Enviro's slow wolf delisting????

[Ithaca 37]

"And this anti-grazing agenda is in large part why the wolf was brought back in the first place."

That's your speculation. I suppose you never heard of The Endangered Species Act.

 

[BHR]

Ithaca,

The ESA has been used as tool for all kinds of agendas. Even you should know this as fact and not speculation. If the ESA has not been abused, wolves in Minnesota would have been delisted years ago. Face it, the ESA and it's use and mis-use is entirely political. Any rational American citizen can see that. The failed Idaho Grizzley reintro is proof that all logical American citizens have had enough of the game that is being played here. I believe that the spotted owl in Oregon also had a set back in court recently.

Continue to use the ESA as tool for your agenda, and prepare to lose.

Paul

 

[Ithaca 37]

My agenda! I always love it when some fool starts talking about MY agenda!

And every time a new kinda snail darter gets listed some nitwit comes up with a conspiracy theory! The ESA is great entertainment!

 

[1_pointer]

Paul- Could you eloaborate how I don't give ranchers (I assume that's who you were referring to 'the people') equal concern? I don't think I've ever stated that some management should not happen if wolves are causing a problem with livestock. It should. There are already programs in place to handle trouble animals from lions, to bears, to elk. I assume that a similar program should work for wolves. I can't prove it, but I bet the problems with wolves/livestock, especially on private property, will lessen once hunting of wolves starts.

 

[BuzzH]

Pointer,

I agree with you, and theres already been kill permits issued in Montana and Idaho to landowners to deal with problem wolves...despite the ESA.

Paul knows this, but would much rather rail the ESA.

Oh, and Paul, I wouldnt count out the griz reintro in Idaho either...

One of my best friends is a PR officer for the IGBC...count on griz reintro happening.

The current administration may not allow it, but the tides are changing, and even if your boy stays in the whitehouse, they dont have any say over sovereign native rights....

Oh, and no I dont have an anti-grazing agenda. I just find it repulsive that 60% of all public grazing lands are in poor condition and that nearly all riparian areas are in poor condition. I couldnt care less what a rancher does on his private lands, including grazing it to dirt.

 

[BHR]

Pointer,

If you gave ranchers equal concern, the Wyoming plan would make more sense to you. The USFWS gave their approval of the plan right up to the end and then reneged on it.

Maybe the DOI decided to play politics and let Wyomings Democratic Governor twist in the wind? I hope this is not the case, but it would not surprise me. Look at Buzz's last post. Lot's of hidden agendas and back door dealing going on trying to make things happen that shouldn't. I think Buzz made some legal threats involving the Native Americans in reguards to Dam Breeching if things didn't go his way. Now they are playing a similar game with the Grizzley reintro. Have you asked anyone in Idaho if they want them Buzz?

And I still haven't heard anyones comments on what has happened in Minnesota. How can you guy's believe that delisting will occur when it has yet to happen there? What makes Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming any different in the game that is being played out? Look at the Bald Eagle. They have been trying to get them delisted for 4 1/2 years and that has yet to happen.

Paul

[ 02-17-2004, 11:57: Message edited by: BHR ]

 

[Ten Bears]

BUZZ, what do you know about sovereign native rights?

 

[1_pointer]

Paul- I think we are just seeing different parts of the same side of the coin. I want the wolves delisted and the population controlled for the betterment of the long-term health of the resources. I guess for me the predator status doesn't get that happening so I'd scrap it and come up with some acceptable. Some is better than none in this case.

 

[BHR]

Pointer,

The wolf huggers have already stated that they have serious problems with the Idaho plan as well. Should we scrape it too, in order to please them?

Paul

 

[BuzzH]

Ten, while I'm not an expert in sovereign rights, I'd pretty familiar with treaty rights. Enough to know that the US Supreme Court regards treaty rights as "high law", and treaty rights have been upheld EVERY time.

Thats why I'm pretty certain that griz will be in Idaho and the dams will come down...the tribes have a lot of pull in these issues.

 

[1_pointer]

Paul- Nope. The USFWS if the first hurdle, the other's can/should be tackled in turn. I'd think one aspect of gov. taking on a public entity would have a better chance of getting something done than to parts of gov suing eachother. But, as I learn everyday, I'm pretty naive to political workings.

 

[BHR]

Buzz,

There's always a first for everything. I see the griz deal is also part of the salmon deal. Using them as a tool again. And two tools work better than one.

Paul

 

[BuzzH]

Paul,

Since treaty rights have been upheld by the US Supreme court, I doubt the salmon and/or griz issue will be any different when it comes down to brass tacks.

Hey!, you're starting to catch on...salmon and griz...by God, you're a little smarter than I gave you credit for, congratulations.

 

[BHR]

Buzz,

Good luck with your project. I'm glad your at least being honest this time and not sighting things like the path report and bogus polls claiming 95% of Idahoans are in favor of the griz being reintroduced.

Paul

 

[BuzzH]

Paul,

I still like the PATH report too, compiled by over 100 of the best fisheries biologists found anywhere.

It isnt a bogus poll on the griz, its the comments received for the EA that showed the strong public support...