Wolf Delisting Language Contained in 2011 Fiscal Year Budget Bill

New language protects Wyoming ruling over the State’s management plan.

Just when you think it couldn’t get any worse, new language was added to the rider which delists wolves in the Northern Rockies at the insistence of Wyoming’s delegation.  The new language intends to make it easier for Wyoming’s plan to pass muster or make it so that a plan that is being negotiated will pass muster with the USFWS.  There are reports that Governor Mead has been holding meetings behind closed doors among only groups who have little respect for wolves.  The deal being considered would slightly decrease the free-for-all kill zone and provide for “dispersion routes” so that wolves could possibly disperse to Colorado or Utah.

Cody Coyote commented on the Wyoming negotiations here.  The pulled article he mentions was here.

This is the language contained in the Final FY 2011 Budget Bill.

SEC. 1713. Before the end of the 60-day period beginning on the date of enactment of this Act, 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 reissuance (including this section) shall not be subject to judicial review and shall not abrogate or otherwise have any effect on the order and judgment issued by the United States District Court for the District of Wyoming in Case Numbers 09–CV–118J and 09–CV–138J on November 18, 2010.

What does this all mean? Well, first, this language requires the Secretary of Interior to reissue the 2009 delisting rule which leaves out Wyoming but delists wolves in Idaho, Montana, eastern Oregon, eastern Washington, and northern Utah. This cannot be challenged in court. And, as I pointed out above, it also protects the decision that the judge in Wyoming made which requires the USFWS to re-examine Wyoming’s wolf management plan.

If it passes this could happen at any time during the following 60 days.

57 Responses to “Wolf Delisting Language Contained in 2011 Fiscal Year Budget Bill”

  1. Virginia Says:

    So, Joe Tilden is now deciding the fate of wolves in Wyoming for all of the rest of us. I was disgusted when he was chosen as a Park County Commissioner and knew that this would be the issue that defines him since he is the head of the “sportsmen for killing all fish and wildlife.” These people who meet in secret do so because they know their agendas are not shared by all voters. They make me sick!

  2. Jon Way Says:

    Democracy at its best – not…

    I am convinced that all of this political meandering is going to eventually create a national canid or wolf conservation/protection act where the only legal way to kill them is on private property with documented stipulations similar to other federal acts. I do not think that the North American Model of Wildlife Management adequately applies to the wolf or canids in general – judging from the hatred we have all read about in the past few years. The public will only take this crap for so long and many don’t condone the slaughter of animals and most don’t even know what is currently legal in most states (like year round coyote seasons). In a way, wolves are fortunately bringing this to the forefront.

    • william huard Says:

      Jon- You mean you are not grateful that Wyoming would allow a travel corridor to Utah? If I was a wolf that’s right where I would like to be- next to Peabrain Peay

  3. Cody Coyote Says:

    Update: the Cody Enterprise has posted its lead story on the 10-12 secret private meetings between the Governor’s special representative and elected officials—plus in the Cody case, invited members of Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife— but not other stakeholders, the public, or even the news media

    http://www.codyenterprise.com/news/local/article_332c1116-650f-11e0-8aee-001cc4c03286.html

    Also, an editorial derived from the above:
    http://www.codyenterprise.com/news/opinion/article_f475039c-650e-11e0-b796-001cc4c03286.html

    ***
    Dunno about you’all, but I’m getting dizzy from all the seismic shifting and rapidly moving targets in the Great Wolf Debate as of late…especially with regards to Wyoming.

    Why oh Why Whyoming….

  4. malencid Says:

    Mike Simpson has been hard at work dumping a variety of things into the budget bill; see http://www.idahostatesman.com/2011/04/12/1602645/budget-deal-stops-blm-wild-lands.html
    including stopping any more of BLM wild lands inventory.
    Obama continues his “change we can believe in”

  5. Cindy Says:

    I’ve been asked to attend a meeting this week with Representatives of Governor Mead’s office. I was invited as a proud and vocal “Pro Wolf Advocate” here in Teton County. Not sure what the format will be, but I assure you I will arrive well informed, thanks in part to information I obtain from this site. I have a copy of the report recently published by Jim and Jamie Dutcher, shown on this site last Thursday. I’ll keep you posted.

    • jon Says:

      We need to have environmentalists there. I know those hunting organizations and ranchers don’t want us there, but we have a right to be there and voice our thoughts.

    • Immer Treue Says:

      Good Luck Cindy!

    • Virginia Says:

      Cindy – I am sending you strong vibes – be strong and speak for the wolves and for those of us who respect and honor the lives of all our wildlife!

      • Cody Coyote Says:

        I’m glad to hear Cindy say that at least one conservationist was invited to the Mead -Ferrell roundtable, in Jackson Hole .

        That would never happen over the mountain here in Cody, and in fact did not. The entirety of the wolf issue has been co-opted by Sportsmen for Sportsmen just east of Yellowstone , perversely so.

        Please do report back, Cindy.

    • Cody Coyote Says:

      I’ve had it told me that of the 13 closed door meetings that Guv Mead’s wolf minister is holding statewide ( 11 down , two to go ), that the Jackson meeting will include quite a few environmental and conservation groups being cheerleaded by the Greater Yellowstone Coalition ( a/k/a Greater Appeasers ).

      It does appear that the policy shift is already set in stone and the final meeting with conservationists conspicuously absent from the previous 10-12 meetings is just a token formality, and won’t mitigate anything.

      While I will stop short of saying what Matt Mead and his wolf minister Steve Ferrell have done in having closed door off the record meetings with policy makers and some stakeholders is illegal, it certainly was far from a fair roundtable and almost certainly unethical.

      Or as my activist friend from Dubois put it succinctly : Wyoming steamroller politics.

      The ” new” Wyoming wolf management plan is worse than the old one, and certainly is D.O.A. regardless of any alleged high hop[es that it’s some kind of Great Compromise between Mead’s administration and USFWS, neither of which have any remaining credibility with me.

      At least Western Watersheds stuck to their principles. There are none to be found anywhere else now , especially among the ten Tory enviro organizations who bailed.

  6. Cindy Says:

    Exactly!

  7. Cindy Says:

    Thank you , please keep the encouragement coming! I get a little nervous public speaking, but I know it will flow once I get there:) It could be a little hostile

    • JimT Says:

      Be calm, pick a friendly face to talk to, and if any threatens you, take his or her picture or video with your cell and report it. Good luck.

    • Immer Treue Says:

      Know your stuff, back it up, be rational and passionate, yet, don’t sound the zealot. Wish I could be there. Know we will all be with you.

  8. JimT Says:

    Call the Congress TODAY…202-224-3121 is the switchboard at the Capital, and talk to your Senator’s staff and insist this language is stripped out, or you won’t support them for reelection and will, in fact, work against their reelection. Tester needs to hear from environmental advocates that he will lack key support if he goes through with this chicken s**t tactic to gut wolf protections and the ESA.

    • Virginia Says:

      JimT – when your senators are John Barassho_e and Mike Empty, you are wasting your time and money to call their staff. I wish I was wrong, but I work against those two every year, and guess what? They get re-elected by this rethuglican mob in Wyoming.

  9. Phil Says:

    Cindy: If you were invited, then it more than likely is for a reason, and that reason is probably because you know what you are talking about on the issue.

    As all have stated, good luck.

  10. dailyjacksonhole Says:

    I will once again call my representatives as someone who lives in Wyoming and for whom wolves are her job- once again it will do little good- they could care less. I am so tired of this.

    • william huard Says:

      We could start our own anti-tea party group. If these fools on the right can hold their own party hostage why couldn’t we fight for common sense ideas like legislation free of Riders, dealmaking, or special interest influence that does not reflect the values of the majority of taxpayers. There are many people on this blog that have strong principles and a positive collective vision.

      • howlcolorado Says:

        What would be the point? You realize our government almost shut down because of Planned Parenthood, right?

        These people, that make up the tea party, are not even aware of the fact that they are continuously voting against their OWN best interests, let alone those of the country.

        They don’t get it. They just don’t want their taxes to be raised to pay for essential services which they don’t think they need or use.

    • dailyjacksonhole Says:

      Yup, could have cared less… still glad I did it however and as always they were polite, you can find the direct line to your representatives here:
      http://www.contactingthecongress.org/

      When I worked as a congressional intern many years ago they would tell me to just throw away those petition cards people send in, I don’t think the representative who I worked for even saw them.

  11. Cindy Says:

    Again, thank you all for the kind words, it’s great to hear feedback from my fellow wolvies!

    • Nancy Says:

      Cindy – Yesterday evening I saw movement on the ranch across the way and grabbed my binoculars. Figured it was a coyote til I got a good look. Not one but two wolves, were coursing back and forth across the snow. They would walk aways, stop and then suddenly pounce, tails wagging…….. it was pure delight to watch them going about their business. Sat there until my fingers got numb from the cold.
      I have no doubt you will find your voice and it will flow with an elegance, for a species that can’t speak for themselves.

    • Nancy Says:

      Cindy – if Ken doesn’t mind, I’d also print out the picture of the dead coyotes (More Custom & Culture) and bring that along. NO EXCUSE for this sort of violence against another species. Psychopath comes to mind…………

      • jon Says:

        I don’t know if that would do any good bringing the picture of the dead coyotes in. The people Cindy is going to see there are probably the same type of people that were responsible for the coyotes killed in Ken’s picture that he took. I’m not shocked at the fact that a lot of people in the west show no regard for the wild animals they kill and basically view them as worthless vermin.

      • wolf moderate Says:

        I have many friends that are adament coyote hunters. Go to Cabelas and they have an entire section devoted to predator hunting. There is an industry that revolves around predator hunting. They have electronic calls, decoys etc…

        My friends are good guys that enjoy going out hunting for coyotes. They view it as helping fawns and calfs out. They also think it’s helping out the farmers/ranchers. I’ve never coyote hunted because I don’t like to kill what I don’t eat, but I also don’t necessarily see anything wrong w/ it. Many legislators and congressmen from the West will label you as an emotional anti hunter if you walk into a meeting holding some pictures of dead coyotes. Not saying it’s the right way to view the world, but many do, so best to adjust your tactics to get what you want Cindy.

        Unfortunately people don’t give a crap about coyotes. They only hear that they are everywhere and that they kill pets. They never here of the good things that having coyotes around does for the ecosystem.

      • jon Says:

        I’d rather be an emotional anti-hunter than some westerner who gets a kick and a thrill out of killing wildlife.

      • wolf moderate Says:

        Fair enough, but you won’t get to your ultimate goal with that kind of attitude and view of your competition.

      • jon Says:

        And you’re wrong, people do give a crap about coyotes. For every ignorant western scumbag who has no respect for coyotes, you will find another westerner who does infact care about coyotes and are sickened when they see them being killed for sport.

      • wolf moderate Says:

        Fair enough Jon,

        But just ask yourself how many coyotes are killed a year? Do they have a varmint statues? Is there an open season year round? Is there a maximum # per day, week, month or year that you can take?

        Are people in the streets marching for coyote justice? I think not…

  12. timz Says:

    “Wildlife advocates conceded Tuesday the wolf provision was all but certain to remain in the spending bill after efforts to remove it failed”
    http://www.idahostatesman.com/2011/04/12/1602891/wolf-protections-expected-to-be.html#ixzz1JLIV0ipx

  13. Steve C Says:

    If this happens, what recourse is there for environmental groups? Can the supreme court even overturn this for going against the ESA? Even though there is no judicial review, there must be some way to sort out conflicting laws.

    • howlcolorado Says:

      Remember Steve,

      This is not a congressional delisting persay.

      This is congress ordering the Department of the Interior to reorder something they did in 2009. In addition to that, they are saying that the fact that it is illegal to exclude Wyoming from the order is no longer subject to judicial review.

      It was the exclusion of Wyoming which allowed the Environmental groups to get Judge Molloy to overturn the order based on breaking the ESA.

      Since that would no longer be reviewable, there would be no way to legally challenge the order to delist.

      This isn’t quite final yet. So you, and the groups, can continue to try and get the language removed, but it’s highly unlikely to be removed.

      Should this go final and signed (which it has to… or government shuts down) The options open to the various groups are limited.

      The biggest mistake a state can make is to push wolf numbers down to the point where they would be at risk and allow them to be readded to the ESA as a threatened species. So it could be that we will enter a balancing act where states kill enough wolves to keep vocal minorities generally quiet while not doing enough damage to push wolves on to the endangered species list.

      There is some real irony to the fact that the wolf canis lupus irremotus was I believe the very first animal on the endangered species list in 1973. That would be the northern rockies wolf which so often is referenced as the native species for the area. Of course, hindsight being 20/20 it probably was just a part of a much larger subspecies nubilus – a species thought extinct until it was rediscovered in the northern US states.

      History repeats. It’s the greatest fear of many wolf advocates that the greatest threat to wolves is government, and not hunters – who are generally relatively ineffective at catching wolves.

      I suppose they could push for a southern rockies reintroduction.

  14. william huard Says:

    Today’s NYT finally covers the wolf issue.
    http://nytimes.com/2011/04/13/us/politics/13wolves.html?_r=1&hpw
    Ironic that our elected officials and their “we know better than the regular taxpayer” mentality have once again crossed the line into an area that they don’t belong. At the same time they can’t get out of their own way and solve our country’s pressing problems.

    • JB Says:

      “Ken Salazar…declined to comment on how all the proposed cuts would affect operations at his department. He did note that the agency responsible for regulating offshore oil and gas development would get an increase in money, allowing it to hire dozens of new inspectors, scientists and other officials.

      Interior Department officials would not discuss the bill’s elimination of a program to expand wilderness areas in the West, a program prized by Mr. Salazar but bitterly opposed by many lawmakers from the region…”

      Sounds like Ken is doing a fabulous job!😉

      • william huard Says:

        Raul Grihalva’s office (I probably spelled his name wrong again) assistant that works on Environmental matters just told me that he was confident that the rider language was going to be stripped out of the Senate version before it is voted on. I don’t think this is a done deal, and now that CNN did a story last night and the NYT story today hopefully people that are as outraged as us will call their senators to complain about this overreach.

      • jon Says:

        William, Tester is a sneaky little devil. If Rehberg wasn’t running against him, do you think Tester would really give a shit about wolves in Montana? I think Tester knows he has to do whatever he can in order to beat Rehberg, but even including this rider, it might not be enough to beat Rehberg. Tester went back on his word and included a rider. He will forever be known as a hypocrite and a liar to some. Sold the wolves out for votes and to retain his senate seat. It likely won’t be enough in my opinion and some wolf advocates even want Rehberg to win against this hypocrite because he went back on his word. I’d love for someone to approach this man and ask him, why did he go back on his word and lie about not ever including riders.

  15. jon Says:

    Watch this video with Anderson Cooper and Ron Paul. Anderson talks about how all the riders don’t have anything to do with spending and Ron Paul Agrees. They do mention the rider Tester included to delist wolves in Montana.

  16. Nancy Says:

    jon Says:
    April 13, 2011 at 3:34 PM
    I don’t know if that would do any good bringing the picture of the dead coyotes in.

    But what would it hurt Jon? That picture could be wolves in the not to distant future (if it already hasn’t happened) if we allow the “powers to be” to continue to cater to those who could give a crap about wildlife?

    • jon Says:

      Don’t think it would hurt. better to try than not to try.

      • wolf moderate Says:

        Actually it would hurt her case. She would be written off immediately as a bleeding heart animal rights nut (not that there’s anything wrong w/ that) by a majority of the people in attendence. If you don’t think that most of the people in the room know about predator hunting, then I’ve got some ocean front property in Hawaii, err Arizona.

        If I were to attend a anti hunting rally and wanted to try to persuade some in attendance that hunting was an excellent way to manage ecosystems, I wouldn’t take horn porn into the meeting, I would take evidence of the work that hunting organizations do for conservation and how reducing conflicts between people and the animals that they love, will in the long run only help these same animals.

        Just don’t think it’s wise to bring some pictures of dead coyotes toa meeting here in the West. Maybe in NY or CA, but not here. Would start the conversation out on the wrong note…

  17. Nancy Says:

    Wolf Mod said – They never here of the good things that having coyotes around does for the ecosystem.

    Might be stepping out on a limb here but don’t you think thats the big problem here?

    • wolf moderate Says:

      Dang Nancy, that is a great question. Sorry I am speechless. Not sure how you would show the public of the good that coyotes have and how it benefits them directly. You must remember that people only care about things that directly affect them these days😉

      • Nancy Says:

        Wolf Mod – would you mind sharing your definition of “the public” so I can better understand your response?

      • jon Says:

        That is not true. A LOT of people care about things that don’t directly affect them. Look at wolves. A lot of people all around the world are fighting for wolves. You are mistaken with that comment. There are a lot of things that I and others care about that don’t directly affect us. Fact is animals like wolves don’t have a voice and that is why there are many speaking up for themselves. It’s not just wolves, other animals as well.

      • wolf moderate Says:

        1. (adj.) public
        of, pertaining to, or affecting a population or a community as a whole:
        http://www.definitions.net/definition/public

  18. Cindy Says:

    This is so not an anti-hunting meeting. I’ll share more tomorrow. Thanks for all the insight.

  19. Nancy Says:

    1. (adj.) public
    of, pertaining to, or affecting a population or a community as a whole:
    Thanks for definition Wolf Mod. Alittle insight into your world?

    “that people only care about things that directly affect them these days”

    • wolf moderate Says:

      I don’t follow. Are yo saying that I only care about things that affect me personally? If you think that you are mistaken😉 I’m for gay marriage (not gay), Prochoice (no vagina, so who am I to talk about it), anti military industrial complex, and last but least a wolf moderate🙂

  20. jon Says:

    Some good news for wolves in Montana.

    http://www.defendersblog.org/2011/04/montana-wolf-kill-bill-stopped-in-its-tracks/

    sportsmen for killing fish and wildlife tried to push this bill real hard from what i understand.


Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: