WY wolves protected again?

[BigRack]

Michigan just did a great job of kicking HSUS in the nuts by passing a bill that allows their game commission to designate what's a game animal and what is not. This was a direct result of the lawsuit filed there.

it was championed by groups like the National Wildlife Federation, RMEF, etc.

http://abc10up.com/michigan-senate-passes-nrc-wildlife-management-bill/

It could serve as a model for the other states where politics tends to trump scientific management.

So why didn't this lawsuit in WY address classification instead of kicking hunters in the nuts?

 

[El Jason]

I never said it was the Feds job to do it. I asked why the lawsuit wanted to stop the hunting of wolves all together.

Because that's how the delisting process process works. If the states provide an adequate measure of protection, then the delisting occurs and management is turned over to the state. It's an all or none process.

Wyoming could petition to have wolves delisted in the area of the state where they are managed under harvest quotas, but in reality it would be much easier and better for them if they simply rewrote their original plan.

 

[Ben Lamb]

So why didn't this lawsuit in WY address classification instead of kicking hunters in the nuts?

Read the lawsuit and then tell me what it was about.

 

[smarandr]

Ben,

Are you behind HSUS and what they are doing in Michigan?

Now, I know my reading comprehension isn't up to BigRack levels, but this sure looks like an accusation to me.

 

[BigRack]

Now, I know my reading comprehension isn't up to BigRack levels, but this sure looks like an accusation to me.

Accusations don't have question marks behind them.

 

[El Jason]

So why didn't this lawsuit in WY address classification instead of kicking hunters in the nuts?

Because the people filing this lawsuit could care less about hunters. They were looking for an avenue to keep federal protection over wolves and Wyoming gave them the ammunition they needed.

As much as you like to perpetuate the meme that Montana and Idaho did what the feds dictated, the reality is that they both have defensible management plans and hence the reason they were able to separate themselves from Wyoming's debacle with the USFWS.

 

[BigRack]

Read the lawsuit and then tell me what it was about.

You tell me what they were asking for?

 

[Ben Lamb]

You tell me what they were asking for?

Take 10 minutes and read it. It won't bite.

 

[smarandr]

Accusations don't have question marks behind them.

Sure they can: BigRack, have you stopped beating your wife yet?

 

[BigRack]

Take 10 minutes and read it. It won't bite.

The lawsuit asked for Federal control. Why didn't they ask for a change in classification?

 

[shoots-straight]

Did you get to the 10th yet?

Then move on to the "Endangered Species Act".

 

[Ben Lamb]

The lawsuit asked for Federal control. Why didn't they ask for a change in classification?

You really should read the lawsuit. You're making assumptions, and we all know what that means.

 

[tjones]

take 10 minutes and read it. It won't bite.

Grin,

 

[BigRack]

You really should read the lawsuit. You're making assumptions, and we all know what that means.

I'm going by this. Is the press wrong?

http://www.oregonlive.com/pacific-n...f/2012/11/environmentalists_file_federal.html

 

[RobG]

BigRack - I'm not trying to be argumentative, but your comments indicate to me that you have missed some of the background on this so maybe this will help (Ben knows way more about this than me, but I'll try). Basically when the population objectives were met Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming were supposed to take over management so when the population objectives were met these states put together plans.

Unfortunately Wyoming's plan was so extreme that the courts wouldn't allow it and the wolf remained on the ESA for a few years. In other words, Wyoming was screwing it up for everyone because of the "kill them all" attitude of their leaders, which was simply politics - a show for the voters that they were not going to be pushed around by the feds or "wolf lovers." In addition the wolf advocates were running their own interference campaign.

Some leaders, Rehberg comes (painfully) to mind, put together bills so extreme they didn't have a chance of passing - again, politics to impress the simplistic folks and the groups like SFW that just saw money in keeping the issue alive while simultaneously appearing to the simpletons that they were making progress.

Finally Tester/Simpson - people who actually wanted a solution - put together a reasonable rider that took the animals off the ESA and allowed Montana and Idaho (and Minnesota, Wisconsin?) to manage wolves within their borders. They were criticized by the simpletons because it didn't have the "kill them all" mentality, but it was solution.

It was also a big FU to Wyoming, since they were not allowed to be a part of it because of their extreme plan. Eventually Wyoming toned it down enough for one of the judges to allow them to manage their wolves, but Ben Lamb (and I'm sure others here) has been saying for years that it wasn't good enough and someone would successfully sue. And he has been proven correct.

I've known Ben for a dozen years and he has been closely involved with this issue much longer than that so pay attention to what he says...

 

[roadhunter]

How's that working out for them?

.

About the same as it did when Montana decided it wasn't' going to have a speed limit on interstates. We all know how that worked out.

 

[mdunc8]

I'll save everyone the legwork.

 

[BigRack]

BigRack - I'm not trying to be argumentative, but your comments indicate to me that you have missed some of the background on this so maybe this will help (Ben knows way more about this than me, but I'll try). Basically when the population objectives were met Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming were supposed to take over management so when the population objectives were met these states put together plans.

Unfortunately Wyoming's plan was so extreme that the courts wouldn't allow it and the wolf remained on the ESA for a few years. In other words, Wyoming was screwing it up for everyone because of the "kill them all" attitude of their leaders, which was simply politics - a show for the voters that they were not going to be pushed around by the feds or "wolf lovers." In addition the wolf advocates were running their own interference campaign.

Some leaders, Rehberg comes (painfully) to mind, put together bills so extreme they didn't have a chance of passing - again, politics to impress the simplistic folks and the groups like SFW that just saw money in keeping the issue alive while simultaneously appearing to the simpletons that they were making progress.

Finally Tester/Simpson - people who actually wanted a solution - put together a reasonable rider that took the animals off the ESA and allowed Montana and Idaho (and Minnesota, Wisconsin?) to manage wolves within their borders. They were criticized by the simpletons because it didn't have the "kill them all" mentality, but it was solution.

It was also a big FU to Wyoming, since they were not allowed to be a part of it because of their extreme plan. Eventually Wyoming toned it down enough for one of the judges to allow them to manage their wolves, but Ben Lamb (and I'm sure others here) has been saying for years that it wasn't good enough and someone would successfully sue. And he has been proven correct.

I've known Ben for a dozen years and he has been closely involved with this issue much longer than that so pay attention to what he says...

I think you have summed it up correctly. I have a problem with the lawsuit asking for Federal control vs having Wyoming change their plan.

 

[BigRack]

I'll save everyone the legwork.

Thank you.

 

[Ben Lamb]

I'll save everyone the legwork.

You are no fun.