A-con
New member
Still working on that search, eh ?
Wolf huggers denied
- Thread starter tjones
- Start date
BuzzH
Well-known member
Why search what you admitted to?
mightyhunter
New member
Buzz H,
We simply have a difference of agreement on this subject. Despite your gloating and lack of humility, you have for the most part stopped the personal attacks that you usually engage in. I commend you for that. Our background and perspectives on the subject are completely different. I set forth in an earlier post why I believe what I do on this subject. It is based on my observations and life and professional experiences.You think that the State of Wyoming is totally to blame for this. I do not. You ignore the involvement of the eco-elites and like to pretend that they have had very little to do with all this. I do not. It makes me wonder if you have you ever read some of their pro-wolf blogs? Most come off as if they worship these predators. These folks will never give up in this process. They will continue to pour money into fighting this anyway they can and from any angle they can. Their lawyers will continue to take advantage of the EAJA. You seem to think that Judge Malloy has been an unbiased participant in all of this. I do not. I don't believe that any federal judge is without a bias for his own political beliefs or to the politics of those who empowered him. Look at all the divergent judicial opinions now floating around on Obamacare. Judge Malloy has done some things that directly reveal his bias. He tipped the eco-elite groups off a couple of years ago to attack the Montana and Idaho wolf hunts by using Wyoming as the legal reason. Those groups didn't develope that legal theory on their own. He plainly showed his bias and contempt in his last opinion where he condemned the "wolf rider" and the process that created it. Why would you do that as a judge, if you were going to ultimately find the "wolf rider" did not violate the separation of powers as set forth in the U.S. Constitution. He may be less involved now that he is on "senior status" but I believe he will interject himself back into the process at some point in time.
Although you deny it or claim that it is a "red herring", your politics, your status as a federal employee and your pro union stance define you. You pretend that it has no bearing in your opinions. You obviously dislike the various stock owner's associations. My guess is you have had run ins with these groups or their members in your capacity as a federal employee. You obviously dislike the Republican powers that be in Wyoming. That would be consistent with your pro union beliefs and lefty leanings. You believe and buy into the one size fits all mentality of the federal government. You believe that the federal government is the best steward of public resources. You believe that you as a federal employee should not be ignored when it comes to your opinions on natural resource issues. I, for one, respect and share your opinion on the issue of the "let it burn" policy with dead pine forests. I disagree with your opinion on the subject of the wolf.
These disputes will continue to arise in the wolf wars. The matter is not resolved and finality will never be a part of this equation. There are just too many parties who are at totally opposite ends in this dispute. Money and self interest will always taint the process and the outcome. Good science will likely be ignored over and over again. To think otherwise would be naive. People can call me a pessimist or a realist, I don't care. And by the way, I don't live in a bunker.
We simply have a difference of agreement on this subject. Despite your gloating and lack of humility, you have for the most part stopped the personal attacks that you usually engage in. I commend you for that. Our background and perspectives on the subject are completely different. I set forth in an earlier post why I believe what I do on this subject. It is based on my observations and life and professional experiences.You think that the State of Wyoming is totally to blame for this. I do not. You ignore the involvement of the eco-elites and like to pretend that they have had very little to do with all this. I do not. It makes me wonder if you have you ever read some of their pro-wolf blogs? Most come off as if they worship these predators. These folks will never give up in this process. They will continue to pour money into fighting this anyway they can and from any angle they can. Their lawyers will continue to take advantage of the EAJA. You seem to think that Judge Malloy has been an unbiased participant in all of this. I do not. I don't believe that any federal judge is without a bias for his own political beliefs or to the politics of those who empowered him. Look at all the divergent judicial opinions now floating around on Obamacare. Judge Malloy has done some things that directly reveal his bias. He tipped the eco-elite groups off a couple of years ago to attack the Montana and Idaho wolf hunts by using Wyoming as the legal reason. Those groups didn't develope that legal theory on their own. He plainly showed his bias and contempt in his last opinion where he condemned the "wolf rider" and the process that created it. Why would you do that as a judge, if you were going to ultimately find the "wolf rider" did not violate the separation of powers as set forth in the U.S. Constitution. He may be less involved now that he is on "senior status" but I believe he will interject himself back into the process at some point in time.
Although you deny it or claim that it is a "red herring", your politics, your status as a federal employee and your pro union stance define you. You pretend that it has no bearing in your opinions. You obviously dislike the various stock owner's associations. My guess is you have had run ins with these groups or their members in your capacity as a federal employee. You obviously dislike the Republican powers that be in Wyoming. That would be consistent with your pro union beliefs and lefty leanings. You believe and buy into the one size fits all mentality of the federal government. You believe that the federal government is the best steward of public resources. You believe that you as a federal employee should not be ignored when it comes to your opinions on natural resource issues. I, for one, respect and share your opinion on the issue of the "let it burn" policy with dead pine forests. I disagree with your opinion on the subject of the wolf.
These disputes will continue to arise in the wolf wars. The matter is not resolved and finality will never be a part of this equation. There are just too many parties who are at totally opposite ends in this dispute. Money and self interest will always taint the process and the outcome. Good science will likely be ignored over and over again. To think otherwise would be naive. People can call me a pessimist or a realist, I don't care. And by the way, I don't live in a bunker.
sweetnectar
New member
Oh, you were referring to a wolf not a Defenders of Wildlife idiot.
A-con
New member
Here is a quote from me, talking to Ithaca January, 2005.
Seems to me I offered you that same bet, didn't I Buzz ?
Seems to me I offered you that same bet, didn't I Buzz ?
BuzzH
Well-known member
mightyhunter,
Really?
If I was FOR federal control of wolves, then why the hell have I all but begged the State of Wyoming to concede the predator status to give control to the STATE...thusly the citizens of Wyoming? That doesnt add up does it?
I dont believe the Feds are the best stewards of all public resources, including most all wildlife. But, I'm also not an idiot and believe that in the case of certain wildlife it makes a bunch of sense for the feds to maintain control. Mainly anadromous fish, migratory waterfowl, and most certainly endangered species. It would be devastating financially to ANY state if they were saddled with the expense of having to manage for any of those, and in particular those species on the ESL.
There are species that most definately must be managed by the Feds...no other way around it unless you want your state bankrupt.
I dont hate ranchers, I do hate the way they run rough-shod over the hunters in all Western States. The G&F commissions are largley comprised of ranchers, outfitters, etc. Thats a stacked deck, and there is no denying that ranching and outfitting have an undue amount of influence when it comes to the STATES wildlife resources. How else do you explain landowner tags (both transferable and non-transferable), the wilderness guide law in Wyoming, NR's having to hire a guide in AK for brown bear, sheep, and goats, etc. etc. etc.? How about the Elk Management Plan in Montana that was all but written BY the landowners there?
If any wildlife is to be managed correctly, the politics and give-aways have fuggin' got to stop. The people with the most flesh in the game are the CITIZENS of the states, in particular those that buy hunting/fishing licenses. Sportsmen are ignored by Livestock interests. All we are is a pain in their ass that knocks on the door to ask permission to hunt and then leave the gates open. Its THEIR wildlife when they profit from it, its OUR wildlife when they have damage from them. We have to compromise with them, we have to be on the same team...yet, they dont care to compromise with hunters or their fellow citizens.
Its a joke...and now the livestock interests are having a coronary that hunters are calling their bluff and taking back control of the PUBLIC wildlife. I personally dont give a big rats ass what they do with their private property...but I do care what happens to MY PUBLIC WILDLIFE and MY PUBLIC LANDS.
As to Molloy "tipping off" the eco-elites...I disagree...it was as much, or more, of a warning to Wyoming as it was a "tip" to the eco-elites. If it wasnt, he would have just ruled to stop MT and ID from conducting their hunts, that simple.
My politics and my job, take a very distant back seat to my concern with how the publics wildlife is managed. I'd quit me job over it...in two seconds flat, without even a glance back. I was looking for a job when I found this one.
Just so you know, I've stated time and time again that in the priority of how wildlife is managed the health of, and doing whats best for wildlife should come first, followed by all the other interests (hunters, outfitters, landowners, etc.). That never happens...I wonder why?
You can try to stereotype all you want, you can try to say my job and politics drive my views on wildlife...but you're barking up the wrong tree brother.
Really?
If I was FOR federal control of wolves, then why the hell have I all but begged the State of Wyoming to concede the predator status to give control to the STATE...thusly the citizens of Wyoming? That doesnt add up does it?
I dont believe the Feds are the best stewards of all public resources, including most all wildlife. But, I'm also not an idiot and believe that in the case of certain wildlife it makes a bunch of sense for the feds to maintain control. Mainly anadromous fish, migratory waterfowl, and most certainly endangered species. It would be devastating financially to ANY state if they were saddled with the expense of having to manage for any of those, and in particular those species on the ESL.
There are species that most definately must be managed by the Feds...no other way around it unless you want your state bankrupt.
I dont hate ranchers, I do hate the way they run rough-shod over the hunters in all Western States. The G&F commissions are largley comprised of ranchers, outfitters, etc. Thats a stacked deck, and there is no denying that ranching and outfitting have an undue amount of influence when it comes to the STATES wildlife resources. How else do you explain landowner tags (both transferable and non-transferable), the wilderness guide law in Wyoming, NR's having to hire a guide in AK for brown bear, sheep, and goats, etc. etc. etc.? How about the Elk Management Plan in Montana that was all but written BY the landowners there?
If any wildlife is to be managed correctly, the politics and give-aways have fuggin' got to stop. The people with the most flesh in the game are the CITIZENS of the states, in particular those that buy hunting/fishing licenses. Sportsmen are ignored by Livestock interests. All we are is a pain in their ass that knocks on the door to ask permission to hunt and then leave the gates open. Its THEIR wildlife when they profit from it, its OUR wildlife when they have damage from them. We have to compromise with them, we have to be on the same team...yet, they dont care to compromise with hunters or their fellow citizens.
Its a joke...and now the livestock interests are having a coronary that hunters are calling their bluff and taking back control of the PUBLIC wildlife. I personally dont give a big rats ass what they do with their private property...but I do care what happens to MY PUBLIC WILDLIFE and MY PUBLIC LANDS.
As to Molloy "tipping off" the eco-elites...I disagree...it was as much, or more, of a warning to Wyoming as it was a "tip" to the eco-elites. If it wasnt, he would have just ruled to stop MT and ID from conducting their hunts, that simple.
My politics and my job, take a very distant back seat to my concern with how the publics wildlife is managed. I'd quit me job over it...in two seconds flat, without even a glance back. I was looking for a job when I found this one.
Just so you know, I've stated time and time again that in the priority of how wildlife is managed the health of, and doing whats best for wildlife should come first, followed by all the other interests (hunters, outfitters, landowners, etc.). That never happens...I wonder why?
You can try to stereotype all you want, you can try to say my job and politics drive my views on wildlife...but you're barking up the wrong tree brother.
Last edited:
mightyhunter
New member
So Buzz H am I to understand from all your postings on this subject that you FORESAW all of this:
1. You knew that Judge Malloy would throw out the wolf hunts after 1 year in Idaho and Montana and why.
2. That the wolf issue would be stalled permanently in the judicial system.
3.That the U.S. Government ,controlled completely by the Democrats in 2010, would not be able to pass a 2011 budget in 2010.
4. That various sportsman's groups, SFW,BGF,NRA,RMEF etc. would finally wake up and start the
legislative process that would delist the wolf. That this would emerge in the form of HR 509 and SB 249.
5. That SB 249 would get no where procedurally because Barbara Boxer (D) California and Ben Cardon (D) Maryland would block it from coming up for a vote in the Senate.
6. That the Democratically controlled house would suddenly become controlled by the Republicans after elections in the fall of 2010.
7. That Tester and Baucus would feel the political pressure to do something about the wolf after they were caught not supporting SB 249.
8. That Simpson of Idaho and Tester of Montana would throw in a "wolf rider" to the 2011 budget in an attempt to throw a bone to the people in Montana and Idaho and the same would pass.
9. That any attempt to negotiate a judicial settlement between the eco-elite groups and the government would fail before Judge Malloy.
10. That the judicial challenge to the passed "wolf rider" would be fast tracked by Judge Malloy. That the two challenge cases would be quickly consolidated into one.
11. That Judge Malloy begrudgingly, and not without criticism, would hold that the "wolf rider" did not violate the separation of powers doctrine based on an earlier decision from the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.
12. That the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals would quickly deny attempts by various eco-elite groups to obtain a preliminary injunction just before the Idaho and Montana wolf hunts were to begin.
Hum.
How big will the bull moose I take in Wyoming this year in Unit 10 be? Or will I come home with tag soup?
Will I get a bull elk or a nice muley buck this year, neither or both?
Who should I bet on to win the World Series or the Super Bowl?
Will the boys from Billings win the LLWS today?
1. You knew that Judge Malloy would throw out the wolf hunts after 1 year in Idaho and Montana and why.
2. That the wolf issue would be stalled permanently in the judicial system.
3.That the U.S. Government ,controlled completely by the Democrats in 2010, would not be able to pass a 2011 budget in 2010.
4. That various sportsman's groups, SFW,BGF,NRA,RMEF etc. would finally wake up and start the
legislative process that would delist the wolf. That this would emerge in the form of HR 509 and SB 249.
5. That SB 249 would get no where procedurally because Barbara Boxer (D) California and Ben Cardon (D) Maryland would block it from coming up for a vote in the Senate.
6. That the Democratically controlled house would suddenly become controlled by the Republicans after elections in the fall of 2010.
7. That Tester and Baucus would feel the political pressure to do something about the wolf after they were caught not supporting SB 249.
8. That Simpson of Idaho and Tester of Montana would throw in a "wolf rider" to the 2011 budget in an attempt to throw a bone to the people in Montana and Idaho and the same would pass.
9. That any attempt to negotiate a judicial settlement between the eco-elite groups and the government would fail before Judge Malloy.
10. That the judicial challenge to the passed "wolf rider" would be fast tracked by Judge Malloy. That the two challenge cases would be quickly consolidated into one.
11. That Judge Malloy begrudgingly, and not without criticism, would hold that the "wolf rider" did not violate the separation of powers doctrine based on an earlier decision from the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.
12. That the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals would quickly deny attempts by various eco-elite groups to obtain a preliminary injunction just before the Idaho and Montana wolf hunts were to begin.
Hum.
How big will the bull moose I take in Wyoming this year in Unit 10 be? Or will I come home with tag soup?
Will I get a bull elk or a nice muley buck this year, neither or both?
Who should I bet on to win the World Series or the Super Bowl?
Will the boys from Billings win the LLWS today?
I'm not Buzz, but I can say that anyone who has been involved in the issue for at least the last decade could have fore-saw much of that.
http://www.newwest.net/topic/articl..._delisting_bill_is_the_better_choice/C41/L41/
http://www.newwest.net/topic/articl..._delisting_bill_is_the_better_choice/C41/L41/
Last edited:
BuzzH
Well-known member
mightyhunter,
Like Ben just said...anyone that followed the wolf issue from the start knew how this would end up...at least those with more than 2 firing brain cells.
Wyoming and their crap plan has been the problem for 10 years, everyones told WY, the people in the know, the judges, the USFWS, everyone but the Wyoming Stockgrowers Association.
It doesnt take much to connect the dots and read sign...unless you have an agenda.
Read my posts that I provided in this link...does it sound like I didnt see the problem 8+ years ago?
Like Ben just said...anyone that followed the wolf issue from the start knew how this would end up...at least those with more than 2 firing brain cells.
Wyoming and their crap plan has been the problem for 10 years, everyones told WY, the people in the know, the judges, the USFWS, everyone but the Wyoming Stockgrowers Association.
It doesnt take much to connect the dots and read sign...unless you have an agenda.
Read my posts that I provided in this link...does it sound like I didnt see the problem 8+ years ago?
sweetnectar
New member
It sounds as funny as BuzzH taking credit for predicting the events and Mighty getting all huffy...I predicted this.... 
BWAHAHA Then Ben has to be all "anyone could have predicted...." Too funny!
I suppose everyone wants to be right all the time. Makes for some great entertainment. Thanks for the discussion.
BWAHAHA Then Ben has to be all "anyone could have predicted...." Too funny! I suppose everyone wants to be right all the time. Makes for some great entertainment. Thanks for the discussion.
sweetnectar
New member
Dude I totally take full credit for this fine piece of legislation. You are all welcome.
Lots of folks taking credit for things they didn't do, whats one more. Carry on!
onpoint
Well-known member
Interesting how politicians, regardless of their idio{t}ologies, like to take credit for lotsa things. If I remember correctly, a buttload of sportsmen types raised a lot of hell about this and other issues, and were able to get things done....as well as (in the case of the last Montana legislature) keep a lot of really bad crap from happening. Those of us who showed up and fought for/against issues are the beneficiaries of our own efforts. Funny how we don't need to publicly beat our chests and make claims. The outcomes directly affect our lives (as well as silent masses of sportsmen who passively await their fate as victims of the tide) - when we "win" we actually live the benefits - when we "lose" we actually suffer the consequences. Politicians rarely seem to be actually affected by their actions, unless of course they "have a wide stance in the urinal".
Hey, Ben....you know I probably offended some of the motorhead crowd with my anti Yamaha comment. You might not want to be quoting me....unless of course you are doing so tongue in cheek.
Without a Yamaha, I'm gonna slog my sorry ass up a mountain tomorrow (along with my wire face brown girl and a 20 gauge) to look for some birds.
Maybe I should email one of my elected officials and thank them for providing me this opportunity..........
Hey, Ben....you know I probably offended some of the motorhead crowd with my anti Yamaha comment. You might not want to be quoting me....unless of course you are doing so tongue in cheek
. Without a Yamaha, I'm gonna slog my sorry ass up a mountain tomorrow (along with my wire face brown girl and a 20 gauge) to look for some birds.
Maybe I should email one of my elected officials and thank them for providing me this opportunity..........
Last edited:
shoots-straight
Well-known member
Interesting how politicians, regardless of their idio{t}ologies, like to take credit for lotsa things. If I remember correctly, a buttload of sportsmen types raised a lot of hell about this and other issues, and were able to get things done....as well as (in the case of the last Montana legislature) keep a lot of really bad crap from happening. Those of us who showed up and fought for/against issues are the beneficiaries of our own efforts. Funny how we don't need to publicly beat our chests and make claims. The outcomes directly affect our lives (as well as silent masses of sportsmen who passively await their fate as victims of the tide) - when we "win" we actually live the benefits - when we "lose" we actually suffer the consequences. Politicians rarely seem to be actually affected by their actions, unless of course they "have a wide stance in the urinal".
Hey, Ben....you know I probably offended some of the motorhead crowd with my anti Yamaha comment. You might not want to be quoting me....unless of course you are doing so tongue in cheek
Without a Yamaha, I'm gonna slog my sorry ass up a mountain tomorrow (along with my wire face brown girl and a 20 gauge) to look for some birds.
Maybe I should email one of my elected officials and thank them for providing me this opportunity..........
While your at it, might as well thank them for the air you breath.
Similar threads
