Senate and House pass budget bill with wolf delisting rider.

President Obama will sign the bill into law and wolves will no longer enjoy the protection of the Endangered Species Act.

The House and Senate passed a budget bill which included the rider to delist wolves in Idaho, Montana and parts of Oregon, Washington, and Utah but leaves the status of wolves in Wyoming unchanged.  The rider, attached by Senator Jon Tester (D-Montana) and Representative Mike Simpson (R-Idaho), mandates that the Secretary of Interior republish the 2009 delisting rule in the Federal Register within 60 days of passage of the bill and restricts the rule from being challenged in court.

President Obama is expected to sign the bill.

The removal of a species from the Endangered Species Act by Congress is an unprecedented move and is likely to be followed by more such moves in the future.  Congress has basically said that if a species becomes too inconvenient to industry then it shouldn’t be allowed protection and management of the species doesn’t have to subject to the best available science.

What comes next is anyone’s guess but surely there will be a great number of wolves killed in Idaho and Montana in areas where their respective game agencies have blamed wolves for declined elk populations. Those killings could begin immediately after the rule is published in the Federal Register and if they occur soon then they will undoubtably end up killing packs of wolves who are near their den sites.  Idaho has committed to maintain only 10-15 breeding pairs or 100-150 wolves in total and they recently passed a wolf disaster declaration which defines a wolf disaster as having any more than 100.  Even though that legislation is now moot because it only applied while wolves were not protected under the ESA, it is a signal of things to come from the legislature next year.

One thing should become abundantly clear.  The livestock industry, with the help of Democrats, did this. If anyone thinks that Democrats represent the interests of wildlife advocates or that the livestock industry presents anything other than a threat to wildlife then they are fooling themselves.  Now that you recognize this what do you do?  Do you hold them accountable?  Do you escape from your codependent behavior that so many of us used to avoid conflict with our families and understand that it is effective politically?  Really, this happened because the anti-wolf crowd was able to rile up people into a fervor using hyperbole and fear that was noticed by politicians who are only worried about their reelection.  That’s how politics works.  The squeaky wheel gets the grease.

At least one group is already blaming the non-settling groups for taking away “leverage to rally senators against Tester and Reid” even though the judge specifically pointed out that he did not have the discretion to “allow what Congress forbids”.  Of course I wasn’t pleased with the settlement deal and I don’t think that it would have provided any more protection than what wolves face today but I also don’t think that it is useful to blame anyone other than the people who orchestrated this gutting of the Endangered Species Act.  We could have that conversation but what purpose does it serve other than to feed one’s ego?

The real focus should be on making sure that wolves remain on the landscape and serve a meaningful role in the ecosystem and not just a token population that exists at artificially low levels.  I suggest that there are a few main targets to make sure this happens.  First, defund the Wildlife Services predator control program, they need to be grounded so that they can’t kill wolves from the air.  Second, conservationists need to recognize that the livestock industry is who orchestrated this and that they will be more scrutinized now that they have done this.  More focus should be placed on public lands ranching that depends so much on the good graces and taxes of the public. And Third, the politicians who take the votes of wildlife advocates need to held to account.  Western Democrats worked hand in hand with Republicans and the livestock industry to get this done.  They need to know that they will face primary challengers who are willing to scuttle their entire candidacy just to make the point.

Does the metaphorical Hayduke live?  I’m not so sure anymore.  Can he be resurrected?  I hope so.  As conservationists we have to give them hell.

358 Responses to “Senate and House pass budget bill with wolf delisting rider.”

  1. wolfsong Says:

    Thank you Ken. I believe you are totally correct. Today is a very sad day for wolves and the ESA.

    • william huard Says:

      Right on the money Ken. Maybe Gov Schweitzer can send one of the wolves that will bleed to death in the upcoming hunt to Washington so Salazar, Tester, Baucus, Boxer, and Obama can smear the blood on their faces. Perhaps a photo shoot of the event can be given to the Cattlemens Assoc so they can hang it in their foyer.

      • jon Says:

        William, I realized not too long ago that the dems are just as bad as the republicans. Who do we count on from here on out? The republicans are anti-environment and anti-wildlife and now some of the dems are. It’s going to be real scary in the future when you think of the people that are in power and what is going to happen to wildlife.

      • White Wolf Says:

        William I will ask for your email if that is alright.

      • Mtn Mama Says:

        Excellent idea! I once saw someone kick a nesting goose in a corporate parking lot. Later that week the goose was accidently run over and the carcass was mangled. I was extremely tempted to leave the carcass on the desk of the person who had kicked it. Didnt follow through but this time I will. Get me a wolf carcass and I will deliver it!! Time to be a crazy inflammatory wolf lover- polite and politically correct wolf advocate didnt work.

    • Sandy Lee Says:

      I find this turn of affairs repugnent and feel that President Obama has betrayed the American people with this whole budget fiasco. In the book “Moral Ground Ethical Action for a Planet in Peril”, Moore and Nelson, eds. Barak Obama has a short chapter labeled “The Future I want for my daughters” He makes the statement “We cannot afford more of the same timid politics when the future of our planet is at stake.” I do not believe he has read his own words. With this delisting and obvious ignorance of the ESA, he is allowing the opening of a whole new time of accelerated destruction of our environment and the beings that inhabit it.

      • JimT Says:

        1. Obama was complicit in this, but frankly, the Western land and animal issues don’t even get to his desk. To the extent he is aware of any environmental issue, he is an EPA and energy conservationist. His continued support for the quixotic search for “clean coal” should have been the canary in the mine for all of us. Our idealism blinded us to a true reading of him on these issues. Would I have not voted for him? No, I would have since McCain and Palin were too hard to swallow. Again, there is that dilemma. We are passionate about our issues, but the Western Dems so far have not paid a price for ignoring the key votes of the environmental advocates. Perhaps it is time they did. Perhaps it is easier to rally the base to action when there is a clear enemy like we had in Watt, Rove, Cheney, and Norton. We got suckered, folks.

        2. Salazar, Hayes, and Reid led the charge on this one and others didn’t care if wolves and the ESA got gutted, and the Western Dems who campaigned on environmental protections, courted and got key environmental support on their way to victory, were shamefully staying silent on the whole damn scam that Tester and Hatch perpetrated. We got screwed because their reading of the tea leaves is that we will continue to vote for them. And honestly, the history of voting supports their conclusions. The next time I am asked for contributions, there will be a note instead of a check in the envelope telling them exactly what needs to change before I volunteer or give money. If that happens in significant numbers, they WILL pay attention.

    • JimT Says:

      Well said, Ken, and you have most definitely named the correct key decision making elements in this very sad day. Perhaps, just perhaps, this kind of development will encourage environmentalists who, to this point, have been content to voice concerns from the sidelines, to get involved in currently ugly game of political advocacy. The public land welfare ranching industry needs to be exposed; pressure needs to be brought on Western politicians to end this wasteful practice in the interest of reining in wasteful uses of taxpayer monies in this time of crisis. Their partners crime, the Wildlife Service, needs to be defunded and XXX’d ot of existence or refocused on actually doing something useful for ecosystems.

      And we, the Dems and the Independents of the West, must find a way to get out of the deadly cycle we are in with our acceptance of successful Dems winning our vote with the pathetically thin ” they are worse than we are” political mantra. What the hell every happened to expecting a Western Dem to go to DC and stay true to the principles and promises made on the campaign trail? If we can’t rely on the ones that are there, then let’s get a candidate that will..and get them elected.

  2. Mike Says:

    Well said.

    What a shameful president and congress we have.

    • mikarooni Says:

      Yes, but Rick Santorum announced his candidacy…

      http://www.time.com/time/quotes/0,26174,1547493,00.html

      • Mike Says:

        What’s the difference?

      • Phil Says:

        Mike: I would tend to believe now that anyone would be a better candidate then the current mane we have as our president who is not vulnerable in situations like these ones. I was one of those beievers who was brainwashed with the “change” Obama campaigned, but I strongly regret it now. I did a little research, and maybe someone can correct me on this, but it seemed like McCain was less to no pushover of others like Obama has been. Yes, Palin was a horrible representative as our second in command with regards to wildlife, but I also believe that whatever she proposed or brought about McCain would have probably denied it. I am counting the days until the next elections.

      • Savebears Says:

        Simply stated, a lot of people are finally figuring out, Obama was not the right choice, he did not have the experience required and he is over whelmed…you can’t simply state you want change, you have to understand how change happens, which he did not, the Demo party put their faith in a kid…they have lost the house because of it, and I suspect they will loose the oval office in 2012, I would not be surprised to see the party give the nomination to another democrat…besides the sitting president..

      • Phil Says:

        I hope you are right in that the Dem party puts their chances in the hands of another candidate, but isn’t there a law that states the current president has the right to defend his candidacy for another election if he/she has not fulfilled the two term minimum?

      • jon Says:

        sb, he may not have been the right choice, but it was either him or Mccain. Do you think Mccain would be more environment/wildlife friendly than Obama? who knows. I think Obama has a chance winning in 2012. Look at the people he’s likely to face. Palin, Bachmann, Romney, Donald Trump etc. Romney or Bachmann MIGHT have a chance, but who knows. The urbanites will most likely vote for Obama especially the minorities.

      • jon Says:

        Obama needs to go. I noticed there were a few Obama supporters on here, but I hope they changed their mind about him after this wolf delisting!

      • Phil Says:

        By the way SB, I was a newbee to the political world in 10. It was my second time voting, but my first in actually following to a great length the candidates. I did not have the experience that many have in voting based on the ideas and logics, but I will sure not make that mistake again.

      • wolf moderate Says:

        Hillary was a choice…

        The hipsters wanted “hope and change” though.

      • william huard Says:

        Be careful…….The Republican No nothing Party has a vision that is alot darker than the democrats vision

      • jon Says:

        Obama will go down as one of the worst presidents in united states history!

      • timz Says:

        William H. I agree with you on most things and don’t wish a confrontation with you, but your seemingly blind support of democrats is mind boggling to me. They did this,more so than the republicans.

      • timz Says:

        “I would not be surprised to see the party give the nomination to another democrat…besides the sitting president..”

        Save Bears I would not either but it would take a Democrat with some real balls to challenge him. I don’t know if such a Democrat exists.

      • william huard Says:

        Timz-
        I have already called the Democratic Senators involved in this sell out of an animal that has endured more than it’s share of persecution to voice my contempt. Our Government is dysfunctional and broken. As unhappy as I am with these events I have to look at the bigger picture- things would be worse on all levels with a Republican President. I am shocked at how little this current administration has done for wildlife. Will tea partiers do better for wildlife? Or republicans?

      • Ken Cole Says:

        SB, I’m not so sure Obama truly wants change. I don’t think he’s weak, I think he wants the outcomes he is getting. I’m not the only one either.

        http://www.salon.com/news/budget_showdown/index.html?story=/opinion/greenwald/2011/04/13/obama

      • timz Says:

        William,how could it possibly worse?

      • Savebears Says:

        Ken,

        If we went back through the various posts on this blog, including the ones I made during the campaign, I said that all along, he didn’t have the strength to bring change, but he did have a plan in mind.

        I am pretty firmly of the belief, that the Democrats chose a place holder, until they could find a stronger candidate…this has been a wasted term, in hopes someone will come to the forefront that actually has the strength to do something..

      • william huard Says:

        As far as wolves are concerned it couldn’t be worse. To throw wolves to the mercy of a state like Idaho was my worst fear. I think progressives or liberals need a better voice for their cause. How is that accomplished now with our political structure set up the way it is? I feel stuck supporting a Democratic agenda that currently doesn’t fight for Democratic ideals

      • Ken Cole Says:

        SB, I should have paid more attention but I made a mistake in supporting him. I honestly don’t think that we would have gotten anything different out of Hillary though.

      • Ken Cole Says:

        Also, I think everyone was shellshocked after Bush. I know I was and now we’re paying the price for it. When I look back though every candidate was a corporate sellout.

      • jon Says:

        Some can blame republicans, but at the end of the day, a democrat is the reason why wolves are being delisted.

      • Savebears Says:

        Ken,

        We are in fact, our own worst enemy…the country sticks to the two party system…we continue to play the electoral college game, which needs to go, people continue to be ignorant on the issues and actually investigate those they are voting for..we the people are the weak link in this country..until such time as the people demand real change, we will continue to get what we have…

      • Dude, the bagman Says:

        I don’t think the issue was that Obama was actually too weak to actually get stuff done. He had enough political support for his rhetoric and control of both houses of Congress.

        As soon as he got in, he filled his cabinet with insiders who were closely related to the problems we’re experiencing now. As a former community organizer, he tried to build consensus with the rabble who would probably like to see him hanged. He had the opportunity and political support to shove some necessary changes down the throats the the greedy and the ignorant, but he caved in the interest of bringing everyone to the table.

        He had the opportunity, but he either:
        1. co-opted and used people’s frustration with Bush to keep the corporate machine running, or
        2. exercised some of the worst judgment since Nero thinking he could make nice with the Dick Cheneys of the world.

      • JimT Says:

        But a Democrat in name only…Wouldn’t be surprised at all given the level of ethics Tester demonstrated with this back door legislation if he switched parties to get elected…the ultimate middle finger to the White House.

      • william huard Says:

        JimT-
        This was as cynical a move as you can get. I called Tom Udall’s office this morning and read him the Baucus quote-
        “It was a little hard persuading Sen Boxer and sen Cardin that we’re not gutting the Endangered Species Act, said Baucus in an interview. They don’t have the same understanding of the wolf problem that we have”
        In the west they are not gutting the Endangered Species Act they are just not listing species- the ole warranted but precluded trick. I asked Udall’s asst how long it would be before the Stockgrowers came after the Mexican Gray. How safe are they with the Steve pearce’s of the world in Government?

    • Phil Says:

      william: Don’t we already have a Republican President wearing a Democratic mask? The anti-wolfers talk about the “wolves in sheep clothing”, how about the “President in Democratic clothing”?

  3. wolf moderate Says:

    If Idaho decides to reduce the state’s wolf population below about 400 or so I will be very active in getting the government to reverse any legislation. Personally, I am happy to have the “affected” states manage their wolf population, BUT we just need to be alert to any craziness that could come about.

    The Legislature was just blowing hot air w/ the whole 10 breeding pairs crap, they were just pissed that a bunch of green haired hippies got the best of them. Now that they have control again, hopefully they will reconsider, which I believe strongly they will. Why would they risk having the wolves relisted? Without 10 (J) status no less! These aren’t stupid people, though many of you seem to think it…

    • jon Says:

      “If Idaho decides to reduce the state’s wolf population below about 400 or so I will be very active in getting the government to reverse any legislation”.

      Sure you will. You know, you try to come across as a wolf moderate, but I don’t think anyone on here is buying it. Judging by your comments, you are not a moderate and you are a troll whose sole purpose was to come here and argue and insult pro-wolf advocates.

      • wolf moderate Says:

        Fair enough. What do you do for wolves? No need to answer because I already know…

        Good Day!

      • william huard Says:

        “If Idaho decides to reduce the states wolf population below about 400 or so I will be very active in getting the government to reverse any legislation”.
        Maybe you haven’t been paying attention Wolf Moderate. Idaho will barely tolerate 100 wolves. You will have decimated wolf packs. Remember, Idaho doesn’t care about the science of wolves and their survival. The hate is just too strong. What a shame.

        What were you going to do- storm Otters mansion and demand that he come to his senses?

      • wolf moderate Says:

        William,

        We will have to see. I would bet big that Idaho won’t risk having wolves relisted, thus will keep a nice sized buffer. Possibly 300, but I will guarantee they will stay well about the 10/100 minimums…

        Just being realistic w/ a splash of realism here. Sorry😉

      • skyrim Says:

        He/she only comes across as “moderate” to those who believe in moderation. The only thing we’ve proven for certain in 16 years is there is no moderation. And for me, there never will be. Not any more…………….

  4. skyrim Says:

    “Does the metaphorical Hayduke live?” Yes, Ken he does. He’s a bit older now but none are wiser than he. He made a little money playing the role of Capitalist and now he’s more dangerous than ever. And he is PISSED!

    • Mtn Mama Says:

      Who are you refering too? Doug Peacock?

      • skyrim Says:

        I might be. I might also be referring to you if you are sincere in your comments above. I’ve known many Haydukes in my day, and I hope to come to know many more in the future……………

      • Mtn Mama Says:

        Skyrim, Yes I am sincere. Get me in touch with the Monkey Wrench Gang……..

  5. White Wolf Says:

    Our two party system is broken and corrupt. We vote back and forth between the two evils , yet we never get anywhere. Maybe it is time to change that.

    • Harley Says:

      Ok sorry quicky questions here. I’ve seen some here that think delisting of wolves is the right thing, just not the way it was handled, is that correct?
      I’ve also seen wolves referred to as endangered but in some states like Minnesota they are flourishing. Do people here still considered them ‘endangered’ and if so, what kind of qualifications make a species not endangered anymore?
      Not trying to stir up trouble, I promise but I am curious. I don’t know if I would qualify wolves in Minnesota as endangered, that’s why I’m asking. I’ve seen several times when just that state has tried to delist and has been shot down because of the protest of environmental groups.
      Thanks in advance for serious considerations to the answers to these questions!

      • WM Says:

        Harley,

        Your question is timely. FWS thinks Great Lakes wolves are recovered and have been for some time. The problem has been suits by HSUS over the last ten years or so which wants them listed forever (depriving MN, WI and MI from any kind of lethal control or harvest). These states too have had an uphill battle to delisting, even in the presence of very solid science of strong and sustained recovery.

        FWS announcement of delisting rule either yesterday or today:

        http://us.vocuspr.com/Newsroom/Query.aspx?SiteName=fws&Entity=PRAsset&SF_PRAsset_PRAssetID_EQ=115700&XSL=PressRelease&Cache=True

      • jon Says:

        harley, to some, it does not matter if they are endangered or not. Not being endangered does not make killing alright to some and I sympathize with those people. You will come across different people on here with different views. There are some who don’t mind having wolves killed if they aren’t endangered and there are others who do. Some people don’t look at wolves as just a species, they look at them as individuals who feel they should have the right to live. Wolves don’t live very long in the wild.

      • Elk275 Says:

        Jon

        The above is your best post yet. Every person looks at things differently.

      • Harley Says:

        Hmm… thank you for both responses, it gives me food for thought.

        It’s tough. I think maybe because I’m not in any way at this point directly affected by this issue, (I’m kinda like a midwest bystander lol!) I can see both sides of the rational fence. I do stress RATIONAL because there are some people on the fringes, as there are with just about anything, that just make me cringe.
        I can understand legit concerns by hunters, ranchers and those that try to make a living. Not everyone believes that tofu is the next best thing to a beef steak. (tried tofu, all I can say is eeww, sorry!) I also believe there are rational people out there on that side of the argument that do not want to see the wolf completely eradicated. Some do, don’t get me wrong here!
        Then I see those on this side of the fence that just don’t want to see another species wiped out. Let’s face it, we haven’t been the best stewards of what God has given us. But then
        I pull my hair out in frustration when I see the name calling, the calls for violence, the lawsuits… I guess the deep passion that crosses that line of civility into something ugly, again I stress, this is on both sides, not just one or the other.
        *sigh* I’m not quite sure what I’m trying to say here. I see some good people both here and at the BBB but you are all so polar opposite that there will never be a meeting of the minds and I guess that kinda makes me sad and tired.

      • william huard Says:

        Harley-
        Look on the bright side! The BBB has added you as a third blogger to go with along with the Bobsey Twins! Things are lookin up- maybe we won’t have to endure the SSS threats and gutshooting comments for a few days

      • Harley Says:

        I’m…. not sure what exactly you mean by that remark William.

      • william huard Says:

        Harley-
        My comments are not a personal attack against you. You are correct in that the divides between the two sides are very wide. This upcoming hunt in Idaho in particular will be more about getting back at the wolf supporters than about a management hunt. Once Idaho starts with the Baiting, Trapping, Calling and possible poisoning of wolves the full impact of this decision will become crystal clear

  6. Steve C Says:

    Will the cowards at defenders of wildlife take the president and tester to task for this? Will there be any ads?

    • william huard Says:

      I think the focus now is to support credible groups like WWP who know how to take on these corrupt Ranchers and the corrupt politicians that support them.

      • jon Says:

        William, wolves may be delisted, but the fight sure isn’t over. A lot of pro-wildlife organizations will be watching very closely what Idaho and Montana does. I believe that Oregon/Washington wolves will be left alone because there aren’t very many of them. If they were allowed to be hunted, I’m very certain there would be a huge uproar and a lot of public backlash. There are many who will try like to hell to make sure wolves remain in their state despise what hunters and the ranchers want.

      • william huard Says:

        Jon, you may be right. I feel nothing but anger at the Democrats who allowed this to happen. This was Max Baucus and Ken Salazar, make no mistake about it. i will do my part to make sure Boxer, Cardin, and the Udalls know how much contempt I feel for them. To allow politics to trump the protections of an animal with the tragic history the wolf has already had to endure is shameless.

      • jon Says:

        Yep, you and everyone else can blame Tester and Baucas for delisting wolves. A democrat will sell his soul for votes and that is exactly what Tester is doing. 2011 will be the year where everyone remembers wolves were delisted by 2 democrats out of Montana. Dems used to be pro-environment, but that is not the case anymore. Gone are the days when the dems were for wildlife and for the environment. Now dems seem to be in bed with the republicans on a lot of issues.

      • jon Says:

        http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/ap_on_re_us/us_endangered_wolves_politics

        “But legal experts warn the administration’s support of lifting protections for the animals opens the door to future meddling by lawmakers catering to anti-wildlife interests.”

      • White Wolf Says:

        William, the very definition of politics IS shameless. If anything is in need of culling, it’s corruption in government…on all levels. But would there really be anything left…?

        No…the fight has only begun!

    • Steve C Says:

      Lets give Rehberg some campaign contributions. The dems would be better off in the minority with the power of filibuster…

  7. SBH CLAY Says:

    Three questions:
    (1) Does anyone here wonder why humans call themselves the superior species when we are the ones oppressing and manipulating and killing wild and domestic animals alike — all for no real reason, no legitimate need? Isn’t that immoral?
    (2) Does anyone here still eat the flesh of cattle and sheep? In other words, do business with the ranchers? (If yes, why?)
    (3) Who is “the metaphorical Hayduke”? Scratch that. I just Googled and found him.

    • Bea Ⓥ Elliott Says:

      Yes! I believe that is immoral too! With a genuine cause to harm and kill it just can’t be the proper way to live.
      And I sure don’t support the flesh peddlers. No ranchers, or farmers or slaughterhouse owners.
      I fear sometimes that we may as a species, drown in the bloodbath we have set upon the world.

  8. Mtn Mama Says:

    DEMOCRACY HAS FAILED!!!!!!! The precious blood of every wolf will be on the hands of Tester, Salazar and Obama. I am down with civil disobedience- at this point I feel it is our only option.

    • White Wolf Says:

      There is no Democracy, just the illusion of liberty. I still believe that we should not vote for either party next election and give them all something to think about.

      This is what happens when you give ego a license to legislate. And what exactly does this prove…? And are we supposed to be impressed…?

      I wish someone, somewhere would show true leadership and remind us all of why we have a constitution.

      I am all for checking into what can be done concerning federal water and grazing rights. I already do not eat meat.

      Tester will look dapper wearing his badge of cowardice to remind everyone what kind of man he really is.

      • wolf moderate Says:

        I saw this bumper sticker last year in McCall last summer. Obama is an acronym for One Big Azz Mistake America! I cracked up when I saw that one. Who didn’t see this coming?

        They are all corrupt shills for corporations. That’s why the Tea Party arose, remember? Bush was a POS and now Obama is just doing the same. Guantanamo, unemployment won’t go above 8%, enact windfall profits tax for oil companies, let Bush era tax cuts expire, immigration reform, Iraq war, Don’t ask Don’t Tell, etc..

        All of these politicians are liars. They are all in bed with big business. GE pays no taxes! LoL.

      • Dude, the bagman Says:

        Funny, and I thought the tea party just arose because they didn’t like the idea of having a black president.

        Where were they during 8 years of Bush’s corporate giveaways and running up the deficit with 2 wars and no taxes to pay for it all? Speaking of shills…

      • wolf moderate Says:

        It could be because he is half black or it could have arose during the Wall Street meltdown among other things. A lot of things have happened in the past few years…

        The Iraq war was widely supported at the beginning. The country was united and waving the flag, bleeding red, white, and blue following 9/11. That kept the heat off of Bush for a few years, couple that w/ the fact that he entered the White house with a surplus, and it’s easy to see how he was able to run the country down the tube before many were able to comprehend what the hell was happening.

        by 08′ it was clear that we were screwed due to the wars, Wall Street Corruption, and the housing bubble.

      • Harley Says:

        Obama came from the politics of Chicago. That alone should prove his untrustworthy status in my opinion. 45+ years of corruption is enough to make one vomit.

      • Dude, the bagman Says:

        Or it could be that we elected a black president.

        It was pretty clear to me that things were going down the tube well before Bush got reelected. When he did, I lost a lot of faith in my fellow Americans.

        The same people who were chanting “love it or leave it” and pounding the war drums are a lot of the same people now in the Tea Party not so subtly talking about dismantling the government. Interesting. Simple, emotional arguments for simple folk. Consistency be damned if it doesn’t suit their purpose. They have the memories of goldfish.

      • Dude, the bagman Says:

        And Bush was a draft dodging cokehead alcoholic oil godzilloinaire whose dad was head of the CIA and whose VP owned a lot of stock in the war machine. That was enough to convince me.

      • wolf moderate Says:

        Now I don’t like bush but you left off Yale graduate. Geez dude! You are super biased man. At least we’ve seen Bush’s transcripts.

        Good nite!

      • Harley Says:

        Gah, I would like, just once, to find a ‘good’ politician, you know? Republican, Democrat, they all are just… frustrating. I am remembering why I detested politics so intensely when I was younger.

      • Dude, the bagman Says:

        I don’t see the tea party rallying against corporations. That’s just a flat-out distortion. They rally against the government, and particularly the policies of our president. Did I mention that he’s black?

        Those people were manipulated then into rallying behind trickle down economics, Bush II’s oil agenda, and they’re being manipulated today into rallying behind the Tea Party pro-business agenda.

        Sure, dismantle the IRS and EPA. That’ll really help the common man. It’s not like we need to be able to pay for roads, firemen, public education, or breathe clean air. Toll boths will work fine for me. I only want to pay for the roads I drive on. I can afford to send my kids to private school and pay for private fire protection. I’ll drink bottled water and breathe bottled air.

      • wolf moderate Says:

        You certainly have hyperbole down to a T. You sound like me when I’m going off about how America is going down the tube and once we reneg on our debts and lose our AAA bond rating that Marshall law will be enacted and rioting will break out throughout the country.

        Neither of us are citing information and I’m tired. Continue tomorrow or some other time you troll🙂

        Seeya.

      • Dude, the bagman Says:

        And you aren’t biased? You seem to just be a conservative apologist hiding behind the name “moderate.”

        You seem to be defining yourself on this blog against some kind of perceived extremism. Although I agree that the far extremes in this debate are unrealistic, your claim of moderation is an implied statement that everyone who disagrees with you is a wacko on one side or the other. Your jedi mind tricks aren’t real subtle, and your claim of reasonableness and moderation don’t make your statements any less biased or more correct.

        Moderate bias is very real, and won’t necessarily ever correct or lead to a good outcome. The world is flat or spherical. The truth doesn’t lie somewhere in the middle. It’s not maybe flat or round.
        When you define yourself as a moderate, you’re essentially insulting everyone with any opinion other than your own.

        I said good day.

      • Dude, the bagman Says:

        Fine. Good day sir.

  9. Mike Says:

    I think Ken makes some good poins about “getting tough”. That said, wouldn’t this blog be a good place to start? This is a pro-wildlife site from my understanding, yet the views of those who want wolves gone are allowed to stand. Do those who disrespect our living neighbors really need another place to shout with their megaphones?

    • Ken Cole Says:

      I don’t think we need to live in a bubble, that being said, I’m perfectly willing to admit that there are several people who aren’t allowed to post here.

    • Savebears Says:

      So your of the belief you should gavel down those who disagree with your point of view Mike? Sounds like what was going on during the health care debates, if you don’t like what someone is saying, then just censor them?

      But yet, Ralph has on many occasions made his feeling known about the hunting debates and they continue to stand!

      • Savebears Says:

        I have always been under the impression, this is a wildlife & environmental issues blog and has been since day one, of course these issues involve both sides, or you don’t have an issue…you have a back patting session…

      • Mike Says:

        Nope. I’m saying it dilutes the message, and there aren’t very many pro-wildlife sites out there that are popular.

        This is a pro-wildlife blog from my understanding, and most conversations get muddled down with anti-views. Doesn’t help the cause. If we can’t be cohesive in a great place like this, what chance does the message have out there? Forget it.

      • Savebears Says:

        Mike,

        the message that this blog sends get a lot of attention all over the world, including many of the contributors getting prominent interviews as well as winning lawsuits..

        I have been a proponent of delisting for quite a while now, I however did not want it done through back room dealings..

        A message with out debate from both sides is not a message it is a sermon…and I know for a fact, there are a good number of people who are not allowed to post on this blog…

  10. Craig Says:

    What has failed is PRO-Wolf people not willing to work with Anti-Wolf people! I think the Quote from Cool Hand Luke fits this scenario.
    “What we’ve got here is failure to communicate(on both sides). Some men you just can’t reach, so you get what we had here last week which is the way he wants it. Well, he gets it. And I don’t like it any more than you men.

    • timz Says:

      What a crook of shit, like the Anti-wolf people ever tried to work with pro wolf folks. The dumbest post on this blog ever.

      • Craig Says:

        Typical! Things were fine when we had a hunt ect. Then that wasn’t good for you guys, and law suits started and you ended up where you are now!

      • timz Says:

        you my friend are an ill-informed moron.

      • timz Says:

        Name one occasion where the anti-wolf crowd ever tried to work for reasonable wolf management. And don’t bring up the hunt where they extended it because the hunters couln’t kill enough in the alloted time frame.

    • Phil Says:

      Craig: The pro wolf people tried working with the anti wolf people through the settlement, but we heard many anti-wolfers condemming even the settlement itself. They want no power of wolves from the pro wolf side, and they do not agree with little to no wolf population.

      • Craig Says:

        When there was a Hunting season everything was going great, then the Pro side fucked it all up! DO YOU REMEMBER THAT!? Yeah short term memory, what a bitch!

      • timz Says:

        Like I said you are an ill-informed moron.

      • Phil Says:

        Sorry to say Craig, but everything was not going great. Extension of the hunting season just to reach the quote, increase of the quote in hunting seasons to come, lies about the wolves, etc were not great ways in dealing (or not dealing) with wolves. It was through nothing more then fabrications and twists of facts.

      • wolf moderate Says:

        Phil that is ridiculous. The reason for the hunt was to cull the population. The wolves were harder to hunt than expected (Duh), so they extended the season. There was nothing shady going on. It’s done all the time. there are quota’s on the number of bears hunters can take along with the number of female cougars. Of course it depends on the state and the number of animals that the state is trying to cull.

        The quota system will be the way that wolves are managed by the states in the future. If the quota isn’t met in the alloted time, then the season will be prolonged or possibly even allowing other methods of “take”.

  11. Craig Says:

    Did you note my (on both sides) Timz or were ya just on a typical Pro rant not paying attention to anything?

    • timz Says:

      Yes and I called bullshit on the both sides thing, cause it is just that bullshit. Again, name one occasion where the anti’s came to the table with anything meaningful.

      • Craig Says:

        They let them reintroduce them in the first place! Is that a start? Or they would have started 800 lawsuits stopping it like the Anti-crowd did on hunting them.

      • Phil Says:

        Craig: Who is “they”? Are you talking about the citizens of the states? Because, wasn’t it a acceptable reintroduction by the majority of the citizens in Idaho?

        “Or they would have started 800 lawsuits stopping it like the Anti-crowd did on hunting them.” You mean like the amount of proposals the anti-wolf people (especially the govenment officials) put together in trying to delist wolves in hopes that one would go through? The delisting on its own would probably not have fallen through, so desperate measures were taken to ensure that eventually soon enough wolves would be delisted.

  12. David S. Says:

    You are all trippin on how bad Dems are because of this and that wolves have no chance now, *hit! Get over your negativism and realize that this is just the road to the next challenge. The dems are your only chance! This is not final, this is an ongoing battle. Rejoice that efforts to this point have brought about so many wolf population to the lower 48. Some loses are going to occur. The tide will turn again; science will still have some say. There are other congresses. Be real; don’t bail out on the first sign of trouble. Don’t act so spoiled.

    • Ken Cole Says:

      The Dems are not our only chance if they simply take our vote for granted. I do not follow blindly when the path leads to complete and utter capitulation to industry. If they aren’t held accountable then how do expect them to listen?

      Seriously, look at the opposition. The Tea Party isn’t effective because they use reason and strong arguments, they are effective because they hold their representatives accountable to their interests and raise hell.

    • william huard Says:

      I agree David S. Very good point

    • Dude, the bagman Says:

      The tea party is effective because they use simple arguments based on emotion and anger. They’re so scary that they get media coverage far beyond their numbers.

      They essentially throw a tantrum, with thinly veiled threats of violence underneath. Hence the angry old white men with ARs on their backs at rallies. They’re a lot like terrorists. After all, the Boston Tea Party would be considered a terrorist act today.

      Democrats make more nuanced arguments, which makes them sound elitist, faggy (no offense intended), and therefore untrustworthy to red-blooded Americans. And they sell out almost as bad as everyone else.

      • Dude, the bagman Says:

        That wasn’t what I was talking about. I’m pretty sure it’s happened at more than one rally.

        Sure, the media will occasionally sensationalize a story to advance a narrative that sells. However, chicken little stories on conservative blogs that make liberal conspiracies out of isolated occurrences aren’t exactly credible either. The media is only as liberal as the corporations that own it.

        Nor do those stories detract from what is actually happening in the outside world. A couple of emails between scientists talking about manipulating data doesn’t mean that global warming isn’t happening either. No one with any credibility would actually buy into that weak of an argument. Of course, there are a lot of idiots overloaded with information these days because of the internet. It makes them easier to manipulate.

        If you choose to believe in that kind of mythological narrative despite ample evidence to the contrary, that’s your decision. Just please don’t vote. I don’t want people that easily controlled making decisions for the rest of us.

        Care to make an argument, or are you just going to keep sniping at people? Are you just here to troll?

      • Dude, the bagman Says:

        Good day.

      • wolf moderate Says:

        Just troll? lol. I’ve posted lots of reasons why the Tea Party has risen to “power”. What, you don’t like my reasoning, so you lower yourself to saying that I’ve been indoctrinated by conservative blogs? Heh. From what I’ve read on this site, it seems that many get ALL there information from one or two sources. Perhaps you should be worried more about your cohorts and less about me…Just Sayin’😉

        I love how anytime I present information that you guys do not like, you call me a troll. Anywho, have a good one!

        So, what, no rebuttal about the real reason that the Tea Party came about? How bush had a surplus, wars, and 9/11 which distracted the country? By the time that they realized it, it was too late. In 08′ people started to realize what a cluster fck the country had become under BUSH. True Tea Party folks hate Bush as much as Obama. Hannity and Limbaugh are nothing but mouth pieces for the GOP and big business. If you want someone to blow your mind, tune into Michael Savage. radiotime.com. Yeah, he’s a bit extreme, but he has many excellent points. Also has a PhD from Berkeley! Of course one can’t get all of there information from one source, so I try and watch Ms. “everything is ironic” Maddow whom I can’t stand, but ya can’t get all your info from one place, so I digress.

  13. Ron Kearns Says:

    Senator Tester is proudly crowing about his success today. From Tester’s website:

    {Quote:

    ‘Tester successfully delists wolves in Montana, returns management to the state’

    “This is more than a victory for Montana,” said Tester, Chairman of the Congressional Sportsmen’s Caucus. “It’s a win for rural America, for jobs, and for our wildlife—and it’s what’s right for the wolves themselves. This was never going to get done with partisan games or grandstanding. We fixed this problem with Montana values—by putting aside our differences and working together on a responsible, common sense plan.”

    End Quote}

    • Phil Says:

      “We fixed this problem with Montana values…”? Huh? I thought he fixed his problem with wolves by taking a cheap way in having it passed by attaching it to something that was a “Must Pass” proposal? So, I guess all the people in Montana who did not approve of delisting wolves are not real Montanans. Going back to what I have always believed, people like this who state what they do have a belief system that is suitable for individuals who share their ways of life.

      • Savebears Says:

        Phil,

        If you are new to the politics of the US, your going to find out the hard way, it is made up of nothing more than back room deals and slick ways to pass pet laws, both parties are involved in it, and no one has the corner on the market, it has gone on for a long time now..

      • White Wolf Says:

        My reaction exactly. ” with Montana values”? But of course. What else would expect from a man who claims to encompass high ethical standards, yet has no qualms about using the federal budget bill to delist wolves…as governance by rider.

        If he even had the courage of his convictions and actually put it out in plain sight and stood up and fought for it, I might at least give him some credit because he actually earned it…but as I said before…it is a hollow victory.

        I won’t even ask how he sleeps at night , because it is most likely very comfortably on his cloud of arrogance.

        This particularly irks me as you can not have it both ways. Either be a man of honor…or be an egocentric ambassador of bad karma, but do not even try to be both. Ego and honor do not mix…like oil and vinegar.

  14. dave smith Says:

    Doug Peacock–the real George Hayduke–is still quite active on behalf of grizzly bears. But protecting grizzlies from government biologists and bureaucrats with unlimited budgets is not easy.

  15. Craig Says:

    Timz if I have to go back and find all that info for you, it’s not worth it! You and Jon have fun being ignorant to what is really going on and enjoy your PETA meetings!

    • timz Says:

      Ok dipshit, but I’m still waiting for yopu to show me an example of what the anti’s bought to the table in the form of cooperation.

      • Craig Says:

        Well Dipshit…go read the back posts! I’m not gonna dig all that shit back up because you are to goddamn dumb to figure it out! If you haven’t read this blog and the others, I don’t know what to say! Besides yer a psycho nut like jon and don’t know shit from shinola.

      • timz Says:

        I repeat.
        “Classic response from someone who has nothing. Same thing you hear when you ask for proof of the ’150 wolves’ agreement, ‘it’s out there go find it yourself. Your a fucking idiot.”

    • william huard Says:

      Craig- You are showing your ignorance by trying to claim that because people care about wolves that somehow they have anything to do with PETA. That is an unintelligent statement. So because people don’t want wolves to be exterminated by ranchers and hunters you paint them as extreme?

      • Craig Says:

        Just like everyone of you paint a Hunter as a Wolf Killer! Calling the kettle black.

      • White Wolf Says:

        Just a thought:

        It really all comes down to word play. Terms like “crafted” “legislative language,” “extremist, “”management.” How convenient that we can manipulate the English language to suit our purpose and then turn it around when it no longer suits us.

        Our word was once a solemn promise imbued with virtue, although now it has become a trivial pursuit to further promote fundamental injustice.

        I remember when the delisting rider first showed up and I was participating in a conversation on an environmental blog site. An obvious supporter’s comment was this…verbatim, ” Environmentalist’s wanted a range war, now they have it.”

        Sounded antiquated to me, like dialogue straight out of an old western movie, but he was serious and I cringed at the implication of such mentality run amok. And I knew this was not going to turn out well , especially when my instinct was confirmed when I unearthed the web site where MR. Peay’s post boasted of writing a book about doing something many said could not be done. Finding the “exact right language” and sneaking it into a must pass bill.

        Of course they knew this was the only way around a law that was not intended to be trifled with. It was the path of least resistance and it is now…a hollow victory.

        My deepest concern it that this is the kind of malfeasance that will be rewarded and the kind behavior that will be fostered. But this is not over by any means.

      • White Wolf Says:

        Craig, true hunters would not be threatened by the wolf’s presence, and real men would value his wisdom.

      • wolf moderate Says:

        I really like the way that you illustrate your points. But, saying that hunters are “threatened” by wolves is not true. They want the wolves to be managed by the states is all. Sure there are a few select morons like Gillett who want them eradicated, but they are few and far between. Furthermore, they are shunned by many in the “community”, at least that’s what I have gathered.

        Overall, I think that most people just want wolves to be managed just like bears, cougars, elk, and every other species in the states in question. I sympathize with those that want to see no wolves killed, but that is an unrealistic view and is not a valid option. Possibly in 30 or 40 years it will be, but at this point there are still too many people who love to fish and hunt. In a few decades this may not hold true.

      • Jeff N. Says:

        Craig,

        You sorry dullard. You obviously have not been paying attention. Many on this site are hunters and they have not been “painted” as wolf killers, as you claim. Most here believe that hunting is an acceptable way to manage the wolf population, however the extreme position of wolf elimination…errr..management proposed by the the states of ID and WY are a joke.

        Craig, I would recommend that you remove your head from your rectum, take a deep breath, and go back to the web/blog sites where your dumbass posts are regarded as relevent.

    • timz Says:

      Classic response from someone who has nothing. Same thing you hear when you ask for proof of the ‘150 wolves’ agreement, ‘it’s out there go find it yourself. Your a fucking idiot.

      • Mtn Mama Says:

        Craig- GET LOST! Maybe if you get lost in the woods the big bad wolves will get ya. FREAK.

      • Craig Says:

        You are a great Representitive of the pro-Wolf side Timz, you have proven your point and represented your side well! I think I will now go Pro Wolf because of your extensive knowledge and great intelect. I have changed sides and bow to your greateness! I have nothing else to say but you know all and are the greatest Wolf expert in THE WORLD!!!!!!!!!!!! I Will only listen to what you post and ignore everything else!

      • timz Says:

        Yes, get off this blog and go back to watching internet porno wher you belong.

      • jon Says:

        Craig, I don’t get why you even bother posting it if all you are going to do is call prowolf advocates names and say that they are stupid or any of this other nonsense you are saying. There are many other blogs out there that are much better suited for people like you. Try the bbb blog.

      • wolf moderate Says:

        Jon,

        If you look at the big picture, having people like Craig post, it makes your “side” look that much better.

        For instance, the PETA folks spilling red paint on themselves in cities like SF and Portland really just makes people think they have a screw loose. Doesn’t really help there cause IMO.

        I was walking downtown the other day and these girls were in bikini’s passing out anti-trapping literature, I showed them a copy of “outdoor life” that was tucked under my arm and continued on my way…Of course after sneaking one last peak, because they were cuuuuuuuute!

      • timz Says:

        Wolf moderate and others, quit with the PETA shit, I’ve never seen a Peta member post here and a love for animals and wildlife doesn’t make one a PETA member/supporter.

  16. Craig Says:

    Mtn Mama, you aren’t worth it!

  17. Ann Sydow Says:

    At least some of the blame for the impending slaughter must be laid at the feet of Defenders and the other nine settling groups. They have political clout and they chose to cave, and to sacrifice Idaho and Montana’s wolves while doing so. By asking Judge Molloy to overturn his decision and de-list the wolves, they made our task of convincing legislators that returning the wolf to state management in Idaho and Montana would be detrimental to wolves, next to impossible. If JoeBlow politician hears that Defenders of Wildlife is asking now for wolves to be returned to state management, do you really think he’s going to listen to all of us small groups, and all the citizens who called? He would think surely Defenders would be doing what is best for wolves, after all. I realize that its too late to worry about that now, etc but we might not be in this mess if not for the settlement. Looking at the really big picture, perhaps this is a case of things having to get worse before they can get better. All the going back and forth listed, delisted, relisted again and back, was not very helpful. Maybe this is a big enough disaster to call more attention to the plight of our wolves and get them some real protection… *hoping, praying, scheming…

  18. Phil Says:

    Craig: I want to share something with you. When I use to post on youtube, I was threatened by these anti-wolf hunters. I once read my mail from an individual who lived in Connecticut (whom I had never spoken with before) who stated he had a friend in Michigan and that he would come up here hunting and would like to meet me in the woods so that he could do to me what he was going to do to whatever he was going to hunt. It was an invite and nothing more then that. I never heard back from him after I responded just by telling him my height, weight and percentage of muscle. I have many female friends on youtube who have been threatened by the anti-wolf people in that they were going to find them, rape them and leave them clotheless in the woods like animals. Many of these females are animal advocated. None have been in contact with these anti-wolfers, but the messages came in after the anti-wolfers read through their channels. Yes, they were nothing more then threats, but it shows the immature, vicious and sickening mind of these individuals. This is why I no longer post on youtube and why many of these females have deleted these types of messages prior to banning the individuals. Are there some on the wolf side? I would believe so, but I don’t knw how many are this extreme.

    • Craig Says:

      Phil, that is sad and very disturbing. I don’t know what to say but the people I hunt with would never do that. We hunt ethicaly, and show our kids the same, the right way to hunt, treat the land and give back anything you take! Wether it’s planting Bitter brush for Deer, catch and release fishing, or just picking up trash when we go camping.
      We don’t have that differn’t veiws really! I think Wolves have a great value in the eco sytem and don’t think they should be killed off! I don’t think there should be any sheep,cattle on our public lands. But yet I’m a hunter and everyone deems me a bad guy here!

      • Jeff N. Says:

        Bullshit Craig. This site is full of hunters with differing views on how to manage the wolf population. I do not hunt, could never pull the trigger on a living animal for sport, but I am not anti-hunting. Quit the bullshit, make a viable point, whether pro or anti wolf, and expect a response in return. Don’t come to this site and “Flame” like a troll. Many here agree to disagree but we do our best to keep the conversation moving forward.

    • Harley Says:

      It’s kinda sad really. Both sides say that the other side is more violent, more threatening, etc etc. It’s really sad because I believe, firmly believe there are a lot of good people on both sides of the fence but we seem to dissolve into the name calling game and sometimes it reminds me of the playground in grade school. And I mean that for both sides.
      While I feel that wolves need to be controlled just like bears or cougars, I also would find it extremely sad and disturbing if they became wiped out again. I think most intelligent hunters realize that a top level predator is good for any ecosystem. The trouble comes when there’s an unbalance on either side of the equation.
      I wonder at times what the wisdom of Solomon would say in this situation?:/

      • william huard Says:

        You took offense by my “Redneck” comment. For quite along time now people that care about wildlife have had to endure the SSS comments and threats of gutshooting by your so called intelligent hunters. Spoiled brats that threaten through violence…….. Make no mistake about this- Ranchers and outfitters are no friends of wildlife. Outfitters only care about the wildlife they can exploit for profit. Ranchers want wolves to be exterminated. The difference is now people are on to them and their control of western politics. In the not to distant future people are going to start holding them accountable

      • White Wolf Says:

        Harley, the very same thought occurred to me about Solomon. The first thing I thought of was what WOULD be fair. If wolves have truly recovered sufficiently, then how best to delist them WITHOUT political interference while not creating a deeper chasm between us. Then, it seemed reasonable to invite everyone to have an open and honest debate. Put it all out there. The rules being …wait your turn, play nice together, no name calling, and no spit balls.

        Stakeholders, environmentalists, hunters and ranchers, people who represent a broad spectrum of interests and beliefs. But this rider was the worst possible way to handle a situation by undermining a bedrock law, just to have it your way, by any means. We all know now, it will not be the last attempt to dispose of an inconvenient species, the precedence is set.

        Who knows if we can all get our act together, maybe it still can be that way. This time we can discuss how we can best share the landscape with wolves and other members of the wildlife community. A serious concern of mine is the casual malice and horrid tortures some people seem to enjoy inflicting upon wolves. Obviously, they are trying to eradicate something much deeper than merely an animal. Maybe some one with connections within relevant states can bring up the topic of more humane hunting/management practices. That might go along way in closing the gap between us.

        But we have to be willing to put aside our differences and find our common ground.

        Actually, forums such as this are actually a good start, practice…if you will. If we can only learn to get along, we can carry this experience with us to the bargaining table.

        I appreciate the wolf within our landscape and want to be certain he will continue to thrive, because now, without protections, it is truly up to us….ALL of us. I am certainly willing to try.

      • Harley Says:

        William, I gotta be honest here, I cringe whenever either side starts talking… wild, you know? Everyone has had their share of angry rhetoric. One side says, they are done compromising, the other side says they are done compromising. Conflict resolution pointers for when I was working in a school that needed such intervention doesn’t seem to work in this case! It really runs way too deep, the feelings on both sides.

  19. Phil Says:

    jon: The most shocking thing I have read today is that Cardin approved of the wolf delisting rider according to Tester. He was a major hopeful of maintaining wolves as protected, but, as you mentioned, he (being a democrat) was one reason why wolves are probably no longer going to be protected.

  20. Craig Says:

    timz i’ve been on here since ralph started 15 years ago or more. If you want me off tell Ralph and if he asks me or blocks me i’ll get off!Other than that to bad! You really make this site look bad with your negative comments. Remember this is read all over the world.

  21. Rita K.Sharpe Says:

    This blog is about wildlife,isn’t it? Not a personal vendetta.

  22. Craig Says:

    Jon has anyone on here called me names? STFU waaaaaaaaaa get over it

  23. Ken Cole Says:

    Okay, enough of the name calling and all the other crap. This is not and will not be a bubble. Take each other to task, whatever, but keep it civil.

    I’m pissed about what happened today too but please keep it civil.

    • timz Says:

      Most of us are pissed, it’s those that aren’t that worry me.

    • Rita K.Sharpe Says:

      Frankly,I do not think the dictionary has the right word to express how upset I am.

    • Dude, the bagman Says:

      Seriously. Sounding off like 8 year-olds in a political forum isn’t going to gain any credibility for the cause.

      Fight arguments with arguments, not by calling each other names. If you have to take 5 minutes to craft a rational argument, do it. It will work better.

    • Mike Says:

      Again, it’s not a bubble. A bubble is when you are unaware of differing viewpoints. We are all aware of the viewpoints of the anti-predator crowd. My comments were in regard to a strong message. This is a popular wildlife forum. People who don’t know much about wolves or other rare animals can come by here and try to learn. On most other sites, they’ll see predator hate or loads of misinformation. So they come here and see half the people arguing for predators, and half arguing against, and then they leave with an unsympathetic stance towards predators.

      I don’t see how continually allowing anti-predator folks to kick sand in the face of posters here helps anything. It shows a weak front and does a disservice to what the site is about. That’s just my opinion, and I’m not going on some crusade, but in your original post you mentioned getting tough and fighting back, and this sequed to my thoughts on the face this forum presents to those trying to understand or learn about predators.

  24. Immer Treue Says:

    Man, I don’t know how I feel right now except numb. I like what the Dutcher’s said about Bald Eagles at least having regulatory backstops. All the wolves have is/was the ESA.

    It was a crummy way to get wolves delisted. Some will look at Testor as a hero, others will look at him as an arch villain. I clump him with all Democrats, so many of whom I called (not that my personal call amounted to a hill of beans) with at least a bit of hope. These people no longer represent me, and I fully understand that now. The Dems sold out, not just wolves, but on the entire budget and got absolutely nothing in return.

    timz, brother, I’m on your side, and I feel your anger. It’s not going to do any good. Relax. We will all have to expect a certain amount of schadenfreude(n) from the anti-wolf folks.

    I’ve worked for wolves, and I am disappointed that the delisting occurred this way. I’ll do anything within legal means to help in regards to wolves being treated fairly, but I’ll not stoop to the rhetorical level of some of our favorite antis. There are some good minds on this blog site, and the time may be here for more grass roots movements. I’m going to get some sleep, wake up and see where the cards have fallen. The time has come to reshuffle, and deal another hand.

  25. White Wolf Says:

    The same thing happened the day the delisting rider came out in the first budget battle. Many from the opposition came around just to gloat and flaunt their false bravado. But it never solves anything, it only puts more barriers between us and we will never find our common ground.

    Those who care realize that it has been a tragic day and those who don’t just want to hang out to rub it in. Have we ever really grown up…or just into our skin…?

  26. JimT Says:

    What would Ed Abbey do?

    • Dan V Says:

      Well, honestly, can we talk about that? What are our options as citizens to prevent this. Non-violent protest? Rallies in Montana and Idaho? Immolation in front of Congress?

      Seriously, what can we do? What are the numbers on public opinion about what percentage of Americans oppose this? It is possible to stir up huge negative emotions on this. Maybe the time is now.

  27. Leslie Says:

    Several months ago I sent an email to Obama re: some issue. Since then, with no reply, they put me on their email list. several days ago they asked me to support Obama’s re-election bid. I delisted myself and left all my comments why…spelling out all the ways I feel Obama has sold out the environmental community and will not be getting my support, at least verbally and in monetary terms. I urge everyone to do the same.

  28. WM Says:

    There are alot of reasons to be disappointed, and most, but not all, have been expressed since the budget bill passed both houses of Congress, awaiting Obama’s signature. Here is my disappointment:

    This is a good time for reflection. Consider the possibility that a “legislative solution” might not have been sought quite so vigorously or gained as much traction had wolf advocacy groups at the national and regional level not pushed quite so hard, with wave after wave of litigation, conducted with a certain aire of arrogance. Yeah, there was even gloating and a bit of taunting from these bleachers as federal court decisions echoed the purpose of the ESA. The secret to the win, was overstate the case on lack of genetic connectivity (some might suggest untruthful statements about it) AND pick esoteric legal arguments like the DPS break-up issue to block states from carrying out their approved plans.

    In August of last year I said, “be careful what you wish for” when Judge Molloy ruled on the DPS issue, which had little to do with the science of wolf recovery, but everything to do with blocking two states from implementing their plans, while wolves in WY would have been protected by FWS with no state management unless and until an approved management plan came about. Consider this: If the break-up of the DPS had not been brought up, the case would have proceeded on the science of recovery sufficient for delisting. Molloy could have kept the case, after considering the science of recovery arguments and kept the NRM delisting under a consent decree under his watch, with wolf numbers a bit higher and still allow ID and MT to do their annual harvests and control.

    There is plenty of room for finger pointing at both national and regional wolf advocacy groups as this complex and controversial reintroduction continues. Pushing for 3,000 – 5,000 wolves was unrealistic, and some scoffed at the idea of lower numbers, believing if you ask for that many, maybe you get nearly two thirds of it when you get to a bargaining table to compromise. Well, that was a BULLSHIT approach, and some of the folks at the helm played their cards wrong because they underestimated the uncertainty of what can happen when something goes political. This gave the ID legislature and Butch the very platform they needed for rebellion against the feds and wolf advocacy groups alike.

    These were the ingredients for the perfect storm on the national stage too. Don’t chastise me for opposing the assertion that a rogue D Senator, Tester, was a sleezeball and broke ranks. He had an obligation to represent his state as its duly elected popular vote representative . He wants to be re-elected. I submit if the opportunity had arisen with wolf advocates using the same technique with a rider, this perfectly legal (but disingenuous as some have pointed out) avenue to change law would have been employed. Dont’ be so pious, because the creative legal maneuvering, on the DPS issue, suffers from the same ethical lapse. And this gave D Senators and Reps. the cover they needed to let the wolf thing slip through the cracks without getting beat up in the process whether they opposed it or not. The greater good of passing a budget to keep the federal government running was at stake.

    • Elk275 Says:

      Good post, WM.

    • Immer Treue Says:

      WM,

      Another well written post. Upon relisting last year, I rather held my breath. I’ve said before that outwardly I was happy, but with inwardly felt nothing good would come from it. Just did not know it would play out to this deph and so quickly.

      Your rational as to why the dems let it slip through also makes sense, I just wish that one of the people we all called with hope, would have the decency to explain to us what you so eloquently put forth for them. As people we elected, Obama included, they owe us as much.

    • Mike Says:

      The problem with this logic is there’s no “controversy” to begin with. There are 1700 wolves in the Northern Rockies spread out over 330,000 square miles. Thnk about that for a second.

      The level of paranoia and misinformation has been ramped up by poltiicans looking for an edge in an area that is seeing more and more hardship as small towns shrink and gas prices cause the “country slummers” to rethink their 10 MPG pickups.

      You can’t blame judges and environmental groups for sticking to the rule of science. There’s nothing wrong with that, never will be. But you can place blame on an unhappy, reactionary populace looking for a venting symbol. Well, Tester found what he thought was a way to get some positive press in the Looneyville Times, and by doing so he damaged the ESA. This goes far beyond wolves. I think a lot of people would be less upset over this if there was language that said it could only be done for one species, that is canis lupis. Instead, Tester’s language leaves the door open for what is in essence a dismantling of the ESA, piece by piece by and by any radical in congress beholden to special interests. That’s the biggest problem here IMHO.

      • Immer Treue Says:

        Mike,

        The other side of the argument, and again, well said.

      • Dude, the bagman Says:

        “You can’t blame judges and environmental groups for sticking to the rule of science. There’s nothing wrong with that, never will be. But you can place blame on an unhappy, reactionary populace looking for a venting symbol. ”

        Yep. The ESA wasn’t designed to be politically popular. Unlike most environmental legislation since, it was designed to actually achieve an important substantive outcome without myriad exceptions for when that goal was politically inconvenient.

        You can argue “be careful what you wish for” over and over, but that sounds a lot like capitulation to me. Is it better to support the cause and intended outcome, or to slowly give it away piece by piece to a bunch of ignorant hillbillies spreading lies about 200 lb Canadian wolves thrill-killing children?

        What could be gained by ceding valid legal arguments to those who only want unlimited control over land for shortsighted personal gain? The ESA is the only effective tool we have today to keep these people from completely usurping all land use for personal profit. Why should we have given our cards away? Would the outcome have been better?

    • bret Says:

      Very well said WM.

      under state management (ALL states) we will continue to have wild wolves in wild places. Now can we take just a fraction of the energy for wolves and divert it to species that really need it, woodland caribou and fishers come to mind.

      • william huard Says:

        And perhaps a wolverine or two.

      • Phil Says:

        william and bret: Yes, we need much energy efforts spent on species who are in demand of it. I would love to see a protection plan for wolverines, especially in the state of Michigan (The Wolverine State), but also with jaguars, amongst others.

    • JimT Says:

      WM,

      First, while both parties have used the budget process in the past, this level of blackmail this time around to capture purely political ideological claims was unprecedented. It speaks to the increasing radicalization of the Republican party..a concept that boggles the mind, but radicals and extremism has and can be applied to both liberals and conservatives.

      I also find it interesting that you seem to condone Tester’s approach to such a substantive change in a major, possibly THE major environmental protection law for species. You seem to be saying that wanting to win an election justifies his clearly cowardly approach. THAT is part of the basic problem with all politicians these days…they are so goddamned worried about keeping their jobs, they park their principles, ethics and sense of what is fair and equitable at the door when they go to DC. Funny…people roundly condemn lawyers for that very thing. Why should Tester escape criticism or judgments for doing exactly the same thing? What Tester did, as well as Hatch and Baucus, was reprehensible regardless of whether or not he was representing some very powerful economic interests in Montana or not.

      You can argue all you want about the pros and cons of advocating for wolves. What has become increasingly clear is that Montana, Idaho, Utah and Wyoming are clearly in the throes of another knee jerk anti Federal, anti government period, fanned not by the wolf advocates, but by such things as the Koch brother funding of the Tea Party and the complicity of the Republican leadership in allowing these extremists to take over the party. The rhetoric of killing off all but small numbers of wolves, of conducting kills during denning time; of all but promising no prosecution for killing wolves in violation of the law.–this is what inflamed the people there. Not wolf advocates…they were just the means to the end, and a convenient scapegoat for ranchers and the elk industry.

      After all is said and done, this was about money…supposed livelihood threatening losses of livestock (no proof), and blaming the wolf for elk declines in all cases (also not provable). That, and politicians too afraid to step up and do what was honorable and ethical instead of what was expedient. If the Republicans managed to get this change in an open debate, full vote on the Senate floor, I still wouldn’t agree with it, but it would have the advantage of doing it in a fair manner. The fact that they didn’t; that they used a threat of harming tens of thousand of people if the Feds shut down; the fact that they excluded judicial review of their actions, denying citizens of one of the most fundamental Constitutional rights that exists–speaks volumes. Tester was and is a coward for choosing this path.

      • WM Says:

        JimT,

        I am inclined to believe the very narrow way in which the ESA has been tweaked for this specific situation is not as monumental as some suggest – it is not a gutting of the ESA. Mine is not a popular view, but it seems in many other respect the ESA will receive the sanctity it is due, precident setting issue that this otherwise might be.

        It is an affirmation by Congress (again acknowledging that the manner cheapens the law making process) that the FWS duly adopted 2009 rule on delisting will stand, regardless of the DPS break-up flaw.

        I am not sure I understand what you seem to think the underlying judicial review issue might be. I have not seen any analysis on that point, other than belief, which I share (and I think Dude is in agreement on this) that the language was included so that there would be clear that the rule would not be challenged under the Administrative Procedures Act, as against the ESA. The fact that Congress makes the rule a statute takes it out of that process (where an agency makes a rule under a statute then it may be challenged under the APA for conformance with the statute. To the extent that it is new law, the ESA is changed via the rule. A very, very narrow and species specific change. I suppose the boundaries of how it changes the science of recovery under the ESA will get some analysis if the states screw up, and that would, it seems, be judicially reviewable. JB spoke to that issue on another thread a few days back.

        Do you see a larger issue of judicial review here? You certainly have my attention, if you do.

      • Dude, the bagman Says:

        I’m in agreement with you about judicial review under the APA.

        I disagree with your minimization of the impacts of this type of legislative tampering. I may be prone to “slippery slope” type arguments, but I really do think this sets a bad precedent for management of species inconvenient to industry.

  29. Phil Says:

    wm: And the anti wolf groups did not push hard on bills to attack wolves? I think it is a double-standard here in which you are only pointing to one side and not both. I do not believe the finger pointing is on the advocay groups, it is more so towards the individuals who have had an agenda all along against wolves. Tester said it best when he stated “…Now hunters can take revenge on the wolves…”.

    • WM Says:

      Phil,

      Like usual, you miss the gravity of my comment. I didn’t say anti wolf folks did not push hard to oppose. There has been line after line on that, on this very thread, so why should I repeat what is already the obvious. We all know it is there.

      My message was that strident (and some might say unreasonable and politically unrealistic) wolf advocacy fed the fires of the anti’s, like gasoline. Somebody yells, then somebody on the other side yells back, maybe louder, and the escalation continues.

      Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, as I have mentioned before, was on the sidelines for a very long time, with no stated position on wolves. They were seeking balance, and trying to figure out how many wolves was not too many. They even had an official position statement on it that focused on good science. The wolf advocay juggernaut just kept moving forward, suit after suit, and making the pitch for bigger numbers of wolves in an ever louder voice. RMEF waited, some would say, too long to express a view. Then their leadership a new CEO, David Allen, came out with a not too refined attack because this thing had gotten out of hand with the DPS litigation, including a very pointed attack at Judge Molloy (which I thought was very inappropriate and overstated, especially because I think he ruled the way he had to on the law).

      • Phil Says:

        wm: And there have been line after line comments to show that the environmental groups went to far on their protection of wolves, but you brought up the side that willing to protect wolvs as they do not share your views. Here is what I would say to you. If you worked on a project and busted your ass off on it while spending a tremendous amount of time, effort and money into it, would you step aside and let someone who condemed your work(s) try and destroy and/or damage it? The Defenders of Wildlife were one of the major groups who worked in one of the most successful ESA works and reintroductions ever just to have the anti-wolf groups push money in high ranking officials faces to act on killing many of these wolves. It’s like a sports team winning a championship just to have it taken away from them because the team that was runner up wined and bitterly complained the winning team as being “cheaters”.

        You are a hunter, wm, right? You work hard (I guess) at hunting, right? What if hunting your kill was taken from you due to lies and fabrications? How would you feel? There is NO gravity on your comment. It was pointed to fault the side that you do not share similar beliefs with which you have done since I have been on this forum.

  30. White Wolf Says:

    Do we really vote for someone that we want or against someone that we don’t…?

    I love America…the people and the landscape, but our leaders are intoxicated by the seduction of superiority and through their limited altered perceptions fail to see the enormity of the situation, and instead have chosen to jettison their humanity while becoming immune to their conscience. They no longer represent us, rather their own agendas, which is why we are even having this discussion.

    We now pause to commiserate, reflecting upon all the dynamics involved behind such an epic of consequence.

    Whether you define spirit as enthusiasm, an apparition, an inner stillness, a guiding presence, or merely distilled liquor. If you think that we are facing a crisis on a human level, from a national perspective, or that we are going through just another phase in environmental evolution on a global scale, maybe even discount everything as a conspirator’s babble. I believe that we do still know the difference between right and wrong, although we may have forgotten that we can make a difference. We are all connected, through our intimate relationships as we go about our every day lives, and as we unite through our common experiences. We are a montage of motley mariners in a sea of humanity, simply, exquisitely cradled in mother earth.

    As a child I roamed freely with wonder through my favorite sacred spaces, a realm where imagination was its own reward… once upon a time when the little things in life still seemed to matter. Do not all our future generations deserve that same sense of wonder in an awe-inspiring world of enduring beauty… a place where wolves and the rich diversity of wildlife are still are also a part of the landscape…?

    We are all believers who attest to something. It is time to stand up and say…no more and take back our country.

    • jon Says:

      I don’t think most should be shocked what tester did. Yeah, he is a democrat and lied and said he would never includes riders, but at the end of the day, he’s just another politician who will do whatever he can to win against Rehberg and if that means selling wolves out or selling his soul to the devil, so be it. He’s just another typical politicians WHO WILL DO ANYTHING VOTES AND TO WIN. He exposed himself as a liar and a hypocrite because he told people to their faces he would never ever include riders and he did. He went back on his word and although he thinks he might have a chance winning against Rehberg, some of his supporters were also pro-wolf advocates and he lost all of these supporters by lying and including a rider. This might have cost him big time. We shall see what happens. I don’t think many should be surprised. No matter what party someone belongs to, they will do whatever it takes to win.

      • Mike Says:

        Yeah it was a bad move. He just lost the election.

      • Elk275 Says:

        Jon

        Jon Tester represents the State of Montana not the people of the United States. The majority of the people want the state to be able to manage wolves. The majority of the people do not want wolves gone but want the state to have the power to manage them. You have you senators and we have ours that is the way the consitution was written.

      • wolf moderate Says:

        Yes, this only helped his re-election campaign. These are libertarian leaning states that do not like the federal government sticking there nose where it doesn’t belong. He’s a state senator and his duty is to represent the state of MT not animal rights activists from who knows where. Time will tell whether MT will manage wolves very well and whether this issue hurt or benefited Tester.

        Before you start saying that the NRM states sure like getting 1.xxx for every federal tax dollar spent, I’ve got news for you. If the states were able to exploit (?) there natural resources like many would like to do, then there would be no need for that federal govt. funds. Consider the surplus as a fee you have to pay in order to keep the NRM in pristine shape.

      • Mike Says:

        Wolf Moderate- You are an anti-predator, anti-conservation troll that does nothing but stir up shit on this forum.

        It’s time for the mods to get serious about this kind of poster. There are hundreds of places on the net where people can bash the environment and wildlife, or get bad information. There are very few popular pro-wildlife places. I don’t see why this one should be tainted with this kind of crap.

      • IDhiker Says:

        True, Senator Tester represents Montanan’s, of which I am one. But, unfortunately, many times a senator’s vote affects people outside of the senator’s own state and constituency.

        With hindsight, and some of us knew before, the actions of pro-wolf groups weren’t wise, pushing the issue this far. Now, though, we are going to see more clearly if these groups were totally wrong or not.

        Tester maintained to me in our numerous communications, that state agencies could best manage wolves with their “professional” management. I stressed to Tester that agencies are still politically run, and reflections of current administration, and that he should have added some minimum population numbers to his rider, due to all the Idaho rhetoric. Obviously, Tester disagreed with me.

        The question, which will soon be resolved, is how professional will the two agencies be in their management of wolves, or will extreme anti-wolf forces rule the day with them. Now is the opportunity for the two states to show the “defeated” pro-wolf groups that their fears were unfounded, and that the states can and will do a professional job without going to the extreme. We’ll see….

      • wolf moderate Says:

        Ok Mike, if you don’t like my point of view please do not respond to me. Believe me, I do not appreciate your views either. I thought this was a place where we could post our suggestions and experiences.

        Please show me ONE time that I’ve ever said that I was “anti” predator. Dude, you have no idea what you are talking about.

        I will not respond to anymore of your trolling posts about me and I suggest that you do the same. Frankly I’m tired of the loons calling me names, but that’s OK, I’m used to intolerant/closed minded people. I lived in the Bay Area for 8 years😉

        Thanks!

      • Mike Says:

        The difference is you’re a troll. Your comment a couple posts above saying we should open up the Rockies to massive exploitation to your numerous anti-wolf comments reveal this to be true.

        It’s a real shame that there can’t be one place on the net where the misinformation and hate of the anti-predator crowds can’t be spewed.

        Sorry, but your act is wafer thin.

      • Savebears Says:

        Mike,

        In the aftermath of this, I am now wondering if he has lost the election, he may have just made a move that will ensure him re-election this time around, there have been a lot of phone calls and postings around the Montana Blogs and news that are showing a very positive feeling about this. Of course we who live in Montana will know come Nov. 2012, but just based on what I am seeing, his popularity poll numbers in state have jumped considerably in the last 48 hours…

      • JimT Says:

        ELK275,
        The fact that he is a Montanan Senator is true, just like we have ours. But, when his efforts spill over into impacting others states as well as national interests and program, he is fair game for criticism and opposition. . Do your best to keep his decisions to only affecting Montana citizens, and your argument grows stronger….

      • Savebears Says:

        JimT,

        Criticisms aside, it will be the people that vote on him in the next election and say yes or no to him, his poll numbers have jumped in the last 48 hours…

      • JimT Says:

        Temporary bump probably unless he totally gets insane and sides with the Tea Party on bankrupting America. yeah, that would be good for jobs. And polls mean little to me on this issue; I trust my own reasoning and values, and they tell me Tester fails the smell test here.

      • Savebears Says:

        JimT,

        He can fail the smell test 100% with you, but you can’t vote for him, it will be up to the people of Montana, who gets elected. Hate it or Love it, that is the way it works in the US, the States Get to Elect who they send to Washington..

        As I have said before, for those who do not live in the state that you don’t like the rep, the only way to combat that rep is ensure you, in your state elect a rep that will counter the one in the state you don’t like..

        I am not saying it is not your business, I am simply saying, you really have little you can do to those who get elected in Montana…The people of Montana, will be the ones that elect our next representative..

      • JimT Says:

        And lest you think I am only blaming Tester, I am equally as disappointed with our two Democratic Senators here in Colorado for not even piping up once about the effort to put the wolves back in jeopardy status ( we know that is where state management is heading, with more lawsuits when the wolves reach that point)..not an email, not a FB post, nothing, nada. I worked with both of them and have been friends with one of them for over 20 years. See my other rants on what is wrong with Western Dems and how environmental issues seem to always get screwed.

      • william huard Says:

        The politics has already begun- word is Rehberg voted against the 2012 Ryan budget

      • Savebears Says:

        JimT,

        I am not happy with the way this has worked out, I have said, I believe wolves were recovered and should be delisted, but I didn’t want it done in congress, I wanted it done with the agency procedures, I believe this sets a very bad precedence for the future..

    • Jerry Black Says:

      White Wolf……..this is special…Thankyou for writing it.

      • JimT Says:

        Actually, Save Bears, given the internet and the national world of every state election these days, there is a LOT we can do from outside to affect Tester’s candidacy. TV ads are very effective; that has been proved time and time again. And I don’t see any party limiting those efforts anytime soon thanks to the Republicans on the Supreme Court. So, yeah, I will be working against Tester from outside; Rehberg is a known entity and there is no misguided party loyalty there. You know what you are getting with him, and sometimes a clear enemy is better than an on again, off again “friend”

      • Savebears Says:

        Well you can do all you want, as I said, talking around the state today, I have a feeling it is going to be a wasted effort, the people commenting and talking, including our Governor is happy that this happened, which tells me that perhaps, the majority was in favor of delisting, not the minority as many have claimed..

        You and I can continue to go back and forth, but I know come Nov. 2012 we will know for sure. I was of the firm belief that Rehberg was going to win, now based on the last 48 hours, I am not so sure.

        Now I wonder, why are people not bitching as much about Simpson? he was in on this as well as other democrats..

        I just honestly think, outside our small world, not many people around the country really care that much..

      • Mike Says:

        JimT –

        Well said. I couldn’t agree more. We know how to prepare for Rehberg. You know what you’re getting up front, all the time. It’s the phonies you have to look out for, and Tester is one of them.

      • william huard Says:

        I don’t know about that SaveBears. Riders are a big issue…. It’s not democratic, this shows the sleazy side of Washington dealmaking. We really don’t know the implications this action will mean to the ESA

      • JimT Says:

        This bump is way too soon to say what kind of effect it will have on Tester in an election well over a year away, if any…..and if he votes with the Dems on the 2012 budget and the debt ceiling issues, the far right fringe will use those issues to hammer away at him as not being a true believer. As you say, we will see in 2012. Given this surge of influence from the radical right in all things political these days…I don’t like his chances at the moment…but things change.

  31. Tom Says:

    I tend to agree, with 20/20 hindsight, that it was a strategic mistake to push the DPS split, which was obviously a very tempting legal argument to make, over forcing a ruling on the science, which would have been more in the long term interests of wolf recovery, but at the same time lawyers are hired to win cases and to not make the DPS argument and then potentially lose the case on the science would have really opened them to second guessing. What bothers me a lot more is the severely flawed strategy of the settlement. Somehow, they believed they could preempt the political process, in spite of Rehberg’s competing rider, when it should have been obvious that all they were doing was giving political cover for Tester’s rider. It is so ironic that they would now seek to blame the non-settlers for standing on principle. How hard was it for Tester and Simpson to defend a rider in this bill when all they had to do was say “but most of the environmentalists agree with this result” — especially when the judge pointed out the fatal flaw in their proposed settlement (i.e., that it asked the judge to approve an unlawful result)???? As for where do we go now, isn’t that the same question progressives have been asking since Obama showed his true allegiances? My suggestion is that people stop voting for the lesser of two evils, as that never leads to anything but more evil, and vote their damned consciences. Ralph Nader, Dennis Kuchinich, can we get Michael Moore to run? He’d be the perfect anti-tea party candidate. But we shouldn’t have to choose from among these alternatives — they should have the good sense to form a people’s coalition party.

    • WM Says:

      Tom,

      Good thoughts. Lawyers are obligated to identify legal arguments, but they also have the responsibilty to tell their clients what might flow from advancing them. The ultimate decision belongs to the the client(s). These were very, very sophisticated clients, so the fault, if there is any, rests with them, not lawyers.

      Do consider, voting one’s conscience has a down side in a two party system. Recall that Nader cost at least one national election, as votes got cast his way, while allowing the really bad alternative to win, as Gore lost to Bush in two states where Nader’s absence could have resulted in a win for Gore in 2000. Imagine how no Bush for 8 years might have worked out. I’m still pissed about Nader’s ego run. He could have endorsed Gore and it would have been a done deal.

      • Ken Cole Says:

        The results would have been the same no matter what course was taken. If groups hadn’t litigated to enforce the law then they would have ended up with the exact same result as we have now. You seem to be saying that groups should just go with the flow and let the government do whatever it is they want. I don’t buy it.

      • IDhiker Says:

        WM,

        I agree with you on that. Sometimes we have to vote for the lesser of two evils. But, it’s going to be hard for me to stomach marking Tester on the ballot. His biggest ally in this is having to run against Rehberg, who is far worse, in my opinion.

        If, and I mean a big “if,” state wolf management is not extreme in reducing wolf numbers, Tester will come out looking like a hero.

      • IDhiker Says:

        Ken,

        That’s a good way to look at it, I suppose. Especially if, like me, you aren’t happy with the way it turned out.

      • WM Says:

        Ken,

        Let me be clear. I do think some of the ligitation was necessay. It was the focus that I criticize (I will include the opposition to the 10(j), and the wilderness helicopter collaring as divisive and fueling the fire).

        Imagine most of the delisting legal complaint minus the DPS issue (maybe even a tolling agreement between/among the parties preserving that issue for another day, if legally permissible).

      • jburnham Says:

        WM says “Do consider, voting one’s conscience has a down side in a two party system. Recall that Nader cost at least one national election, as votes got cast his way, while allowing the really bad alternative to win, ”

        This is exactly why Dems feel they can take enviro/liberal voters for granted. No matter what a Democrat does there will always be a chorus of Dems singing “he’s not as bad as the Republican”, and “don’t waste your vote on the third party”. From this view, Democrats never win your vote, they just get it by default.

        Nader cost Gore the election? This explanation only makes sense if we ignore Gore’s campaign performance and assume that he was somehow entitled to all the votes cast for Nader. Why not blame Bush? He took more votes from Gore than Nader did.

        The bottom line is that if we want our interests represented, we have to be willing to stand up for them. That means going to court when necessary, and holding our representatives accountable.

    • JB Says:

      WM is right. If Nadar hadn’t run, Gore would have won in 2000, and he would have likely appointed two Supreme Court Justices (now held by Roberts and Alito). I imagine that would have led to a decidedly different result in Citizens United (the case that extended free speech protections to corporations).

      • JimT Says:

        The DPS was the key issue of the litigation…pray, how does one leave that out when there was no indication the states had any interest in any agreement to settle outside litigation? They were offered opportunities post litigation to sit down and hammer out an agreement, but by then, the extremists had captured the elk and hunting and grazing side of the issue, and we were off to the races.

      • WM Says:

        JimT,

        It has been months since I read the complaint, but most of the claims focused on the science of recovery, not institutional management. Do recall from Molloy’s opinion, after the SJ briefing, he just stopped with the DPS issue because that simply brought the suit to a grinding halt and resulted in relisting. Very clean, very slick, and the very essence of judicial economy and expedience.

      • JimT Says:

        I will go back and read the pleadings and the decision…thanks for reminding me.

      • Tom Says:

        This is such BS. Nader took as many votes away from Bush in FLA as he did Gore. And Gore was already in the process of selling his soul to win the damn thing anyway. Even with the post-politics effort he is most closely associated with, “An Inconvenient Truth”, he conveniently (and persistently) refused to acknowledge the contribution of heffers to GHG. Why is that? Check out “Meat the Truth” for answers. But your assumption that Gore would have been so much better than Bush can be disproved with two words: Barack Obama. I’m so sick of the lesser of two evils defense of the democratic party. It is exactly that kind of compromised intellectual vacuity that has gotten us to where we are today. I CHOOSE GOOD OVER EVIL!

      • JB Says:

        “I CHOOSE GOOD OVER EVIL!”

        Tom,

        I envy the black and white world you live in. For those of us willing to acknowledge the various shades of gray, life is fraught with hard choices.

    • SBH CLAY Says:

      Yes, Dennis Kuchinich is a true statesman and a true friend to the environment, to all animals, and to all humans. He understands that we are ONE, that we must learn to live with one another in PEACE, and that, other than true self-defense, war (whether humans fighting humans or humans fighting one-sided wars against animals) must become a thing of the past.

      You can listen to Kucinich’s reflections on a wide range of issues here:
      http://www.opednews.com/Podcast/Dennis-Kucinich-on-Libya–by-Rob-Kall-110412-272.html

      As for the third party idea, OpEdNews.com’s founder Rob Kall has a new poll you can take which asks the question: “If conditions were right, would you vote third party?”: http://www.opednews.com/Poll/If-Conditions-Were-Right–by-Rob-Kall-110410-532.html

  32. Dan V Says:

    Is it conceivable that this vote could work in environmentalists favor in the future? After all, if an animal can be taken off the Endangered Species list by congress, couldn’t it also be added? Just as Tester has constituents he must answer to, so do all urban and liberal representatives. For example, if enough uproar was raised, could the coyote be put on the Endangered Species list because that’s what people in New Your and California want, not based on any actual science?

  33. Mike Says:

    What seems to be lost on the anti-predator crowd is that the state agencies were the reason the wolf was put on the endangered list to begin with. The battle in the courts was over this very reasonable concern. The states had a horrible track record.

    • WM Says:

      Actually, it wasn’t Mike. It was the systematic removal of wolves by the federal government, largely at the request of individuals and states. Do recall wolves were removed from Yellowstone by government hunters, and poisoned nearly everywhere in their range thoughout this entire country.

      • JB Says:

        You’re both right…kind of. Montana passed its first bounty on wolves in the late 1880s, but the federal government didn’t get involved (officially) until 1915, when Congress apportioned $125,000 for the killing of wolves and coyotes. So state “control” efforts preceded institutionalized federal eradication efforts. However, the work of “wolfers” (private bounty hunters) at the bequest of the state should not be confused with “state agencies”.

      • Mike Says:

        Oh the states preceeded this and ultimately condoned all of it. Check again.

      • Elk275 Says:

        I do not have time to write, but I wished some of you understood the history of the State of Montana and especially the period between 1900 to 1919. In Eastern Montana this was the era of the Honyockers. A husband and wife were given 640 acres of land under the homestead laws, elk, deer and antelope were shot out for food and replaced with wheat farms and cattle operations. There was no natural prey for wolves and there only food source were cattle. The farmers and ranchers could ill afford to lose any livestock to wolves, therefore individuals and the state eliminated wolves. In 1919 everything busted, the land went to county and only a few operations continued. There was no prey and no place for wolves in those years.

        If one studied history more and placed their selves in that time period maybe we would all have a better understanding and prospective on way things happens and why they happen.

      • Mike Says:

        Elk I’m quite familiar on it and have been published concerning the topic of Montana.

        What you’re offering is an excuse, not a reason.

      • william huard Says:

        Elk- How do you explain the 1903 or 1904 era sarcoptic mange experiment with wolves? I think this was a more sinister approach to wolf eradication than you are letting on

      • Elk275 Says:

        ++Elk I’m quite familiar on it and have been published concerning the topic of Montana++

        I do not understand what you are saying. Have you published a book on that time period. If not where have you gotten you information, I am curious as I would like to read it.

        ++What you’re offering is an excuse, not a reason.++

        I am not offering a excuse the reason the killed the wolves is because they did not want them killing their livestock. That is the way it was.

      • Mike Says:

        That still doesn’t refute the point that the states put the wolves on the list to begin with. So it’s more than a little reasonable when people are concerned about wolves being handed back over.

      • Elk275 Says:

        How do I explain it, simple. At that time no one cared about wolves, wolves ate cattle because their was very little game to prey on and small and large livestock producers could not afford to the lost. It is the same with shoplifters, stores can not afford stealing and they deal with it.

        Put your self in that time frame making a dollar a day if you had work, things were difficult.

      • Mike Says:

        Who killed the wolf’s prey during that time period? Idiots with guns (or traps and poison, take you pick). Who’s to blame for the decline in elk now? Idiots with guns. Who’s to blame for the loss of rare species? Idiots with guns.

        You can say it was “hard” back then, and it was. But the problems caused are all related to idiots with guns. That’s how it always is, and always will be.

      • WM Says:

        Mike,

        I haven’t had reason to explore this much and I am not looking for a fight. But, from what I understand and I think JB says (maybe it is even in Robinson’s book), the most systematic damage to wolf population historically was done by the feds over the long term.

      • Immer Treue Says:

        WM,

        You are correct. The Feds rid the landscape of wolves, largely with poison. I’ve got Robinson’s book on the back burner, but all other literature I have read points to the feds as either directly, or indirectly involved (bounties) with wolf extermination.

        That said, not to argue, with a solid prey base, the feds were correct to bring them back. Wolves were (about) the only animal that was not given some sort of recovery plan in the West until 1995. Locals prior to the feds getting involved had little to no affect on wolf removal, so the anti argument of we got rid of the wolves before carries no water. The feds did it, and the feds brought them back.

        Ubrigkit’s book vows remnant wolf populations were present in the GYE, but were probably dispersers. Lot’s of literature about this. Problem with Ubrigkit’s argument is wolves are very resilient, and if wolves are/were present, packs would have been popping up all over prior to reintro.

        Enter the dirty little secret of SSS. Whether wolves were not completely exterminated, or natural dispersers were present, if no viable population was in the area, then how can one be guilty of killing something that isn’t there? Once the feds put the whole NRM under the magnifying glass, blatant disregard of “poaching” wolves all of a sudden had legal ramifications.

      • jon Says:

        Not according to the anti-wolf extremists like rOCKHOLM, Fanning, Bartell, etc. They believe that the imported much loarger canadian wolf wiped out the native wolf population. I KID YOU NOT. They truly believe this. I’ve seen them time and time again ignore the fact that the feds killed the wolves off and claimed that the imported canadian wolves killed off the native wolf population,

      • Mike Says:

        Montana did a pretty decent job of killing wolves. In 1884 the first state-wide bounty was passed for, and some 5,450 wolves were killed and paid for. By 1930 the wolves were smashed beyond recovery.

        This set the tone, and this is very important in the predator discussion. It was these actions that filtered down through generations of people who sadly came to the nonsensical conclusion that predators are evil. And it was these state actions that enabled the federal government to step in and assist in the demonizing and slaughter of wolves.

      • jon Says:

        Mike, I don’t get these people who constantly bitch about wolves eating elk? What are they supposed to eat? Wanna we just kill off all of the predators and make the wilderness an elk farm because that is what some of them want, These predators are getting a bad rap.

      • Ryan Says:

        “Who’s to blame for the decline in elk now? Idiots with guns. Who’s to blame for the loss of rare species? Idiots with guns.”

        The only reason there are any elk left is because of idiots with guns. Same with waterfowl, whitetail deer, and the vast majortiy of north american wildlife.

        If you are going to run your mouth, the minimum you can do is to get your facts straight.

      • jon Says:

        Yeah, they were brought back after some other idiots with guns wiped them out.

      • Mike Says:

        ++The only reason there are any elk left is because of idiots with guns. Same with waterfowl, whitetail deer, and the vast majortiy of north american wildlife.
        ++

        Nice fairy tale.

      • jon Says:

        elk and bison were both wiped out, but it wasn’t by wolves. It was by humans with guns.

      • Ryan Says:

        “++The only reason there are any elk left is because of idiots with guns. Same with waterfowl, whitetail deer, and the vast majortiy of north american wildlife.
        ++

        Nice fairy tale.”

        Enlighten me oh enlightened one..

        Lets see–
        Wildlife refuges, started by a hunter and funded with “idiots with guns” monies
        National parks – Also started by an idiot with a gun
        National Forest system- Started by an idiot with a gun
        Most game laws- “started by idiots with guns”

      • Immer Treue Says:

        jon,

        I’ve read the “larger Canadian wolf” ad nauseum. The only killers of the “native” wolves were people. Wolves are wolves, and as I wrote before, if a nascent population of wolves were in the NRM states since 70’s ESA… in 25 years they would have been all over the place, example the 60+ that were brought in from you know where.

      • Mike Says:

        Roosevelt was a naturalist at heart who spoke multiple languages. He’d be branded a far left wing liberal in todays political climate.

        I’ve met hunters in Montana who don’t even know what a fisher is.

        The National Forest System was triggered by conservationist property owners (Luken, Kinney) who were concerned with the effects of mining and ranching.

        Conservationists fought tooth and nail for wilderness protectons and more national parks, of which most locals and hunters fought against.

      • Ryan Says:

        “I’ve met hunters in Montana who don’t even know what a fisher is”

        Your point?

        Roosevelt was a big time hunter, to say otherwise is a lie, he was the origional conservationist. Roosevely started the forest service and NPS, read his hunting tales some time, they’d make most hunters today cringe with the lack of ethics.

        Interesting fact is that hunting was allowed in most of the national parks for a while.

      • Phil Says:

        Ryan: You are still missing the point that Roosevelt became a conservationist AFTER he put his gun down and layed off his hunts. He was one of the main forces in conservation, but it was not while he was in his prime being a hunter, it was post his hunting years.

      • JB Says:

        Mike: You said, “…the state agencies were the reason the wolf was put on the endangered list to begin with”.

        I did not object to the idea that states (driven by the desires of their residents) were responsible for wolf eradication; I objected to you assigning blame to state agencies–which is factually inaccurate. The state legislature enacted legislation which created a bounty system, paying ANY individual for evidence of a wolf kill. The language you used clearly attempts to attribute wolf eradication efforts to the agency, when in fact, it arose with the state.

        Your dismissal of Elk275’s comments also speaks to your bias in this matter. It was a different time then, and animals (wildlife included) were viewed very differently from how they are viewed in our society today. That is not an excuse, it is a fact that helps put the actions of these individuals into context. Ignoring/dismissing the cultural and historical context does nothing to further your argument.

        Moreover, your attempt to attribute wolf eradication efforts to “idiots with guns” is silly. Traps and poisons were the implement of choice; and eradication did not occur at the bequest of hunters, but rather, the people. However, I would argue that bison eradication was the ultimate reason for wolf eradication, and if you wanted to blame bison eradication on “idiots with guns”, I would not argue.

        P.S. You may be interested in the following:

        “The first territorial bounty legislation aimed at wolves and cougars in Montana was enacted in 1883 (Curnow, 1969). Bounty payments occurred until 1887, when the bounty law was repealed. A new bounty program was reinstated in 1891. By 1930, wolves were eradicated from Montana…”

        [and]

        The “[n]umber of payments for wolves declined from a high of 116 in 1903 to 0 by 1928.”

        Riley et al. 2005. Dynamics of early wolf and cougar eradication efforts in Montana: implications for conservation. Biological Conservation.

        Link: http://www.fw.msu.edu/~rileysh2/Wolf-cougar%20bounties.pdf

      • JB Says:

        Sorry, the final quote should read “number of payments for wolves declined from a high of 4116 in 1903 to 0 by 1928.” (emphasis mine).

      • WM Says:

        Further to the idea that “people” settling the West endangered wolves ultimately, consider this. In the 1840’s there was no government in the Oregon Territory, and the only semblance of it was the Hudson’s Bay Company, protecting its business interests. It was big, and it was organized, but not equipped to deal with the things government usually does. The people of the Willamette Vally in North Central OR were having substantial wolf problems, with much livestock being taken. Meetings were held on French Prairie, called the Champoeg meetings, the purpose of which was to establish a provisional government to, of all things, deal with and find a solution to the wolf problem.

        The wolf matter was a focus of interest, concern and economic loss for more than half a century before the real effort to eradicate began in the early 1900’s, and that was a likely result of more people demanding more from the land (subsistence and market hunting, raising livestock) and a shrinking prey base for wolves competing for the same wildlife and taking stock, whether it be cows, sheep or chickens.

    • william huard Says:

      True, Mike. And Boxer and Cardin did not even get any assurance to the best of our knowledge that by agreeing to this “sellout” of this controversial species that the hateful, rabid anti -predator legislative calls for Baiting, Trapping, Electronic calling, and possible gassing of pups in their dens would be taken off the table. I can see the blowback after the leering photos or videos of dead wolves emerge from the hunters that will rub this in the pro wolf supporters faces. The blame will go right back at the Democratic party. I don’t see the logic in turning over management to a state that had it’s intentions so clear from the beginning

    • Harley Says:

      Jon~ or anyone else who wants to answer!

      Why do you think wolves are more vilified than say mountain lions or grizzly bears? I don’t see this sort of passion where these animals are concerned and I’m wondering why? Wolves are a lot closer to our domesticated dogs, I don’t know, I guess to me it would make sense that they were more … I don’t know what a good word for it, treasured? respected? looked out for? I dunno…

      • jon Says:

        I’ve always wondered that myself and I don’t really know. People in OR/WA bitch about the wolves, but very little is said about the cougars and there are by far a lot more cougars in WA and OR than wolves, so I don’t really know why wolves are much more hated than grizzlies or mountain lions.

      • Harley Says:

        Maybe it’s the pack dynamics? Predators in numbers seems more threatening than solitary animals? Just a guess. lol Personally, I think I’d be more afraid of a cougar, they have teeth and really sharp claws! And grizzlies are just stinkin huge.

      • jon Says:

        I don’t know if that is why they are hated, but no one can deny they are one of the most hated/persecuted animals in the world. I think made up stories about wolves, you know what I’m talking about really hurt the wolf and its image. These stories were passed done from generation to generation and some people started believing in them. Today, you have people calling wolves wildlife terrorists and poachers and they are not. They are just one of many wild animals out there trying to survive and for some reason or another, they are hated for it.

      • Ryan Says:

        People in Oregon and Washington bitch alot about cougars and we kill alot of cougars, both by hunters and by depridation permits.

        Nobody hates wolves at the end of the day, they hate what they represent which is people like you and mike..

      • Mike Says:

        People hate predators because they hate themselves. They are generaly folks who aren’t happy with where they ended up in life. They have little power or control over their own lives, so they take it out on things that can’t shoot back.

      • Ryan Says:

        Mike,

        Not really most people don’t hate predators, They just have a different outlook on them. If you weren’t such an intolerant bigot, you could probably see both sides of the issue.

      • Harley Says:

        *shrug* I dunno. Cougars kill elk too, right? (showing my limited knowledge of predators I’m afraid) I saw an article about a wolf or wolves killing a cougar. That was kinda scary because… I don’t know, I kinda always thought cougars would have the upper hand.

      • Harley Says:

        Mike~

        I know there are a lot of people who have had more than one ‘discussion’ with some of the folks over at the BBB, but I gotta tell you, the majority of them don’t ‘hate’ wolves or want to see them eradicated.

      • Phil Says:

        Harley: Because mountain lions are huntable, but as for grizzly bears, there was and still has been much vilification towards them from certain groups of people. Also, grizzly bears are not strict carnivores, so much of their diet does not consist of hunting prey. If you put these two factors in the equation then you have less of a hostility towards cougars and grizzly bears (to a certain point) then towards wolves. I would expect the next rise in hostility from a certain grouping of individuals is geared towards grizzly bears. Coyotes, foxes, cougars, black bears, bobcats, now wolves, etc are all elgible to be hunted, with grizzly bears being protected. I have not worked a survey on this, but it is how I feel.

      • Harley Says:

        Phil~
        That is an interesting take on that. It would be very interesting to see if that theory is correct.
        Here in the midwest, I gotta tell ya, coyotes are a nuisance yet there are some that don’t want them hunted either, even though they are hardly a protected species. Now there is one species that is very adaptable. If they can live on the streets of Chicago… they are better off than some innocent kids in some neighborhoods…

      • Phil Says:

        Harley: I to live in the midwest, and the coyote population has exceeded to the larger cities and suburbs. The difference is that coyotes can adapt to living in human territories without disruption to human life. I have a friend who lives in Cincinnati with his wife and 2 children. They have had a pair mating coyotes living in their backyards for more then a few years now without any problems from the coyotes, or their pups over the years. The coyotes lay on their lawn and just observe their surroundings. There has never been any problems from these coyotes to the neighborhood since they resided in the area. It depends on what the beliefs of the people are towards the coyotes. recently, the Detroit News published an article of 3 coyotes being spotted in a suburb with a high population of people. Some have complained, but the local naturalists have informed the public that they have known about the coyotes and have been observing their movements to ensure the safety of the people and the coyotes themselves. They have been observed for more then two years now and have not seen any problems with the coyotes.

        There is a large mice problem in the Southeast portion of Michigan, which is why we have seen an increase in coyote, fox and red-tailed hawk population. The people who have complained about the coyotes are the ones that have never experienced their presence before. The complains come from what they hear and read about the species from the media.

        Are you from or near the Chicage area, Harley? If so, what is the latest news on the plans to bring a few coyotes to the city to manage the mice population (or could have it been manage the deer population around the city)?

      • Mike Says:

        ++Not really most people don’t hate predators, They just have a different outlook on them. If you weren’t such an intolerant bigot, you could probably see both sides of the issue.++

        No one is buying your act, Ryan. You’ve made some ridiculous comments here so I’m not even going to get into that.

        Let’s be honest – you dislike predators because you feel they take “your” game. Is that far off?

      • Harley Says:

        Phil~
        I’ve only heard rumors, nothing concrete yet. I don’t think they would have to bring the coyotes in to be honest with you, they are here already! I do not live in the city but I’ve lived close enough to it for the past 45+ years. When I want a night on the town, I go to Milwaukee, it’s safer lol!
        We have coyotes here in our suburb, one scared the poop outa my son when he went out for a smoke break really late one night. The beasty passed within 8 feet of him. Unfortunately, it did not scare my son enough to quit smoking… The problems come from people who have small dogs that go missing or cats. One could say that the owners should have kept a closer eye on their pet. I know I personally would have. People are nervous that the coyotes will harm small children. As was pointed out to me, just about any wild animal can be a danger to humans but people fear the teeth and the claws more than the deer with the antlers.
        Now… if I can just get those coyotes to help with our rising Chipmunk problem…

      • Harley Says:

        Woops, meant to expand on that. Coyotes have been found in all places in the city of Chicago. There are TONS of places for them to hide. While they are adaptable, I don’t think it would be wise to bring in larger populations to combat the rodent problems. Brings to mind Australia and the Cane Toad, brought in to combat the Cane Beetle. Now they have a mess on their hands with that stupid toad.

      • JB Says:

        Ryan Says:

        “Nobody hates wolves at the end of the day, they hate what they represent which is people like you and mike..”

        then…

        “…If you weren’t such an intolerant bigot, you could probably see both sides of the issue.”

        – – –

        Irony or hypocrisy?

      • Ryan Says:

        “A bigot is a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices, especially one exhibiting intolerance, and animosity toward those of differing beliefs.”

        JB,

        Neither..

        If you don’t agree with Mike or Jon’s opinion, then you are a dumb redneck in their eyes.

        In Mike and Jon’s eye’s if you hunt, you are unhappy, have a small dick, and our probably most likely going to end up a serial killing baby raper.

        In their eyes if you ranch, you are unhappy, have a small dick, and our probably most likely going to end up a serial killing baby raper.

        No tolerance for the fact that ranching in many cases is a way of life handed down for generations, same with hunting, or the whole rural western lifestyle. Or that people have a different way of looking at things due to a different upbringing. Its attitudes like this that make laws like what was signed today get signed..

        As for the “messiah” signing the delisting, I believe I predicted that months and months ago.

      • JB Says:

        Ryan,

        I agree that sadly, a number of people who post here regularly fail to grasp the relationship between hunting and wildlife conservation and express intolerance in general toward hunters. However, your statement clearly shows that the feeling is reciprocal. Most people would find it hypocritical to label someone intolerant whilst making statements like: “Nobody hates wolves at the end of the day, they hate what they represent which is people like you and mike.”

        Seems to me you are equally guilty of burning bridges.

      • White Wolf Says:

        Harley, The wolf is the most persecuted animal in history, even with protection. Wolves are not merely other predators, they are symbols and surrogates of deeper issues and wider conflicts. America’s landscape will suffer the travesty of an incomplete legacy if state management plans do not responsibly provide adequate concern for their survival.

        Barry Lopez states that we treat wolves differently than other predators. “ But the wolf is fundamentally different because the history of killing wolves shows far less restraint and far more perversity. A lot of people didn’t just kill wolves they tortured them. They set wolves on fire and tore their jaws out and cut their Achilles tendons and turned dogs loose on them. They poisoned them with strychnine, arsenic, and cyanide, on such a scale that millions of other animals were killed in the process.”

        Obviously, we are trying to silence something more than merely an animal whenever we allow this darker side of human nature to speak. It is here where we succumb to ignorance or apathy. To first judge, and then cull what we fear or do not understand. I have heard many an argument about the methods wolves use to kill their prey as being inhumane, yet it is man that is the true beast.

        http://www.wildrockiesalliance.org/issues/wolves/articles/0610_2004_inhumane.html

        The complexities and diversity of the situation go far beyond wolves. Symbolism behind any belief is a strong force not to be reckoned with. Our beliefs represent who we are and we defend them with all the passion within us. As a surrogate, the wolf is caught up within our inner struggles and and outer reactions, challenging not only our acceptance, but also our compassion. Wolves dare to defy dominion, and are a constant thorn in the side of those who cling to the concept. How do you respect or appreciate an animal that you can not domesticate or use as food…? Once mankind viewed animals not merely as lowly beasts, rather teachers….guides, guardians and companions…a tradition as old as humanity itself. Even the ritual of the hunt was considered sacred, as they gave thanks to the animals’ spirit for their many gifts, while disrespecting the laws of the hunt were strictly taboo. Concepts that are completely lost within our tortured world of jagged reasoning….viewing everything we see as inferior, to be subdued….property.

        The early church declared the wolf an abomination, viewing him as the devil incarnate. The Europeans brought with them a robust loathing of wolves, they were seen as ” the essence of wildness and cruel predation, the ally of barbaric Indians, a creature of twilight.” Attitudes completely shifted against the wolf when we developed a dependency upon domesticated livestock which deemed humans and wolves…incompatible.

        The war against wolves has also been waged with words. There is also the wolf of our mind, the “big bad wolf” who has stalked our subconscious since childhood. Lurking in the shadows, symbolizing danger, an iconic representation of our worst fears. Folklore and fable has created a sinister creature with malicious intent preying upon innocence that embodies our darkest urges, and is irredeemable and unscrupulous … unjustly personified as all things evil…an outcast of nature according to human society.

        Tragically, back to present day and the precarious future of an intelligent, sentient, apex species, viewed as inconvenient and expendable. Apparently, the wolf is still the ever present pariah and is not even worthy of protection. We all know what consequence this inflicts upon wolves, but what does this calloused disregard really say about us…?

        We don’t see things as they are, we see things as we are. Woefully, the wolf will never find acceptance in the hearts and minds of those who loathe him, for whatever reason. I don’t have the answers, yet I am certain they are hidden somewhere beneath the layers of ego, greed, societal dysfunction and personal stories to be told. And it is there that we all must face our own demons and hopefully once again find our connection to all living creatures…and to our own place within the web of life.

        We are also equal parts dilemma and resolution, and have been entrusted to nurture and protect nature as tenants of the Earth and citizens of humanity. I urge everyone to think beyond themselves. And for all states to be open-mined, fair and humane in their hunting practices and wolf management.

        Thank you for allowing me my voice.

      • Ryan Says:

        JB,

        I won’t lie, I throughly dislike extremist people on both sides of the fence. As for my comment on people hating wolves because they represent people like Mike and Jon in their eyes. It stands and its not intolerant.. Its a fact. Its a sign on the death of the middle, much like the tea party and socialst party.

  34. JEFF E Says:

    My two cents,
    had Wyoming pulled their head out of there ass and come up with an acceptable management plan the whole issue would have been a memory now, and I think that most everyone involved in this at the political level, i.e. congress, recognizes that and have passed this legislation in part to spank Wyoming, not to mention just being tired of hearing about it.
    As for how it was implemented, they are politicians, what do you expect? Honesty and integrity??
    One positive is that pond scum such as Toby “poacher”Bridges, Tony”poacher”Mayer, Rex”poacher”Rammell, Bob”south side chicken little”Fanning,
    Scott”little red riding hood”Rockholm, Jim”I’ve had too many”Beers, Bruce”why is my mom the only one to buy my book”hemming, et alia, will no longer be able to sit in the far dark corner of a cave, flailing their arms and gnashing their teeth, but will quickly fade away, the fifteen minuets of fame used up.
    having said all that The 2009 rule to delist specifically targets the wolves as a DPS under the 10 j.
    What if Malloy finds that because of the genetic connectivity between wolves from out side the DPS to be such that there is question as to weather the DPS classification is still valid. I wonder how that would play out? (maybe hayduke is still around)

    • WM Says:

      Jeff E,

      You are certainly right about WY being the cause of the DPS issue. The mixing of the in-migrating N. Montana wolves, and the out-migrating 10(j) non-essential experimental wolves of the NRM DPS presents Judge Molloy with yet another ESA issue, that maybe the authors of the original law did not contemplate (like the DPS break-up fiasco). Let us hope there is some flexibility and common sense in how it is resolved, or we are likely to see another round of foolishness and political fixes.

      • JEFF E Says:

        WM,
        I truly believe Molloy has been between a rock and the deep blue sea. If you read his language closely in his rulings it seems that he wishes he had some flexibility, or more than he did, when he made his rulings, but he made them according to the law and not his personeal feelings or some arcane political agenda as the teeth gnasher’s whimper about.
        Of note, almost no one seems to remember that it was Molloy that allowed the states to go forward with the first hunting season, and at that time the teeth gnasher’s praised him no end as a judge that “gets it”, even on the ppp blog.

    • Ryan Says:

      Op-ed piece by the pro wolf sponsor of this site, now that is some unbiased literature!

      • jon Says:

        And if the piece was written by a hunter saying that the wolves have killed all of the elk in the bitterroot, I take it you wouldn’t call this biased? Yeah, discredit any article you don’t agree with.

      • Mike Says:

        That doesn’t refute the numbers stated in the article.

      • Ryan Says:

        Jon,
        Have you ever seen me post any article written by SCI, for wolves, or any other biased piece of shit organization on etiher side?

  35. Phil Says:

    For anyone on here that continues to push the ideology that only people who live within a particular state should say and do such and such on issues, then I would like to hear your thoughts on government officials in other states not in the NRM region who tried to step in and push a budget plan on the NRM wolves.

    As IDHiker mentioned, what occurs with some politician in certain states does not always only affect the citizens within the states they represent, but affects many others. Look at the popularity of wolves nationwide, but these reps from Idaho and Montana satisfied a small population of people with disregards to the majority of the general public.

  36. Phil Says:

    Umm, Ryan; the wildlife refuge you mentioned that was started by an “idiot with a gun” began the first refuge (in Florida) after his hunting days (Theodore Roosevelt). President Roosevelt became a conservationist after he decided not to kill a black bear tied up to a tree by Roosevelt’s buddies. After that Roosevelt put his gun aside and created conservation and refuge efforts to wildlife. It is similar to Darwin’s situation in which he became more of a conservationist then a hunter after his expedition to the Galapagos Islands.

    • Ryan Says:

      Phil,

      Isn’t re-writing history fun. The Teddy bear incident 1902. The national refuge system was started 1903 when teddy was president. As soon as his presidency ended he went to africa on safari and his party killed like 500 + big game animals.

      • Phil Says:

        Ryan: History is one of my favorite subjects. Like to learn about the past so we (myelf) don’t repeat our mistakes, which is why I am strogly against the delisting of wolves, and the relisting of species like cougars, bobcats, etc. As some believe, I also see the population of wolves being moderately healthy, but I do not believe this will be the case after a few years (if it gets that far) of hunts.

      • Elk275 Says:

        ++the relisting of species like cougars, bobcats, etc.++

        They were never listed in the first place. The reason you want them listed is to take control away form the state fish and game departments. You do not want them hunted. Both bobcats and cougars are doing well, presently and do not need the protection of the ESA.

      • Phil Says:

        Elk: listed, sorry bout that. No, I do not want them hunted because it is based on killing them due to hatred towards another predator from some people. Hunting for food is one thing, but hunting out of hate is another. They do not need protection due to population standings, but they do need protection from the individuals who post them on the ground while they are standing or sitting over the animal with their rifles over their shoulders with a silly smerk on their faces.

      • Elk275 Says:

        Phil

        That is the right of the state to decide whether they should be hunted or not be hunted. It is your right to have your feelings. If state law allows hunting of cougar and bobcats, then it is the right of a license hunter to hunt them. I have never been bobcat or cougar hunting nor do I really care to. What you want is the federal goverment to enact a national law since the states will not enact the law.

      • Phil Says:

        Elk: Is it really the state’s decision, or a small population of people? The state in the wolf issue responded to certain hunters and ranchers. If it were up to the state in responding to these types of individuals, you would have never had wolves reintroduced, no bobcats, cougars, grizzlies, black bears and other carnivores. I honestly believe this would be the outcome if so many people did not care about the issues.

      • Savebears Says:

        You may honestly believe that Phil, but it is not true, wolves were naturally migrating into the state of Montana at the time they were reintroduced and we heard very little rhetoric about the migrating populations. Living in the area where the natural migrations were occurring, it is very enlightening to talk to the old timers that live here. There is no hate, wipe them out mentality..they were part of the natural landscape.

      • Elk275 Says:

        Phil

        ++no bobcats, cougars, grizzlies, black bears and other carnivores.++

        They have not wiped them out yet, have they? The people of the state wants these animal and they have been managed well. A little hunting has never hurt their population. Recent research indicated that there were more blacks bears in Montana than the estimated.

      • wolf moderate Says:

        The people of the state elected a Senator to reflect there views in Washington. If the people decide that the Senator is not reflecting there views, then he will be voted out in 2012.

        Who knows, maybe he’ll be voted out and some new blood will take the office, though it is not likely.

      • Elk275 Says:

        Phil

        In 2008, I took a horse packing class at Ninemile Remount Station. The class was taught by “Smoke” Esler who had been a commericial outfitter in the Bob Marshall from 1957 to 2007, fifty years. I asked him if he had ever seem wolves in the Bob Marshall before 1995. In 1958, he saw a pack of 6 wolves in the Danaher Meadows. Every year he would see wolves, either lone wolves or a small groups several times each year in different places in the Bob Marshall. There has always been wolves.

  37. Phil Says:

    JB: I would argue in that the Bison eradication was in the form of food, while the wolf one was due to pure hatred of the species, similarly to the hatred of some towards wolves in today’s day and age. I am very satisfied of the Bison restoration to its current population (which I believe needs to be a bit more), but in the hunts of bison in th 19th century the needs were there. I just believe they went way overbard on hunting bison. The rider attached to the budget was to satisfy the individuals who have the same level of hate towards wolves as people did when they were eradicated almost 100 years ago.

    By the way: Off topic, but yesterday I was taking a laboratory training class and we went over some of the explosion incidents that have occured in university labs withing the past couple years. One of them happened at OSU which caused I believe 1/4 of a million dollars in damages. As I do not like OSU, I strongly respect many of their research projects and am glad to see they have rebounded.

    • Elk275 Says:

      Off topic:

      It was sad to read about the young physics student who was killed in the laboratory at Yale, yesterday. Back to are regular programing now.

    • JB Says:

      Phil:

      Market hunting was partially responsible, but the US Army also actively endorsed and tried to bring about the end of the bison as a means of controlling Native Americans.

      I am not convinced that wolf eradication arose out of hatred of wolves (though who can tell today?); rather, I would argue that people of the time were being pragmatic; they eliminated wolves primary source of food and then wolves turned to livestock (which many people at the time possessed). It certainly is rational to attempt to eliminate your (real or perceived) competition. Of course, you have to mix in the religious ideals of the time, manifest destiny, and other common cultural beliefs. It is truly hard to put yourself in the “shoes” of 19th century western settler.

      • Phil Says:

        JB: Would you believe the same is occuring with the Amur tigers? Wiping off of their food base is causing many tigers to enter villages and catch whatever food they possibally can.

    • wolf moderate Says:

      I thought the bison were wiped out to starve the Native Americans?

      • Savebears Says:

        partially, they were also hunted for their hides, the market hunting did not happen for food..

  38. Phil Says:

    His party, Ryan, but not including himself. He was not part of the kills directly. The Teddy Bear example is a great one in which many conservationists try to emphasize when educating the public on protecting life on earth. For example; many groups who specialize in educating the public on species do so by letting the public have an up close view of the animals (off course at a safe distane though) to get the point across. Roosevelt’s situation was pretty similar. I am not saying that the day he did not kill the bear was his “done deal” as a hunter, but it came in shortly after. The first wildlife refuge was developed in September of the same year Roosevelt’s party killed all those animals (1903). I would tend to believe his sport hunting came to an end prior to his creation of a refuge for wildlife. His hunts “or lack there of” afterwards were due mainly in part for scientific purposes. Look at the 1909 hunts killing many diverse species in Africa for the Smithsonian Institute by Teddy and his son. I do not agree with this type of scientific collection, but in those days it was largely accepted.

    • Harley Says:

      Ok, Jon and Phil kinda weighed in on the question, anyone else have an idea why wolves are more vilified than cougars or grizzly bears?

      • Connie Says:

        I read someone’s idea that the wolves we could subdue became our pets. Those that we could not control continued defiantly as wild wolves. And for that defiance, they are hated and feared.

      • Phil Says:

        Connie: So, for acting natural and not obliging to our demands wolves are hated and feared? Sounds like a valid point. I would say these types of people are ones who love the “being in charge” mentality and would be no different than a dictator.

      • Savebears Says:

        There are quite a few people running around the country with the Dictator mentality, I ran into many of them while in the military and just as many in the wildlife agency(s) But to add, I have also run into quite a few of them in the pro-wildlife and environmental movements as well

      • Harley Says:

        Savebears, what branch of military were you in if you don’t mind my asking?

      • Savebears Says:

        Army 1979-2006 full active until 1995 state side periodic training officer 1995-2006

      • Harley Says:

        Savebears, thank you for your service. My son is starting out his career in the Navy, he’s been in for 18 months. He’s currently in the Pacific.

      • Savebears Says:

        Awe a Navy Man, is he stationed on a ship or serving at a land base? My Dad was in the Navy as was my Grandfather, I was the odd one in the bunch…

      • Harley Says:

        Land based, Naval Aircrew. His uncle was Navy, his grandfather, my father, was WW2 Army Air Corps, stationed at Guam.
        Very cool that you are part of a tradition, even if it was Army!😉 I have a deep sense of pride in our service men and women, no matter what branch. Our family has ties to just about every branch currently with the exception of Air Force.

      • Savebears Says:

        My Uncle was a WWII B-17 Belly Gunner that was shot down on his 24th mission and spent 19 months as a POW in Germany, he escaped twice only to be recaptured, he was liberated by the Russians as they advanced on Berlin at the end of the war, quite a heroic and fascinating story.

        Boy Guam, I visited Guam while I was serving, that was a real hell hole.

      • wolf moderate Says:

        Ah, Guam! I was supposed to get stationed on a buoy tender there. Thank goodness I dodged that bullet lol.

      • Harley Says:

        Yeah, dad was a gunner, B29. lol his eyesight was too poor for a pilot! Guess you don’t really have to see as clearly what you’re shooting?

        I’m finding this conversation very fascinating, even if it isn’t about wildlife, thank you Savebears, appreciate the sharing.

  39. Phil Says:

    Harley: My first interaction with a chipmunk came a few years ago when he/she was playing dead with a cat. I was jogging when I ran into a cat just laying, but it was not a normal posture for a cat laying down. There was something about the cat that caught my eye with its head postured down and angled at me. I walked up to the cat and bent down to get a closer look when the cat began to get freightened and backed up a few steps. This was when I spotted the chipmunk and picked it up. The position of the chipmunk was no different then that of a dog who exposes its furless body to release its body heat (laying on its back with its head turned to the side, mouth open and eyes closed). A couple seconds after I picked up the chipmunk it jumped to its fore and hind limbs and ran off. The cat chased it and caught the chipmunk again. I again walked up to the cat and it backed off a few steps and saw the chipmunk. The same events occured with the chipmunk playing dead and jumping off my hands to elude the cat. I know for a chipmunk this was a survival/defensive strategy and it eventually got away, but for me it was really funny.

  40. Harley Says:

    Chipmunks are kinda cute, but they are digging holes all under our porch. I’m waiting for the it to collapse into this chipmunk-made sink hole! My cousins used to catch and train them waaaaay back when I was younger and spent my summers in upper Wisconsin.
    Ha! and one summer, (I just remembered this!) my son was cutting the lawn and this baby squirrel just kept following him around and my son stopped long enough for the little rascal to jump up on his shoe and just… sit there. All it wanted to do was follow my son around. It was adorable but at the same time, it worried me. It made it rather vulnerable to any of the stray cats in our neighborhood. The wild life guys said that it should be old enough to survive on it’s own but… yeah, I still worried. Once a mom, always a mom I guess lol!

  41. Ryan Says:

    Phil,

    Read his letters, he obiviously enjoyed his african safari immensely.

    “President Roosevelt became a conservationist after he decided not to kill a black bear tied up to a tree by Roosevelt’s buddies. After that Roosevelt put his gun aside and created conservation and refuge efforts to wildlife.”

    then you Said:

    I am not saying that the day he did not kill the bear was his “done deal” as a hunter, but it came in shortly after.

    Then why did he and his son go to africa and kill over a 1500 total animals?

    Stick to the facts, its more believable that way..

    • Phil Says:

      Ryan: Again, there is evidence that it was scientific based. The kills were for the purpose of the Smithsonian Institute. I do not believe the Smithsonian works in this manner anymore, but, as I stated, it was a completely different time back then. “After that..” does not mean immediately at that moment, Ryan. But, if you want the facts, he did not hunt in 1903, it wasn’t until 1909 that he went on the African hunt for the purpose of science base. Here is a statement of what had to occur in collecting species for science.
      “Unfortunately for the animals, “collected” in those days was an euphemism for shot and killed.”. It is different to hunt for a sport and hunting to collect specimens for science. Many trappers use the excuse that they trap and what they do not use they give to science. Kind of like the same morpholoy.

      • Ryan Says:

        Phil,

        Roosevelt hunted yellowstone in 1903 and was an ardent supporter of predator control, even in yellowstone.

      • Phil Says:

        Ryan: There are no records of it being in 1903, unless you have some information that you can show me?

  42. Phil Says:

    SaveBears: Yes, there was migration of wolves from Canada to your region, but that population was relatively very small. I am not saying everyone was in on the elimination of wolves, but the anti-wolfers were definately part of it prior to the reintroduction and post the reintroduction. If there is no viable population and if there is no permenant conclusion to a population, then what purpose would it serve for these anti-wolfers to voice out their opinions? Would you say that in Alaska, especially when Palin was in charge, she put forth effort to satisfy certain groups of ranchers and hunters (especially when she was a hunter herself)? Wolves had never been wiped off in Alaska, but their efforts are to satisfy certaing groupings.

    Elk: No, the bobcats in your region are not wiped out, but look at many other places where they have been. Currently in New jersey they are endangered, amongst other places. I don’t understand the theory of hunting predators? Not for food, right? Management is useful not from mankind, but rather from nature.

    wolf moderate: If the ranching industry is so large in Montana, then how do we know they will not have an influence on who is the next senator in the state? If Tester wins, there is that possibility that “rigs” could have occured in some fashion due in part from some hunters and ranchers. In my opinion, this is why politicians bend hands over knees to endulge ranchers.

    Elk: No doubt there were wolves in the region prior to the reintroduction, but how many were residential wolves in which they took territory in the region? In the southern portion jaguars are spotted many times, but how many jags reside in the United States? I visited Arizona a couple times from 2006-2007. We took road trips to New Mexico and Texas, and during our trips, which were boarding the two countries, we spotted two jaguars during the time we spent on the roads. I called the FWS and they mentioned that (at the time) the population of jaguars in the country was relatively small and that there is constant migration of certain jaguars, mainly males, in and out of the country in search of females in heat. I do not disagree with you, wolf and SB, but the situations were completely different during the times prior to the wolf reintroduction and the times after.

    Also, judging by what you guys are saying, would you say the hostility towards wolves from hunters and ranchers was not necessarily of the wolves but rather of others, like the federal government?

    • Savebears Says:

      Phil,

      There were several viable packs in Norther Montana prior to reintroduction and they were moving south, it would taken longer for them to establish more southern territories but they were working that way. I know this for a fact, as my home is right in the middle of the Northern range, less than 50 miles from Canada, I hunted this area extensively before reintroduction and it was the norm, not the exception to see wolf sign as well as wolves.

      Yes, I believe allot of the hostility has to do with the Federal Government and the wolves is the poster child for that hostility..

      • Phil Says:

        I have believed that the hostility has to do more towards the Federal Government for some time now. It is sad that the wolves are the ones that will suffer for this. You really can’t blame wolves for what they were forced into, if your statements are accurate. I would not fully blame the Federal Government, because certain scientists also applauded the reintroduction. But, if the population went from 0 to let’s say around 50 in 30 or so plus years, then I would have to agree with a reintroduction to sustain a viable population.

      • Savebears Says:

        Phil,

        The people in Montana are pretty much the same as people everywhere, if you ask them to do something, they will bend over backwards to accommodate and do it, you tell them they have to do it, or make them feel like it is being forced on them, and they are going to fight, and scream and holler to the bloody end.

        With the wolf issue, just as many other issues, there is a small vocal group on both sides and that is the biggest noise maker, the majority never make a comment, never rally around the flag pole, they simply live their life, no matter what their position is.

        It is not a front burner issue for most.

    • wolf moderate Says:

      Phil
      “wolf moderate: If the ranching industry is so large in Montana, then how do we know they will not have an influence on who is the next senator in the state?

      Well, if the ranching industry is the majority in the state (of course they aren’t), then they should be represented by the state.

      But since the majority is not in the ranching industry, why don’t you run on a platform that rails against the ranching industry? Seems like a sure win😉

      Seriously, we vote people who reflect our values. I voted for Butch Otter because I happened to like his views over Allred’s. That’s what’s great, we can vote in who we want, so long as there is a majority that feel the same way.

      Also, I don’t have any clue what the below means?

      “If Tester wins, there is that possibility that “rigs” could have occured in some fashion due in part from some hunters and ranchers. In my opinion, this is why politicians bend hands over knees to endulge ranchers.”

      • Savebears Says:

        Sounds like he is saying that the elections in Montana are somehow influenced, which of course would be illegal, I don’t know of any election in the last 20+ years in Montana that there has been speculation of tampering.

      • Phil Says:

        wolf moderate: In your state elections, do the reps mention wildlife in any form during debates? No, the ranching industry is not the majority, but do they have the most powerful influence towards the politicians who run the state? If your answer is no, then how do you explain all the references to ranchers that come out of the mouths of the politicians when issues such as the wolf one come about?

      • wolf moderate Says:

        Wildlife don’t come up that often because it’s not an issue. Do you know how much wilderness is in Idaho? Do you know how many deer, elk, cougar, wolves, and bears are thriving in the state? Alright, so the mule deer are not doing so hot. Oh my. Idaho, spearheaded by Senator Crapo (a republican, GASP), recently enacted a 5 new wilderness areas in the Owyhee’s.

        http://www.blm.gov/id/st/en/prog/blm_special_areas/owyhee_initiative.html

        http://idahoptv.org/dialogue/diaShowPage.cfm?versionID=180379

  43. rtobasco Says:

    Folks,

    Fear not. Wolves will not be hunted to the point they are once again eliminated from the west. There remains too much political pressure to allow that to happen. Idaho and Montana will not run the risk letting numbers get so low that the Feds will be compelled to once again intervene. From a practical perspective wolves are one of the more wily critters in the hills. They will prove to be harder to hunt than all other predators. There will be some killed by hunters, mostly incidentally,who are hunting deer/elk. Give the situation a couple of years and wolves will be talked about just like cats and bears – and accepted in pretty much the same light. They will be here and the fears of them being once again eliminated will have subsided.

    • wolf moderate Says:

      Well put. Why would the states risk having the wolves relisted? They are not dumb!

      • Salle Says:

        Actually, yes the states are that dumb. I can damned-near guarantee that once the killing begins, there will be no accountability of the state’s authority and on top of the mass depopulation events for wolves that these flaming a$$es have in mind there will be major obstruction to any realistic, objective research to determine actual wolf population within the states’ borders and, therefore, no realistic population evaluations.. there will only be the “official count” which will be whatever the state wants it to be ~ like the bare minimum to deter re-listing ~ and that will be that.

        I wonder if people will just stop supporting the cattle industry. Personally, I am trying to think of ways to make them pay for destroying the landscape… without getting into legal trouble.

        The only possible way to fight this bogus political delisting is to challenge the rider as unconstitutional/illegal as it directly defies the ESA. (But then, just as a number of states are legislating in violation of Roe v. Wade in order to bring it before the SCOTUS in order to have the new “right-wing” bench revisit the law and over-turn it. If enough states make this attempt, one will succeed in pulling off the legal heist of the decade, until the next important Act or other important socially prudent law comes to the bench for destruction by a partisan judicial.)

        This isn’t America, as we once knew it, anymore. Better start making leather ankle cuffs to avert some of the chafing that the leg irons will create. Soon we’ll all be wearing them so we can be forced into corporate servitude without the luxury of fooling ourselves by thinking we are a “free country”. I think the gig is up and it’s all a done deal except for the announcements that prove it really is a done deal. The politicians have not only sold their souls, they have sold ours too, without asking.

        Don’t forget, the kockheads have thousands of head of cattle in this region, and mining interests, and forest harvest interests, and they own the legislatures of the states in the region as well.

      • Immer Treue Says:

        Salle,

        WM has offered very plausible rationale for why the Dems allowed this rider to “slip” through, but what I don’t understand is why, during the horse trading that went on, did someone else not slip in some sort of rider to double or triple the fees for grazing on public lands. One way to make the other side take heed, that if you want “this”, it will cost you “that”.

      • Ken Cole Says:

        I believe that pols like Harry Reid are purposefully weak in matters such as these. Reid has pushed all manner of destructive projects in the third world country of rural Nevada. There isn’t a habitat stripping project he doesn’t love that won’t receive some special rider if it gets some opposition. In fact, I think that the next rider that delists or prevents listing of a species will keep sage grouse from being protected. This is just Harry Reid setting the stage for things to come. He could have stopped this but he didn’t. They say it was to help with Tester’s reelection but I think it’s much more purposeful.

      • Salle Says:

        Try this rationale, or a summary of the rationale:

        http://www.consortiumnews.com/2011/041511a.html

    • White Wolf Says:

      rtobasco, I truly hope that you are right. We are also a species, the human species and therefore not immune to extinction ourselves. Perhaps it would be good to remember that when next we find ourselves seeking mercy.

      In Soul of the Wolf, Michael W. Fox stated it so eloquently, “Man and wolf are not only of one earth, but they are also of one essence. The wolf is an endangered species today, thanks to man; and mankind, through his own actions in ignorance, is no less endangered. “

  44. Phil Says:

    SB: Ralph stated the same as you just did. Would you say that within the small groups on both sides that the side against wolves have more of an influence because they put in many dollars to the representatives? One example is in Oregon. Even though much of the population is in favor (I believe it was higher then 73%) of wolves the ranchers in most part were not and the Oregon government seems like they are listening to the ranchers and not the majority in population.

    I know. I shouldn’t compare the governments and people of two states.

    • Savebears Says:

      I don’t currently follow the issue in Oregon, I would be suspect of the 73%, but I am suspect of these polls that show the majority believe one side or another, if you go to Portland, I would suspect it would be easy to show a majority in favor, if you travel to Pendelton, I suspect it would be easy to show 75% against.

      I know this is how it was done in Montana, Idaho and Wyoming when the reintroduction polls were being done, if you go to Missoula, you will find a high number in favor, venture out and you will find a high number against.

      As I said, I don’t follow the issue much in OR, but as I remember they have a plan in place that is considered pretty good and for the most part, there are not a lot of people bitching about wolves in OR…

      • Phil Says:

        I would tend to agree with you on the opinions in Montana. I read somewhere that the further you live from Yellowstone and larger cities there are less in favor of wolves, and, off course the closer you live the more in favor the people are. Correct me if I am wrong, but the futher out you are the percentage is somewhere around 54% in favor, and the closer you are to Yellowstone the percentage is around 62%? Would that seem about accurate?

        On my first volunteer expedition of wolves in Idaho, we interviewed 35 individuals on the issue. These were non-hunters and non-ranchers who lived at the furthest about 55 miles outside of Boise. All were in favor of wolves. It would have probably been better suited to settle even further out and get some of the individuals perspective on the issue.

      • Savebears Says:

        Phil,

        I know you are newer to a lot of this, but you have to know, that when agency and groups are trying to show an outcome to a certain goal, they have very smart statisticians that target certain demographics, it happens in politics, wildlife, environment and virtually every other type of issue you can think about..

        In Montana, Bozeman and Missoula at the centers of Higher education with a good portion of the student body not being born or raised in Montana, so If I want to show a positive side to reintroduction, that is of course where I would focus my efforts and take my cross section.

        One of the problems with polls in rural states such as Montana and Idaho, it a good many that live out of the main population centers simply refuse to participate in polls, so we end up with skewed results..

        I have only participated in one poll in my life, and that happened to be a poll that was taken at Slough Creek turn out several years ago in Yellowstone. It was part of the study concerning economic benefits of wolves..

        Being honest, I don’t know that we can truly ascertain a true number to say who is for and who is against…the demographics of the country is simply to diverse and priorities vary so much in a country this large..

      • Ryan Says:

        Phil,

        I live in Oregon, the vast majority of the population lives in areas not affected by wolves. The people in areas that wolves live tend to not care for wolves living in their back yard.. A place the average Oregonian will never visit.

      • Salle Says:

        So I am thinking that, from the suggestions above concerning rural preferences v. urban, preferences regarding wildlife might have something to do with the level and type of education offered in the different areas…? And then there’s that false claim of the importance of culture… which is okay for the current dominant social groups but not okay for those whom they rousted out of home and land when they showed up.

  45. Ann Says:

    Ken,

    Thank you for your analysis of where we stand now. These are, indeed, sad times for the wolf, and for those of us that care about our natural world. As I see it, the first and foremost thing that must be done is for attention, real attention, to be brought to exactly what happened. Despite our intense interest in this matter, most Americans really do not know about it. They get their news in snippets, and only pay attention to what is highlighted by the media. And the media decidedly did not highlight this. I tried to add my voice, writing to a number of members of the media asking them to do a piece on this issue. I thought they might care, if not about wolves, then that policy was being made not in the light of day, and with public debate, but by default. We could, after all, have been talking about anything, wolves or otherwise. But the media did nothing with this story; in no small measure, I think, because much of the media will report nothing that sullies President Obama’s actions. I do think that the media has fundamentally given Obama a free ride. Had another president stood in front of a partisan crowd the night after this debacle happened and said that “the other side” tried to sneak their agenda into this budget bill, which they certainly did, someone would have pointed out that he let them and was signing it. But he got away with that remark, just as he and Congress are going to get away with not only what they did to wolves and the ESA, but the way they did it and what it means for everything political in this country. Whether it is this rider, or the Department of Interior saying they will no longer release information about what companies are given off-shore oil permits, or anything in between, we are in a state of politics where the average American citizen is utterly taken for granted, ignored and downright insulted. Both parties take care of whatever interests put them there, and they rely on our ignorance, or our pre-occupation with simple survival ,to enable them to continue to do so. And both parties are so equally foul that it comes down to the most narrow of interests to find something that separates them. All of it must be exposed, and whether it is an editorial campaign, or whatever else it takes, those of us that care about what has just happened have to take the lead to expose it. Even people that don’t dwell on wolves will want to know that important matters of policy are allowed to be attached to a spending bill, all in the dark of night, and that the vaunted media does not even tell them about it. Most people have no idea, either, that our tax dollars are used to subsidize the cattle ranchers out west, and on our wild public lands to boot, or that those same tax dollars are used to kill hundreds of thousands of animals every year for the benefit of those same cattle ranchers. If knowledge is power, and it most certainly is, then to exert power we must move whatever mountain we must to disseminate knowledge. The politicians, from both parties, want things exactly as they are. They have manipulated this game, and us, and want above all things for us to be ignorant, ignored, desperate and appreciative of only the smallest of things. Well, the politicians have done what they have done to the wolf, and the slaughter is no doubt about to begin. It is left to us now, for the wolf and for our very futures, to shake up the pieces on this game board. For every action there is a reaction, and what we do now is in our hands. Everyone on this board knows what just happened to the wolf. Now is the time to tell everyone else, anywhere, everywhere.

    • wolf moderate Says:

      “Had another president stood in front of a partisan crowd the night after this debacle happened and said that “the other side” tried to sneak their agenda into this budget bill, which they certainly did, someone would have pointed out that he let them and was signing it.”

      From my understanding, the Rider was sneaked in by a member of the “same side” (D Senator). Please let me know if this is not the case. There is so much information out there that I could be wrong.

      Thanks.

      • william huard Says:

        Read Ken Cole’s introduction to this post. It sums up this situation pretty well. Salazar, a rancher, is sympathetic to ranching interests, Tester, Baucus come from ranching families. All they needed to do was get this rider rubber stamped by the Dems on the Environment and Public works Committee. Add a little influence from Peay and Reid is in. Silence from the Udalls and the Oregon Senators. A cynical attempt to bolster Testers 2012 chances.

  46. Valerie Bittner Says:

    Salle, Jim T, other lawyers:

    Any intelligence out there as to whether Defenders, et al. is contemplating an Article III challenge? Any opinions as to whether the case law it would make it viable? Concomitantly, can the rider be separated from the Budget Bill for challenge re: obvious violations of the ESA?

    • WM Says:

      Valerie,

      If you go about mid-point on this thread, there is a short exchange among Jim T myself and Dude the Bagman (4-15 noonish) on how this rider affects the ESA as regards NRM wolves under the 2009 rule (and the DPS break-up deficiency). Not sure whether there is any way it violates it, because this new law just changes it in a very limited, surgically precise way, by adopting the 2009 rule as law, superceding the earlier statute, and circumventing review of the rule as against the ESA statute under the APA.

      We would all be interested if you have other thoughts in that regard, because the topic has come up a couple times, and no analysis being offered in support of a legal challenge to this point.

  47. Neil Says:

    This post is very late and I understand what this means for Wolves—nothing good. I’d like some of the folks who’ve posted that Democrats stink, etc. to think about who’s responsible for wolves being back in the Rockies in the first place.

    I don’t like the way this was done. I don’t like the precedent it sets. But that’s politics. And politicians helped bring the wolves back.

  48. Alan Says:

    “I’d like some of the folks who’ve posted that Democrats stink, etc. to think about who’s responsible for wolves being back in the Rockies in the first place.”
    Neil, “who’s responsible” for bringing wolves back are individuals, not political parties. Remember, it was Richard Nixon, a Republican, who signed the Endangered Species Act into law in the first place. What you are suggesting is that we all should just suck it up and vote for the lesser of two evils. Frankly I am tired of doing that. Democrats need to recognize that they can’t simply take the conservationist vote for granted. I know how important Jon Tester’s seat is, and I certainly do not want Denny Rehberg sitting in it; but how in good conscience can I vote for him when he has sold the ESA down the river for a few votes? The ESA is too important, too fundemental to who I am and what I believe in.
    What we really need to do is find like minded individuals, who are capable, and get them to run. In some cases that might even be ourselves.
    Far too often nowadays the Democratic mantra seems to be: do whatever it takes to win over conservatives and Republicans. Well, Republicans and conservatives aren’t their base. When are we going to find someone with the guts to stand up and say, “Yes, I’m a liberal and proud of it. If not for liberals women wouldn’t have the vote, blacks would still be enslaved, the air and water would be filled with trash and pollution, senior citizens would be standing in soup lines and endangered plants and animals would be disposable.”
    When, I wonder?

    • Neil Says:

      Progressive laws enacted under Nixon were the doing of solid Dem majorities in both the House and Senate. I understand and share the frustration of conservationists with Dems but also remember a lot of friends in 2000 saying there was no difference between Gore and Bush. How did that turn out?

  49. Alan Says:

    “Progressive laws enacted under Nixon were the doing of solid Dem majorities in both the House and Senate.”
    True, but I almost wonder if President Obama would have signed it; or if, in the “spirit of compromise and bi-partisanship” he would have vetoed it.
    A few years ago I never, in my wildest dreams, would have thought that a Democratic Congress and a Democratic President would have allowed loaded guns in National Parks (another issue altogether, and I don’t want to open that can of worms; it just goes to my personal state of mind. I’m still working on forgiving them for that one) and a Democratic Senate and a Democratic President would be responsible for weakening the ESA like this. Not to mention a host of poor decisions (including the wolf delistings, both of them) at Interior, beginning with the choice of another western rancher as its leader. How about someone who actually cares about public lands for a change (in some manner other than as a feedlot for cows)?

    • Neil Says:

      “at Interior – it turned out about on par with the performance of the Obama Administration”

      Salazar’s Interior Dept has disappointed me in some big ways but to equate his with Gale Norton’s is to say taking found small change is like bank robbery

  50. Cody Coyote Says:

    My question: would the Tester-Simpson wolf rider pass legal scrutiny or Constitutional muster? The Wolf Rider has some disturbing legalese in it, to me anyway, to wit:

    …”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 “…blah blah blah.

    Since when is ANY legislation exempt from judicial review or executive challenge? Isn’t that the core of Constitutional ‘checks and balances’ ?

    Would the Simpson-Tester wolf rider be upheld if challenged ?

    What are the precedents for this ‘olly olly ox in free’ language that forbids judicial oversight , especially when it reinstates a ruling that a federal judge had thrown out ?

    • Savebears Says:

      Cody,

      There have been many laws and such that have been attached and passed over the 225+ years of this country that was not subject to judicial review, you might want to do some searches on this particular subject and read the various rulings on this issue, it has been heard before the Supreme Court and found to not violate the constitution.. Now there are many of us that are not happy with the way this happened, but based on what I have researched it is legal and has been done many times..

  51. Alan Says:

    “…would the Tester-Simpson wolf rider pass legal scrutiny…”
    Guess we won’t find out since it’s “not subject to judicial review”.
    “Since when is ANY legislation exempt from judicial review or executive challenge?” The more and more I am researching this, the more I am seeing this used in past legislation. I guess the catch 22 is that if you pass a law that says that it is not subject to judicial review, then it cannot be in violation of the law because the law says it’s not subject to judicial review! Congress makes the law, the courts enforce or interpret them. Pretty easy to interpret, “not subject to judicial review”. Now, whether something like this, a rider that was not subject to floor debate, not subject to an up or down vote, does not really change the law (even if we debate whether it, in itself, is a law), but simply says, in effect, we are going to ignore existing law (the ESA) in this case, and then make the whole kit and kaboodle not subject to judicial review is constitutional is another matter. It’s certainly not democratic. A good question for the Supreme Court, but how do you get it there if it’s not subject to judicial review? Suddenly feel like you are living in Cuba?

    • Rita K.Sharpe Says:

      True.I rather feel that my first amendement was taken;the part where it says I have the right to petition the governmnt.There are alot of people here on this forum that have more knowledge then I do and might explain it to me.Thank you..

  52. Valerie Bittner Says:

    Caveat first: Since I am not a Const. law specialist I am in indulging in creative theory development here: I have to wonder whether there is a difference between the a legal rider with no judicial review which is initiated from scratch (e.g. brand new legislation — unlike the ESA with all of its precedents) and a rider allowing an illegal action which has ALREADY received judicial review and should have proceeded on it pre-ordained route to the Ninth Circuit??

    • Alan Says:

      Interesting point since this wasn’t to preclude judicial review, but rather to nullify it. Seems to be the thing to do nowadays. Not happy with federal law, nullify it. Not happy with state law, nullify it. Not happy with county law, nullify it. Guess what happens to me if I nullify my property taxes?

  53. Nancy Says:

    +My Administration is taking action to protect and restore our land, water, and air. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, which I signed in 2009, provides funding for hazardous waste cleanup, wastewater infrastructure construction, and projects that improve our Nation’s parks and wildlife refuges.
    In March 2009, I also signed the Omnibus Public Land Management Act, the most extensive expansion of land and water conservation in more than a generation. It designates thousands of miles of trails under the National Trails System, protects more than 1,000 miles of rivers, and secures millions of acres of wilderness+

    This was part of the email I received recently from the Obama 2012 campaign.

    I emailed back (although its doubtful, as in the past, that I’ll get a response) about cleaning areas up, “makin things pretty” but obviously not giving a damn about the wildlife who reside there, given the fact that the ESA was just gutted to benefit a few…..

  54. Nancy Says:

    FYI on that email:

    Delivery has failed to these recipients or groups:

    info@barackobama.com
    The recipient’s mailbox is full and can’t accept messages now. Please try resending this message later, or contact the recipient directly

    • Savebears Says:

      Nancy,

      That really does not surprise me at all, with everything that is going on! heck the other day, there was so much email coming in, that it crashed the Whitehouse mail server for several hours.

  55. kathy miller Says:

    I feel completely helpless and very very sad.


Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: