Enviro's slow wolf delisting????

[BuzzH]

Funny, havent heard a thing about any lawsuits from any enviro groups, but looky what Wyoming is up to...oh my!

February 6, 2004

Last modified February 5, 2004 - 11:42 pm


Wolf complaint sent to Norton
Associated Press

CHEYENNE - As Wyoming prepares to sue over the federal government's rejection of the state's plan to manage wolves, Gov. Dave Freudenthal released a letter to Interior Secretary Gale Norton expressing his frustration over the department's apparent flip-flop.

In the letter, sent Wednesday, Freudenthal called the department's messages to Wyoming on wolves "contradictory."

He cited numerous occasions when he and other state lawmakers were assured the state's dual classification of wolves would satisfy the federal government's requirements to have the wolves removed from Endangered Species Act protection.


Wyoming, along with Idaho and Montana, must have wolf-management plans that are approved by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in place before management of the animals can be handed over to the states.

After approving the Montana and Idaho plans, the agency last month rejected Wyoming's plan, citing a provision that would have allowed wolves to be shot on sight in most of the state.

Wyoming proposed a "dual classification" that would have protected wolves in the national parks and adjacent wilderness areas of northwest Wyoming, while elsewhere in the state they would have been classified as ordinary predators and could be killed virtually at will.

Freudenthal told Norton he assumed the plan would be accepted after he and state lawmakers received assurances the plan followed federal policy.

"Wyoming's wolf statutes, and its wolf-management plan, were adopted following the express, written endorsements of senior DOI and Service officials," he wrote. "The Wyoming Legislature and I relied upon those representations in adopting the plan."

"We are now left in the untenable position of having relied to our detriment on an ever-changing federal policy which is not based on the best available science."

Freudenthal suggests in the letter the rejection of the plan may have been based more on image than science.

"Several comments have been offered by Interior officials to the effect 'we verbally told you (you) were warned about the word predator,' " he wrote. "In fact, we were advised that the word predator was a political or image concern. However, as a legal and scientific matter, the written words approved the Wyoming approach."

 

[1_pointer]

If ID and MT plans have been accepted, why don't they just model them??? Sounds like more dickey-doo with the Feds and it is not helping to solve the problem.

 

[BHR]

Pointer,

The wolf huggers have serious issues with the Montana and Idaho plan as well. They are just playing a waiting game. It's not their move yet it is Wyomings. I find it funny that the rest of the country is telling Wyoming how to run their business, when they are only one of a few states to actually have a budget surplus. Maybe everyone else should be listening to and taking notes from Wyoming.

I also read somewhere (and will try to locate it) that the USFWS does not want Wyoming to include any packs from Jellystone in the minimum of fifteen packs the state must maintain in their wolf management plan. The feds have reneg on previous discussions and agreements with Wyoming for some reason, so it's not surprising they are being sued.

At this point, if Wyoming is forced to revise and water down their management plan to please the USFWS (still wont please the wolf huggers however), I think it best to keep management with the feds. Yes it will mean that Utah and Colorado will soon have healthy wolf populations to contend with, but at this point I could care less. You fools were warned. Enjoy!

Paul

 

[1_pointer]

Paul- They have to listen to everyone else because they are dealing with fed $$ on fed land. Doesn't mean they have to take their advice.

The plan doesn't have to suit the wolf huggers, just the USFWS, which as approved the plans of the other two states. I've heard nothing of not including the Jellystone packs, but I would think that would be a HUGE step back. Just wondering, but can a fed. agency change an agreement like that 'mid-stride' without public comment or without NEPA documents??

UT will have wolves no doubt and I'm attending a public meeting on the plan in March.

BTW, what makes me foolish?

 

[BHR]

Pointer,

Here are the main reasons the USFWS turned down the Wyoming wolf plan:

"On January 13, 2004, nearly seven years to the day after Mr. Bangs' correspondence, the State of Wyoming's Gray Wolf Management Plan was rejected by the Service. The rejection noted three concerns that led to your agency's decision. They include:

(1) "Predatory animal" status in a portion of the state;
(2) The need to commit to manage for at least 15 wolf packs in Wyoming without any management or population commitment by the National Parks; and
(3) Expanding the "pack size" definition."

Refer to Comment #2.

Your a smart kid and you know the game being played out here. If you think that wolves are neccessary for Utah, then you are not thinking for that states best interest, nor for the future of hunting in that state. You think you can play with fire and not get burned? Foolish? Yes.

Paul

 

[Ithaca 37]

BHR, we keep hearing that the "environmentalists" are going to keep wolves from being delisted but, so far, it's only been the ranchers in WY who are preventing it. Maybe you should tell the ranchers they are environmentalists now!

 

[BHR]

Pointer,


You said:

"I've heard nothing of not including the Jellystone packs, but I would think that would be a HUGE step back. Just wondering, but can a fed. agency change an agreement like that 'mid-stride' without public comment or without NEPA documents??"

Do you now think Wyoming is playing "dicky-doo" with the feds, or do they have a real reason to sue?

With this whole game, the rules are being made up as they go along. There is 100 more ways down the road to drag their feet and delay delisting. Time to shit or get of the pot. Are you in favor of delisting or not. It's obvious Buzz and Ithaca are not in favor. How about you? Anyone else? Colorado Boys?

Paul

 

[JoseCuervo]

Paul,

Isn't Wyoming's surplus due to Bush's energy policy and the rape of public lands by Cheney and Company and the good ol' boys from Halliburton?

Did you really think Wyoming's management plan was anything other than a "shoot on site" proposal? Wyoming planned to kill every wolf outside of Yellowstone the day they were de-listed.

Hell, Idaho is now crawling with wolves. There ain't hardly a single Elk or Deer left, since them flesh-eating carnivores (as described by Gubernor Klumpthorne)were released. No sense anybody from out of state coming to Idaho to hunt....

 

[BHR]

Elkgunner,

Yep, those oil and gas boys are raping Wyomings public lands in an effort to provide Buzz with natural gas to heat his home and oil for you to run your V-10. Between the wolves, the oil rigs, and Buzz, I'm surprised there's anything left to hunt in Wyoming.

And how do you know that Wyoming is planning on limiting the wolf slaughter to outside of Yellowstone. I hear they want an open season in the Park as well, year round to boot.

And Ithaca was telling us the other day how 3 packs of wolves are within 30 miles of Boise City! What are they living on, Llamas and Labrador's? Sounds like you guy's have plenty of wolves in Idaho. Are you ready for them to be delisted?

Paul

 

[Ithaca 37]

BHR, If you weren't so stupid you might remember that my position ever since the beginning has been to get the wolves up to the delisting level as fast as possible and start hunting them. It's sometimes hard for me to believe what an idiot you are, but you keep reminding me.

 

[JoseCuervo]

Paul,

I am more than ready for them to be de-listed. I think there has been a ridiculous amount of energy spent trying to fight the re-introduction.

And let's be honest, in Idaho, one will rarely get shot by most hunters, as the Wolves will soon become conditioned to hide when they hear an ATV.

The only people who will ever see one will be people who actually use their Danners for hunting, and in Idaho that is damn few. And I doubt that I would interrupt an Elk hunt to skin a wolf and pack out a hide from a smelly Wolf.

And thanks for acknowledging that Wyoming's surplus has nothing to do with superior intellect in Wyoming, but rather a small population and a LARGE source of income from Cheney and Company.

 

[BuzzH]

Gunner and Ithaca, try not to confuse Paul, he rode the short bus to school.

See, its tough for Paul to eat crow on all these issues, even though he's become an expert at it.

Paul is never wrong and he cant believe the truth surrounding the wolf issue.

Most people want them delisted, including Ithaca and myself. I'd like nothing more than to bag a wolf in the lower 48. I've stated this several times, but Paul always forgets.

Its also beyond Pauls comprehension that the wolves are not "decimating" elk and deer herds in Montana. Despite the record harvest in MT this year and proposals to give out a second elk tag to hunters next year, and biologists around the state reporting elk in record numbers, Paul just doesnt believe it. He knows more than the MT FWP.

Paul also has a hard time with his reading skills, as the people holding up the wolf delisting are the ag. interests in Wyoming, not the enviro's. I know Paul wishes it was the enviro's, thus the likely cause of his confusion.

Lets all be a little easier on Paul, he has a tough time keeping up with the rest of us. We should be more understanding of those with learning disabilities.

 

[1_pointer]

Paul-

Your a smart kid and you know the game being played out here. If you think that wolves are neccessary for Utah, then you are not thinking for that states best interest, nor for the future of hunting in that state.

No where did I state that wolves were neccessary for UT. What I'm pretty sure of, is that wolves will be in UT eventually. Thus I feel setting up a proper management plan that includes input from all interested parties before their more tangible stay is appropriate. That I feel is looking out for the future of hunting in UT, which BTW I feel is not all that good unless you have money or don't mind getting a quality tag very infrequently.

I do feel that it would be in the best interest of WY and their resources, particularly wildlife, to craft a plan that would allow THEM to control the management. Giving the state some control over the management IMO is better than what is occuring now. I was also not aware that the 15 pack provision would not count those in YNP. I'm curious if that was in the original ESA agreement? From my limited experience, I find it hard to believe that the rules can change mid-stride without some documentation and/or public comment. If the feds are in fact doing this, I feel the state could have grounds for a case, but remember I'm just a cow-cop!

Yes, I do want the wolves delisted and the grizzlies also if their numbers are higher than required to maintain a healthy, stable population. I view either of these species like any other, in that we should manage for their long-term benefit and use the taking of surplus animals to fund their management.

**edited to add: Thanks for calling me a smart kid, I'm usually referred to as a smart a$$!

 

[Oak]

Colorado is already drafting a management plan so that they're ready when the wolves get here.

Yes, I'd like to see them delisted.

Oak

 

[BHR]

Pointer,

Nice response. Much better than the effort made by the "3 Fools". At least it's obvious that you read the replies before you respond. I'm starting to wonder if Buzz can actually read.

Buzz,

Here's a quote from your Governor:

"As if it were not enough that Wyoming adopted its plan based upon material misrepresentations by DOI and the Service, the rejection of our plan is contrary to the best available science regarding wolves. As you know, the ESA requires that listing decisions be based upon the best available science. Wyoming's plan was reviewed by eleven (11) independent scientific experts, hand-picked by the Service. Ten (10) of the eleven (11) approved Wyoming's plan. Clearly, had this decision been based upon science, the Wyoming plan would have been approved."

So, Buzz and Ithaca, who's delaying delisting? Wyoming or USFWS? Any comments from either one of you reguarding the non-inclussion of the Yellowstone packs in the required pack count. How about the change in required packs from 10 to 15 in all the states? Are you guys going to answer these questions intellegently this time, or show off your ignorance? I'm waiting.

Paul

 

[BuzzH]

Paul, jump back into reality.

The good Governor is wrong, end of story.

How many times does Wyoming have to hear that their predator classification was a problem?

Its been months and months worth of article after article. They (Wyoming) were warned by the USFWS on numerous occasions that the plan would fail.

It now shocks them that the USFWS rejects their plan?

The predator classification makes absolutely no sense. Its a lose/lose deal. I mean come on Paul, think about it for a minute.

Lets go ahead and assume that the USFWS agrees to Wyomings plan. How long do you think it will take for the Feds to step back in and put wolves back on the list? About as long as it takes for a couple packs to get the shit shot out of them outside the 2 wilderness areas and the park. Then, we're all right back to square one, with the wolves back on the list and control back to the feds. In the meantime states with proper plans like Montana and Idaho are the real losers. They suffer because of the crap plan that Wyoming has thrown together to prove a losing point. Its a freaking waste of my time, your time, and the USFWS time to deal with a plan thats set to fail. Its also a big waste of money, which you and I both bitch about all the time.

Also, I havent seen any proof of the increased pack size, number of packs, and I've never seen a single thing about the non-inclusion of the Yellowstone packs.

In fact, do you recall the amendment that Ed Bangs and crew lowered the number of packs required to just a total number of wolves in the recovery area? If you want I'll post up the facts.

Oh, and the solution is easy, Wyoming needs to classify the wolf as a big-game animal, instead of a predator, and its a done deal. But, rest assured that the livestock interests, in their typical bull-headed/my daddy did it that way, train of thought will continue to hold up the process...at the expense of the states that have a good plan.

So, theres the reality of the wolf issue, Paul, plain and simple.

By the way, I wrote the Gov. a letter when he first took office stating what I did above. If he would have listened, this wouldnt be an issue and I'd be packing a wolf tag this fall.

 

[BHR]

Buzz,

If you think that if Wyoming listened to you in reguards to forming their wolf management plan, that you would be hunting wolves there this fall, then you are a bigger idiot then I gave you credit for. Obviously you do not understand the process ahead for getting them delisted. To make such a stupid statement assumes that the wolf huggers will not sue to block delisting once the USFWS signs off on the 3 plans. Wake up Buzz!

Wyomings plan is the only decent plan of the 3 states. It's the only one that addresses where wolves are socially acceptable and where they are not. There is a built in clause that states that Wyoming will maintain 15 packs no matter what. At 15 packs the preditor status is removed. Above 15 and it is in play. Makes sense to me. Why can't you comprehend this.

I can provide more information for you to help you understand what is taking place here, but you got to promise to actually read it. Do you want to read it?

Paul

 

[BuzzH]

Paul,

You said, "To make such a stupid statement assumes that the wolf huggers will not sue to block delisting once the USFWS signs off on the 3 plans."

All I can tell you is this:

We'll never know until the states come up with a plan that is acceptable to the USFWS, will we?

At that time, then I'll join with you in railing the piss out of the enviro groups for not living by the EIS which they agreed to.

But, for now, they have to get off the list for starters. Make sense?

 

[BHR]

Buzz,

You want to play chicken with the well being of our wildlife, so you can push your agenda? Your a fool.

Here's a letter from your Governor to Gale Norton. Lot's to read here so pay attention and try not to get distracted after the first sentence.

February 4, 2004

The Honorable Gale Norton
Secretary, U.S. Department of Interior
1849 C St., NW
Washington, D.C. 20240

Dear Secretary Norton:

I write to share with you my perspective on the efforts to delist the gray wolf. On several occasions last year, I wrote asking for clear direction regarding federal wolf policy. In response, Wyoming received several express written representations from individuals at the Assistant Secretary and Director levels that our proposed "dual-status" legislation was adequate to delist. In fact, our legislation became law on the basis of those representations. Following those representations, your hand-picked group of wolf scientists endorsed our dual-status approach this past fall. Now, in the face of direct representations to the contrary, and in the face of nearly unanimous agreement that the best available science supports the dual-status approach, Wyoming's wolf management plan has been rejected. I cannot understand how the federal government can justify such an inconsistent, and frankly, unsupported position.

The Service rejected Wyoming's management plan, ostensibly on 3 grounds - predatory animal status in a portion of the state, the requirement that 8 of 15 packs be in the National Parks, and Wyoming's definition of a pack which allowed for maintenance of the originally required 10 breeding pairs instead of the apparent new federal requirement of 15. None of these ostensible grounds is based in science. In fact, the scientific review panel overwhelmingly endorsed Wyoming's plan. Rather, this rejection had a non-scientific basis which is entirely impermissible under the Endangered Species Act. Wyoming's wolf statutes, and its wolf management plan, were adopted following the express, written endorsements of senior DOI and Service officials. The Wyoming Legislature and I relied upon those representations in adopting the plan. We are now left in the untenable position of having relied to our detriment on an ever-changing federal policy which is not based on the best available science.

On January 10, 1997, Ed Bangs, the Service's Wolf Recovery Coordinator, wrote the Directors of the Wyoming, Montana and Idaho wildlife management agencies and declared:

Unfortunately, but not unexpectedly, the hysteria and myth surrounding wolves and their management continue. I often hear second-hand rumors about how the reintroduced wolves are causing more problems than expected and how wolf management is much more difficult than predicted…A few people still hope that the wolves will all die out or be removed. Others suggest a scenario whereby wolves exceed recovery objectives, problems become widespread, and funding is reduced but politics prevents attempts to delist wolves despite sincere efforts of the resource management agencies. (emphasis added)

These rumors, regarded by Mr. Bangs as "hysteria," appear to be no less than clairvoyant in light of recent events.

On January 13, 2004, nearly seven years to the day after Mr. Bangs' correspondence, the State of Wyoming's Gray Wolf Management Plan was rejected by the Service. The rejection noted three concerns that led to your agency's decision. They include:

(1) "Predatory animal" status in a portion of the state;
(2) The need to commit to manage for at least 15 wolf packs in Wyoming without any management or population commitment by the National Parks; and
(3) Expanding the "pack size" definition.

These conclusions are in stark contrast and complete contradiction to previous representations made by the Service - representations expressly relied upon by Wyoming in adopting its Wolf Management Plan.

On January 21, 2003, in anticipation of the Wyoming Legislature's final vote on HB 0229, I wrote to you with the following request: I respectfully ask that you direct the Service to tell us, unequivocally, what must be incorporated into Wyoming's management plan to have the wolf de-listed. To date, Wyoming has been told there are only two criteria: 1) a minimum of 10 breeding pairs for three consecutive years and 2) a state management plan that provides adequate regulatory mechanisms. Our process is being unnecessarily delayed in trying to determine what constitutes the adequate regulatory mechanisms, which is why I am asking for your help.

In response to my request, on February 21, 2003, Craig Manson, Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks, responded as follows:

When making a determination that adequate regulatory mechanisms are in place that will maintain the population above recovery levels, we must be able to determine that wolves are provided legal protections by the State from unregulated human mortalities in an area at least as extensive as they currently occupy. In order to reach this goal, we believe the fundamental elements of the State's management plan should include:

• Management authority to maintain the wolf population at or above recovery levels. [10 breeding pairs] Management authority is needed to provide protections for wolves beyond National Parks and National Forest wilderness areas and to allow flexibility to adapt protections to changing circumstances. The Service has determined that the current provisions of HB 0229 regarding management authorities and maintenance of 15 wolf packs in Wyoming (8 inside National Parks and 7 outside) should satisfy this requirement.
• We believe that regulated state harvest programs, such as those used by Wyoming Game and Fish to manage other large predators, such as mountain lions and black bears, can easily control wolf populations and yet satisfy requirements for delisting the wolf.
• Monitoring to determine whether the wolf population is being maintained at or above recovery levels and to measure management results. Population information (including population size and mortality) is necessary to determine success and to adapt management to changing circumstances. The Service has determined that the State's current draft legislative provisions requiring monitoring and reporting should satisfy this requirement. (emphasis added)

Relying upon these explicit statements and express directives from the Assistant Secretary, the Legislature passed HB 0229, which I signed into law. Subsequently, the Wyoming Game and Fish Commission, tracking the requirements of HB 0229 and advice from Assistant Secretary Manson, approved the Wyoming Gray Wolf Management Plan for submission to the Service.

Beyond the representations made by Assistant Secretary Manson, Director Steve Williams made similar assertions to Representative Barbara Cubin on February 14, 2003. According to Mr. Williams:

[W]e believe the fundamental elements of the State's management plan should include:

• Management authority to maintain the wolf population at or above recovery levels. [10 breeding pairs] Management authority is needed to provide protections for wolves beyond National Parks and National Forest wilderness areas and to allow flexibility to adapt protections to changing circumstances. The Service has determined that the current provisions of HB 0229 regarding management authorities and maintenance of 15 wolf packs in Wyoming (8 inside National Parks and 7 outside) should satisfy this requirement.
• Monitoring to determine whether the wolf population is being maintained at or above recovery levels and to measure management results. Population information (including population size and mortality) is necessary to determine success and to adapt management to changing circumstances. The Service has determined that the State's current draft legislative provisions requiring monitoring and reporting should satisfy this requirement. (emphasis added)

On May 5, 2003, further assurances were given by Assistant Secretary Manson when he wrote the following endorsement of HB 0229 to Wyoming Senate President April Brimmer Kunz:

I would encourage the Wyoming Game & Fish Department to continue to work closely with the Service and Interior personnel under the framework provided by HB 229 to develop a Wolf Management Plan that contains provisions that will assure that wolf populations will remain viable after they are removed from the protection of the Endangered Species Act.

The letter from the Assistant Secretary once again reassured the State that HB 0229 was an appropriate framework from which to work, including the central concepts of the dual-status classification, the "predator classification," and the definition for pack size - the identical concepts used by the Service to reject Wyoming's Management Plan not nine months later.

To the extent Wyoming received later comments by subordinate Service personnel that did not fully endorse the proposed plan, those comments were clarified by Assistant Secretary Manson's letter of August 5, 2003. In that letter, the Assistant Secretary responded to my request that a single federal liaison be appointed to communicate wolf policy to Wyoming as we were receiving inconsistent messages. The Assistant Secretary replied:

We believe that continued consultation with Wyoming regarding a Wolf Management Plan is extremely important. Therefore, Steve Williams, Director of the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, will be DOI's official policy spokesman on wolf issues. Ed Bangs, the Service's Wolf Recovery Coordinator, will continue to interact with Wyoming Game and Fish Department personnel as to technical issues only.

In response to your concern about inconsistent messages from Interior, I have taken internal action to ensure that the Department's message at all levels regarding the State's efforts to develop a Wyoming Wolf Management Plan is consistent.

If the express statements of the Assistant Secretary were no longer to be relied upon by Wyoming, Director Williams never made that fact known. Wyoming continued to rely on the express statements of the Assistant Secretary, and not those of subordinate employees within the Service. The Wyoming Wolf Management Plan was presented to the Wyoming Game and Fish Commission on July 29, 2003, and was adopted. Never did Director Williams, as the designated liaison for DOI, even intimate that a potential problem may exist. Wyoming continued to rely to its detriment on express DOI representations.

As if it were not enough that Wyoming adopted its plan based upon material misrepresentations by DOI and the Service, the rejection of our plan is contrary to the best available science regarding wolves. As you know, the ESA requires that listing decisions be based upon the best available science. Wyoming's plan was reviewed by eleven (11) independent scientific experts, hand-picked by the Service. Ten (10) of the eleven (11) approved Wyoming's plan. Clearly, had this decision been based upon science, the Wyoming plan would have been approved.

The "hysteria and myth" noted in 1997 have now come true. Wolf numbers today clearly "exceed recovery objectives." "Problems [have] become widespread," including excessive predation on Wyoming's game herds. "Funding" is wholly inadequate. And, the "sincere efforts" of the State of Wyoming to delist wolves were undermined by legal and political machinations, which are totally irrelevant under the Endangered Species Act.

This conclusion is categorically supported by the testimony of the Service's Paul Hoffman before the Joint Travel, Recreation and Wildlife Committee of the Wyoming Legislature on January 15, 2004. Answering a question posed by Representative Mike Baker, author of Wyoming's HB0229, Mr. Hoffman testified:

t all hinges on what we believe is our ability to defend a rule to delist wolves if a rule goes final. It is based on our experience in these kinds of matters of litigation in the past. You know, look at the recent past on the snowmobile rule to see what kind of challenges we have in the courtroom today, and it is - under the law, the law says make the decisions based on the science, but legal analysis is an appropriate overlay after the scientific analysis is done, and from a strictly science perspective, yes, the plans were deemed adequate. It's the legal considerations that prompt us to say no at this time. (emphasis added)

To be sure, Mr. Hoffman summed up the Service's philosophy as follows: "Our question is how are you going to sell it to an eastern judge?"

The Endangered Species Act requires decisions which are based on "the best scientific and commercial data available." There is no exception to accommodate the sensitivities of an "eastern judge." DOI has categorically rejected Wyoming's Wolf Management Plan, and done so contrary to its earlier express representations regarding its adequacy. You have also rejected the recommendations of your own scientific panel. Your rejection constitutes final agency action on Wyoming's plan. The State has no option but to continue evaluation of its limited legal options.

Several comments have been offered by Interior officials to the effect "we verbally told you were warned about the word 'predator.'" In fact, we were advised that the word predator was a political or image concern. However, as a legal and scientific matter, the written words approved the Wyoming approach.

I understand that Interior officials may be in Cheyenne next week to discuss this issue. I hope their purpose is something more than to simply demand that Wyoming continue to modify its approach based on the latest federal policy position.

Sincerely,

Dave Freudenthal
Governor

 

[BuzzH]

Paul, Governor Freudenthal better learn to read:

This quote came from the letter from Craig Manson:

"• Management authority to maintain the wolf population at or above recovery levels. [10 breeding pairs] Management authority is needed to provide protections for wolves beyond National Parks and National Forest wilderness areas and to allow flexibility to adapt protections to changing circumstances. The Service has determined that the current provisions of HB 0229 regarding management authorities and maintenance of 15 wolf packs in Wyoming (8 inside National Parks and 7 outside) should satisfy this requirement.
• We believe that regulated state harvest programs, such as those used by Wyoming Game and Fish to manage other large predators, such as mountain lions and black bears, can easily control wolf populations and yet satisfy requirements for delisting the wolf."

How can Freudenthal be suprised that the plan isnt passing?

For Christ sake, read the freaking letter.

The predator status doesnt "provide protections for wolves beyond National Parks and National Forest wilderness areas" further, he is begging the state to classify the wolf as a big-game animal, "like other large predators such as mountain lions and black bears."

Its pretty hard for the state of Wyoming to justify predator status for wolves while recognizing grizzly/black bears and lions as big-game. It doesnt make sense.

I can see exactly why the management plan failed, it doesnt address the very issues that the USFWS warned them about.

Like I said, why is it that I've been:

1. Telling you all along that Wyomings plan was going to be trouble.

2. Writing letters to my reps and Gov. outlining EXACTLY whats now happening?

Come on Paul, why is it that a simple minded "fool" can see the handwriting on the wall, but a bunch of elected officials are so "smart" they act suprised when their shitty plan is a flop?

Besides all that, until they come up with an acceptable plan, it simply doesnt matter. The wolf will never make it off the list until Wyoming pulls their head out. Thats a fact.

Look Paul, I aint into playing games with the USFWS, the State, or the ESA. What I am in favor of is living by the contract and the original agreement.

Part of that agreement was for the feds to turn over control of the wolf when the wolf population was high enough. Another part of the EIS called for the States to come up with a plan acceptable to the USFWS. Thats why Wyoming is in this big flap with the Feds, they want to be the ones dictating Federal Policy to Federal Agencies. They are pissing in the wind, and they'll never get any kind of control unless they can satisfy the Feds that their plan will keep them off the list.

Guess what, the Feds arent satisified, nothing else matters...at least right now.

Paul, I'm not going to argue about letters written by Governors, etc. Its a waste of time. What I've always said is I want the wolves delisted and I want them controlled. I dont want to be waffling back and forth between listing and delisting all because of livestock interests in Wyoming. Which is EXACTLY what will happen if every wolf in Wyoming is whacked as soon as they get out of the two wilderness areas and Yellowstone.

The plan sucks, and if the Governor and the State didnt see this coming, they deserve to be fired.

Believe me, I want wolves delisted more than you do. Not just for the right to hunt them either. If we're ever going to be able to recover endangered species there has to be assurances and compliance of regulations and requests. That isnt happening and its Wyomings fault. Why dont they just look at the MT or ID plan?