Wolf huggers denied

[A-con]

You need to do a search on this site...myself and a few others in the know, called this thing perfectly..

Absolutely spot on, 100% dead nuts accurate !!!!!!
Completely, fool proof, right on the money !!

Except for a small matter of missing by what, SIX YEARS ?

Buzz, you’ve been predicting this de-listing/wolf hunt since President Bush’s 1st term !

Tin Foil hats , Buzz, you crack me up.

 

[mightyhunter]

Shoots Straight,

This may be long but I hope it won't be boring. Some may consider my comments on the wolf wars as being pessimistic. I actually consider myself more of a realist. That attitude has evolved over time.

I passed the bar in 1980 and started private practice by going to work for myself. I graduated high in my class and I rejected many opportunities to become an attorney with some large firms in the Boise and Southern Idaho areas. I had the idea back when I started that good would prevail over evil and that right would always win out. I handled my first federal civil jury trial in Spokane, Washington in about 1982. It was the beginning of a long strange trip.

My practice was in a small town that had a thriving timber industry. During the course of my legal career, I served as counsel for a city or two. I also became counsel to various municipal corporations (sewer districts, fire districts, etc.). I also served as a board member and later as president for a non-profit economic development board in the community. I handled a lot of workmen's compensation claims for injured loggers and millworkers. My practice was very diverse. I was became very knowledgable in real property law. The only thing I tried to avoid was criminal defense.

I became very familiar with unfunded federal mandates being forced upon municipal corporations through the EPA and DEQ. This irritated the hell out of me. I watched the environmental movement move in and attack the very livliehood that my community survived on. Logging on federal land became more complicated and bureaucratic. Good stewardship practices were ignored as timber sales were appealed over and over again. The lawsuits became never ending. The eco-elites had the capacity to raise the money to fight every plan to log federal lands. I first witnessed this through the Selkirk Priest Basin eco-elite group. They would put out some anti-logging b.s. press release and the money would flow in for another fight.

I was practicing in North Idaho when the grizzly bear recovery program started up. All of a sudden, grizzly bear gates started popping up everywhere. Little public comment was solicited and public land became increasingly difficult for people to access. I watched perfectly good bridges torn out, tank traps installed and roads permanently destroyed. You hoped that fires didn't start on USFS administered land that were no longer accessible. In the early 1990's, an elderly gentleman disappeared in our community while out picking huckleberries with his wife. CS was in charge of the grizzly bear program. All the facts in this disappearance pointed to a grizzly bear kill. My good friend was involved in the search and came up with substantial evidence of such a kill using his man trailing hounds. All the USFWS wanted to do was sweep the whole thing under the rug. Bad publicity for a new program. I was personally involved in a couple of cases with the USFWS and the U.S Attorney that involved some alleged grizzly bear kills. The kills were unfounded but the harassment was incredible. I had a client who turned in a license plate of someone from Utah who was driving an ATV behind a grizzly bear gate in the early spring. An immature grizzly bear was found killed behind the gate. My client's reward was to be harassed at work for months on end. His brother, an internist in Chicago, was actually interviewed by two fellows from the USFWS who flew to Chicago to interrogate him. The feds acted like storm troopers. This kind of crap is still going on in Idaho.

The community I practiced law in was economically destroyed by the anti-logging environmental movement. There were numerous thriving mills (LP, Merritt Brothers, Riley Creek, JD Lumber and their various off shoots). Now I believe there is a single mill with one small shift operating. I believe all their dimension lumber is now sold direct to Home Depot or Lowes. The local lumber yard sells mostly Canadian wood products.

Fast forward to the wolf wars. The eco-elites have a never ending supply of money to fight battles under the ESA. They buy politicians with direct campaign contributions and through bundling. I don't think that Tester or Baucus wanted to propose the "wolf rider". They had to with the more expansive wolf legislation being put on the table. Hence the SFW, BGF, NRA and others got caught with their pants down. Just a bunch more crap when sportsman needed to be united.

I don't believe that the eco-elite wolf lovers will ever give up. They have the infinite capacity to raise money. The EAJA is intact and law schools are cranking out environmental lawyers at a rapid pace. A change in the makeup of the House or Senate could produce another flip flop with an administration. The USFWS is still watching the various state's management of the wolf. What if they don't believe that "genetic connectivity" is taking place? What if some eco-elite group claims that wolf numbers are lower than the 10 breeding pairs or 100 wolf requirement to be utilized in the various states? Whose wolf count will be found to have some basis in fact? You now have the State of Washington and potentially others becoming involved as the wolf expands. Will the failure of one state's program necessitate relisting for all the other states? Who really knows. All I know is big money in involved in this process and it always will be.

You want to know if I will bet you how this particular suit turns out in the Ninth Circuit? How do you think that Obamacare will fare with the U.S Supreme Court now that one circuit court of appeals has ruled in favor of it and another has ruled against it? Will it be a 5-4 or a 5-3 if Kagan bows out. Will it be a 9-0 or a 7-2. Will Obama get a second term? Will he have an opportunity to appoint more judges? Will the new fellow nominated by Baucus to take over for Malloy be approved? What are his politics? That fellow oversaw the vetting process of Baucus' paramour and now wife for appointment as U.S attorney for Montana? He didn't even discover the conflict of interest in that nomination?

I am a realist because I believe that money from all sides has corrupted the process. I don't trust politicans to do the right thing. I feel the same way about federal government employees. Self interest is always the flavor of the month.

I hope that this clears this up for some of you. As to Buzz H and his pronouncements. Who cares. Monday morning quarterbacks are a dime a dozen.

 

[BuzzH]

Hey A-con,

I well remember you're predictions as well..."The wolves will NEVER be delisted and we'll NEVER be able to hunt them"

Remember?

 

[BuzzH]

mightyhunter...still think its not WY's fault?

Clear back from 2008:

Submitted by Rocky Barker on Tue, 09/16/2008 - 3:12pm.

The federal government may be going back to the drawing board on delisting the gray wolf in the Northern Rocky Mountains.

Attorneys for the Bush Administration have told state attorneys and attorneys for sportsmen’s groups they plan to file a motion with U.S. District Judge Donald Molloy in Missoula seeking he remand the case to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Molloy, if you remember, granted a preliminary injunction July 18 that will put wolves in the Northern Rockies back under federal government management. That decision meant Idaho, Montana and Wyoming will have no wolf hunting seasons this fall.

But even though Molloy issued the preliminary injunction, the case moved forward and the two sides were expected to file briefs and make their cases. If Molloy grants the feds motion it means the delisting decision would be revoked by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and wolves would remain protected under the Endangered Species Act.

Molloy said the Natural Resources Defense Council and 11 other wolf advocacy groups demonstrated they would likely win the case on the merits of their arguments, Molloy said in his opinion. This decision leads one to believe that the federal government has comes to the same conclusion.

Molloy made his July decision based on the wolf advocates' claim that wolves in Yellowstone National Park were not genetically mixing with other wolf populations, as the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service said was necessary. He also criticized the Wyoming plan, which had 90 percent of the state open for wolf killing year-round.

But Molloy said the Montana and Idaho wolf plans were good enough to protect wolves, at least as well as the federal rules in place when the wolves were delisted. The agency’s top wolf manager Ed Bangs told me shortly after the decision he was confident he could change the judge’s mind on the genetics issue.

But Wyoming’s huge wolf kill zone is hard to defend. This motion could mean the Bush administration wants to reissue the decision without Wyoming.

 

[BuzzH]

mightyhunter...a post I made in 2008:

"jmcd,

I dont know if I agree with you. Montana now has the freedom to adjust their seasons and quotas as they see fit. I think they will, too. However I do agree that MT's season may be too conservative as it is now.

But, I think MT is using good logic in being safe rather than sorry in regard to their wolf season structure to start with.

At least there will likely be a season and the states will have more control with accepted plans and delisting. Thats a good thing.

There is potential for problems with Wyomings plan.

 

[BuzzH]

Another from 2007:

Maybe Schweitzer is smart enough to know that the 150K Montana is proposing to send to Wyomings lawsuit would be akin to wiping ones ass with 150K.

I suspect that MT's taxpayers are already demanding their money be spent wisely instead of wasted on a lawsuit that Wyoming will surely lose.

 

[DreaminofMT6X6s]

Oh hell yes!!!

 

[BuzzH]

Mightyhunter,

Who was at the wheel of Wyoming plan steering the bus? Oh, I bet you tell me that it was the citizens....rigggghhhhttttt.

JACKSON, Wyo. - The Wyoming Stock Growers Association says the federal government's proposal to designate a permanent area in northwestern Wyoming where the state could manage wolves as trophy game animals is unacceptable.

Jim Magagna, executive vice president of the association, said that designating the wolves as protected game animals, as opposed to predators that could be shot on sight, in the area from Cody to Meeteetse is a "deal breaker."


The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service recently proposed establishing a permanent area for the trophy management area for wolves in northwestern Wyoming in a compromise intended to end the standoff with the state over wolf management. The dispute between Wyoming and federal officials has prevented removing wolves from Endangered Species Act protections in Wyoming, Montana and Idaho.

Gov. Dave Freudenthal met last week with federal officials. He said after the meeting that the federal proposal has marked "great progress from where we were," but said the state would continue pressing its lawsuit over wolf management.

Wyoming this fall sued the federal government for rejecting its wolf management plan. Rather than setting aside a permanent area in which wolves would be managed as trophy animals, the state's plan calls for allowing the state game department to allow hunting as the state deems necessary to control the wolf population.

Magagna said the federal proposal would have a major impact on ranchers.

"It singles out that group of landowners who are going to bear the burden of wolves," Magagna said, adding that the same group already bears the burden of grizzly bears.

The boundary of the federal agency's proposed permanent wolf area would extend from Cody south to Meeteetse, around the western boundary of the Wind River Reservation down to Pinedale, west to the Alpine area and then back north to Yellowstone National Park.

Magagna said that the proposed area would include about 10,000 cattle and 4,000 sheep that graze on public land. He said he expects the state will consult his group when the federal government gives the state a formal proposal and the state has to draft a formal response.

Ed Bangs, wolf recovery coordinator with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in Helena, Mont., said recently that the federal proposal would result in a stable population of about 130 wolves in Yellowstone National Park and about 50 to 100 wolves outside the park. Officials say there are now about 300 wolves in the state.

Mitch King, regional director for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in Denver, said his agency's proposal for a permanent area would make sure that wolves don't become endangered in Wyoming.

"Experts have said the line that we now have laid out is sufficient to support that minimum number of wolves," King said. Outside the area, he said there's no natural prey for wolves and said that they would start getting in trouble with livestock.

Franz Camenzind, executive director of the Jackson Hole Conservation Alliance, said he believes his group and others that support wolves in Wyoming should have been involved in early discussions about the federal proposal.

The alliance and other groups intervened on behalf of the Fish and Wildlife Service in the state's wolf-management lawsuit. Camenzind said his group has concerns about the recent federal proposal.

"I think this is nearly as bad as the current state management plan the state is pushing for," Camenzind said. "I don't see a lot of difference, and I don't see much improvement."

Camenzind said he's concerned that the federal proposal wouldn't offer much protection to wolves outside the national parks. He said he would prefer to wolves managed as trophy game, "and when there is a bona fide problem, go in and deal with that problem," he said.

Rep. Pat Childers, R-Cody, said there will be public meetings as any wolf plan is developed.

 

[BuzzH]

mightyhunter,

For those not living in bunkers, and who had the first clue about WY's lack of a wolf plan, the EIS, etc. could see the handwriting was on the wall clear back in 2006:

Hall said his agency concluded it needed to move forward with delisting to reward states like Idaho and Montana that have significant numbers of wolves, as well as management plans in place.

"Our attorneys are very comfortable with this," Hall told The Associated Press. "This is happening because it's the right thing to do."

If Wyoming lawmakers pass an acceptable plan next year, federal protections could be lifted there, too, Hall said.

 

[BuzzH]

Another from 2006:

According to the wolf experts on hunttalk its the PETA wolf-hugger enviro whackos that will be holding up delisting.

RIIIIIIGGGGGGHHHHHHTTTTTTTTT.

Seems the welfare ranchers are to blame...just like myself and a few others said nearly 2 years ago.

 

[BuzzH]

clear back in 2004:

=BuzzH;1899987]Wyoming is the problem...wolf tags are the solution...

 

[BuzzH]

Monday morning quarterbackin''....clear back in 2004:

Tim, the number of packs needed for delisting has been met, and then some, in all states. The original pack requirement was also amended to just a total wolf population, which has been met as well.

The problem is Wyoming in getting delisting started, until they can come up with a reasonable plan to keep wolves above the population/pack requirements...this thing is dead in the water.

Simple as that, and Wyoming is really making things tough on Idaho and Montana.

 

[Lawnboy]

Did they have internet in 2004? You two need a set of boxin gloves.

 

[A-con]

Hey A-con,

I well remember you're predictions as well..."The wolves will NEVER be delisted and we'll NEVER be able to hunt them"

Remember?

Nice try, but I never said that Buzz.
Go ahead, do THAT search, you won’t find it.

Year after year, you predicted a legal Wolf hunt would take place that year, and I predicted it would not happen.
Year after year, I was right and you were wrong.

I just think it’s funny that, after being wrong so many times, now you may finally have it right and your pound your chest and saying “See, I told you so”.

 

[BuzzH]

Wow...even more Quarterbackin' on Monday Morning...circa 2003:

I read an interesting article in todays Casper News paper about the wolf "plan" in WY, thought I'd pass on the guts of the article.

WY is still trying to classify wolves as big-game and predators. So, on that front, I guess nothing has changed, expect wolves to remain on the list until WY pulls its head out.

Another interesting part was on the comment period on Wyomings wolf plan which ended Dec. 12. They received 6623 total comments. Of those 6000 were from out-of-state, 623 from residents of WY. A vast majority of the out-of-staters oppose the dual classification and the over-all wolf plan. The Residents of WY were 50-50 on the dual classification and the plan.

This tells me a couple things: 1. Wyoming residents spend more time bitching to each other about wolves then actually take the time to comment. 2. A majority is opposed to the WY wolf plan 3. 623 comments from a state with 500,000 is pretty pathetic 4. 499,377 WY residents dont have the right to complain about a damn thing with regard to the wolf.

If WY stays on its current course, wolves wont be delisted, so get used to more and more of them.

 

[BuzzH]

Year after year, you predicted a legal Wolf hunt would take place that year, and I predicted it would not happen.

What?

So, even though you predicted year after year it wouldnt happen...you actually thought it would???

:W:

 

[shoots-straight]

Nice write up Mighty, enjoyed the bio. I just wanted you to answer a few questions though.

A-con You forget we already had one hunting season. As the evidence has shown, if not for Wyoming's plan, the eco's would have had nothing, I repeat, nothing legitimate to file on.

This is the real kicker to the whole debate. Had Wyoming capitulated in 2003, they could have followed their wolf (the one they aggreed to in the first place) plan for 3 years. At that time the Federal over-sight period would have ended, and they could have applied their predator area management that they so fought for. That means that in 2006 we all would have been in the wolf management business, without federal oversight for the past 5 years. That, was, is, just plan STUPID.

 

[A-con]

Twist it any way you want Buzz, you predicted it would happen that year, and I predicted it would not happen that year, or for several years to come. (go, look it up if you want)

Nobody can predict the future, and I don't blame you for being wrong, and I don't toot my own horn for being right.
I just think it's funny that you were wrong, time after time, and now that it seems to be happening, your running around saying "Look at me, I was right.
Even a broken clock is right twice a day, it took you 6 years.

 

[A-con]

A-con You forget we already had one hunting season..

Can you please point out where I forgot that ?

Was that wolf hunting season in 2002 the first time I remember Buzz predicting it ?
Was it in 2003, 2004 or 2005, the second, third or forth time he predicted it ?
Or was it, in fact “tied up in court for years” like me and a dozen other said it would be ?

Like I said, even a broken clock is right twice a day.

 

[BuzzH]

Why was it tied up in court?

But I surrender to you Acon, even though you predicted year after year wolves wouldnt be delisted and a legal hunting season wouldnt happen...glad to know,all along, you really thought it would.

Congratulations?

Shoots-straight,

You're absolutely right, Wyoming has been the cause of this shit from day one...and more precisely the Wyoming Stockgrowers Association is responsible along with help from the WYG&F commission and WY legislature.

Wyoming screwed themselves on this deal...and also threw MT and ID under the bus in the process as well. Not to mention the damage done to the entire process. Its a sad, sad, sad deal what Wyoming has done.