers could be high. Outside of these designated areas, wolves could be strictly controlled.

    It was just a few months ago, advocates were talking about having wolves in the suburbs of Seattle. Now we are talking about 100 total wolves in the wilderness state of Idaho. Boy we have our extremes on this issue.


Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: