Wolf is Delisted
- Thread starter rutnbuck
- Start date
B
B_BOP_A_LU_LU
Guest
Hey Rut!
Now you can bring them Wolves out of your closet you've been hiding!
I don't care if they're big or small!
If they throw lead I like em all!
Now you can bring them Wolves out of your closet you've been hiding!
I don't care if they're big or small!
If they throw lead I like em all!
thems not wolfs B-bob them is beaver and wild cats in the closet. Hell Bess I been every where. Freaking been out of town working my arse off. Cheyenne, Boulder Co, Alamosa Co. I didn't even get to check out the Ice thickness this winter.
Back home for a while just in time for the wolf hunt. Rutnbuck
Back home for a while just in time for the wolf hunt. Rutnbuck
B
B_BOP_A_LU_LU
Guest
Hey Rut!
Ice is gettin thin!
Unless you can walk on water!
I don't care if they're big or small!
If they throw lead I like em all!
Ice is gettin thin!
Unless you can walk on water!
I don't care if they're big or small!
If they throw lead I like em all!
RELH
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 17,483
The wolves were only delisted in the states of Montana and Idaho. The wolves are still on the endangered list in Wyoming, Washington, Oregon and Utah.
It seems that the majority of the wolf enviros wanted this partial delisting as opposed to losing the intire wolf population being taken off the endangered list.
There was 13 wolf loving groups that had filed lawsuits to keep the wolf on the endangered list. Due to pressure on Congress, 10 of the 13 groups opted to drop their lawsuits for fear that Congress would delist the intire wolf population in the NRM and that would set a precedent for political action on other listed endangered species. Sounds like they threw Congress a elk bone to back off on a total delisting.
I am willing to bet that the wolf loving liberals are counting this as a short term victory where they play the courts against Congress that may listen to the other side.
RELH
It seems that the majority of the wolf enviros wanted this partial delisting as opposed to losing the intire wolf population being taken off the endangered list.
There was 13 wolf loving groups that had filed lawsuits to keep the wolf on the endangered list. Due to pressure on Congress, 10 of the 13 groups opted to drop their lawsuits for fear that Congress would delist the intire wolf population in the NRM and that would set a precedent for political action on other listed endangered species. Sounds like they threw Congress a elk bone to back off on a total delisting.
I am willing to bet that the wolf loving liberals are counting this as a short term victory where they play the courts against Congress that may listen to the other side.
RELH
runamuk
Very Active Member
- Messages
- 1,570
Advocates of federal protection for gray wolves in Idaho won a tentative victory on Saturday as a district judge struck down a settlement that would have given Idaho and Montana management of their wolf populations.
U.S. District Judge Donald Molloy in Missoula rejected an agreement between the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and 10 conservation groups that would have removed wolves from the list of endangered species and returned the species to the management of state wildlife departments rather than the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, which currently monitors the populations.
http://www.mtexpress.com/index2.php?ID=2005136146
U.S. District Judge Donald Molloy in Missoula rejected an agreement between the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and 10 conservation groups that would have removed wolves from the list of endangered species and returned the species to the management of state wildlife departments rather than the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, which currently monitors the populations.
http://www.mtexpress.com/index2.php?ID=2005136146
mightyhunter
Very Active Member
- Messages
- 1,182
The wolf issue is by no means settled at this time. A "wolf" rider to the 2011 budget bill will be voted on by the end of the week. It turns over control of the wolf to some states but not to others. There is a clearer way now for Wyoming to obtain delisting. It is progress, but only time will tell if this corrects the wolf problem. Pressure still needs to be maintained. That pressure needs to be made through the comprehensive federal legislation. That type of legislation likely cannot be passed until after 2012. There are many great articles on the progress made in the Billings Gazette, Powell Tribune and Cody Enterprise newspapers. You can read them online. Big Fin in his other posts on the wolf has the best perspective on what is actually going on.
BigFin
Active Member
- Messages
- 693
Wow, RELH must have been at the Kool-aid party last night. I have a pretty good idea who was spiking the punch.
The wolf lovers had no fear of total delisting s promoted by some , as it didn't have a chance the way it was proposed. They laughed at the idea of two small groups thought they would change the ESA. To them, that was entertainment and further comfirmation that the hunting community are babes in the woods when it comes to DC politics.
What they feared was this bill. The language that Simpson and Tester were carrying and got placed into this budget bill.
Interesting how the day it came out that the Simpson-Tester bill had the political support to pass, two things happened.
1. The wolf nuts started working on their lame settlement offer and had it ready within 48 hours. A head fake that was denied by the Federal judge on Satuday.
2. Two supposed hunter groups went on the all out offensive to have this bill killed. They were about as successful at getting it killed as they were in getting support for their silver bullet of S.249. Fortunately, they are politcally inept, so they were not able to kill this bill.
Now, the wolf lovers are whining and threatening to unelect those who are responsible for getting this passed, and yesterday, the same to supposed hunter groups came out claiming credit for this great victory that they had originally tried to kill.
Seems that these two hunter groups wanted to set up camp with the wolf lovers, until they saw the writing on the wall. Hypocrisy has no bounds with some.
Guys who are so hungover on the Kool-aid, should continue with that S.249 idea of changing the Endangered Species Act and see how far that gets. We would all love to see it happen, but it had not a snowball's chance in hell, and it never will.
So rather than realize that the first real progress has been made in wolf delisting, comments will continue with the whining and sniveling of those two groups who claimed they had the big solution by changing the ESA. All they needed was more money, and more money, and more.....
This bill does more to help eventual delisting in every state than all the work those other two groups have done, combined, since they formed. Too bad some can't see that.
Good news is that this bill will pass. Benefits are:
1. It will provide delsiting in MT and ID.
2. It provides language that helps Wyoming in their case with the USFWS by protecting the court ruling of last November.
3. It provides precedent that when pushed hard enough, Congress will act to provide the necessary relief from abuse of the ESA, even if the courts will not, making it easier for delisting in the other states who provide acceptable plans.
4. The entire strategy of the wolf/grizzly/spotted owl/tree frog lovers has been tossed out. These groups have now lost their bomb-proof bunker that was built on grounds that the ESA can never be circumvented.
5. It helped show who is for hunters and who is against hunters.
In case any of you are wondering who was for hunters, read this press release this morning. They are the groups who helped get this passed.
http://www.theoutdoorwire.com/story/1302683034vhwz5b80heu
There are two groups missing from that coalition, who were working against hunters, but are now trying to spin that they had something to do with this progress. Pretty soon, these groups will be challenging Al Gore for the credit of inventing the internet.
Could go on and on. If the Kool-aid crowd doesn't like it, fine. Let us know when you finally develop a plan for getting S.249 passed. In the meantime, we will be hunting wolves and we will be working to help WY and all other states get delisting.
The Kool-aid crowd can sit around sipping the poison and whining that they were sold out, that their bill was the only solution, blah, blah, blah. Hopefully some day, that crowd will look at the realities of what it takes to make progress on a national level and start working that direction, not against it.
"Hunt when you can - You're gonna' run out of health before you run out of money!"
The wolf lovers had no fear of total delisting s promoted by some , as it didn't have a chance the way it was proposed. They laughed at the idea of two small groups thought they would change the ESA. To them, that was entertainment and further comfirmation that the hunting community are babes in the woods when it comes to DC politics.
What they feared was this bill. The language that Simpson and Tester were carrying and got placed into this budget bill.
Interesting how the day it came out that the Simpson-Tester bill had the political support to pass, two things happened.
1. The wolf nuts started working on their lame settlement offer and had it ready within 48 hours. A head fake that was denied by the Federal judge on Satuday.
2. Two supposed hunter groups went on the all out offensive to have this bill killed. They were about as successful at getting it killed as they were in getting support for their silver bullet of S.249. Fortunately, they are politcally inept, so they were not able to kill this bill.
Now, the wolf lovers are whining and threatening to unelect those who are responsible for getting this passed, and yesterday, the same to supposed hunter groups came out claiming credit for this great victory that they had originally tried to kill.
Seems that these two hunter groups wanted to set up camp with the wolf lovers, until they saw the writing on the wall. Hypocrisy has no bounds with some.
Guys who are so hungover on the Kool-aid, should continue with that S.249 idea of changing the Endangered Species Act and see how far that gets. We would all love to see it happen, but it had not a snowball's chance in hell, and it never will.
So rather than realize that the first real progress has been made in wolf delisting, comments will continue with the whining and sniveling of those two groups who claimed they had the big solution by changing the ESA. All they needed was more money, and more money, and more.....
This bill does more to help eventual delisting in every state than all the work those other two groups have done, combined, since they formed. Too bad some can't see that.
Good news is that this bill will pass. Benefits are:
1. It will provide delsiting in MT and ID.
2. It provides language that helps Wyoming in their case with the USFWS by protecting the court ruling of last November.
3. It provides precedent that when pushed hard enough, Congress will act to provide the necessary relief from abuse of the ESA, even if the courts will not, making it easier for delisting in the other states who provide acceptable plans.
4. The entire strategy of the wolf/grizzly/spotted owl/tree frog lovers has been tossed out. These groups have now lost their bomb-proof bunker that was built on grounds that the ESA can never be circumvented.
5. It helped show who is for hunters and who is against hunters.
In case any of you are wondering who was for hunters, read this press release this morning. They are the groups who helped get this passed.
http://www.theoutdoorwire.com/story/1302683034vhwz5b80heu
There are two groups missing from that coalition, who were working against hunters, but are now trying to spin that they had something to do with this progress. Pretty soon, these groups will be challenging Al Gore for the credit of inventing the internet.
Could go on and on. If the Kool-aid crowd doesn't like it, fine. Let us know when you finally develop a plan for getting S.249 passed. In the meantime, we will be hunting wolves and we will be working to help WY and all other states get delisting.
The Kool-aid crowd can sit around sipping the poison and whining that they were sold out, that their bill was the only solution, blah, blah, blah. Hopefully some day, that crowd will look at the realities of what it takes to make progress on a national level and start working that direction, not against it.
"Hunt when you can - You're gonna' run out of health before you run out of money!"
BigFin
Active Member
- Messages
- 693
And another release today by a pretty influential group in DC politics - The NRA.
http://www.theoutdoorwire.com/story/13026830067zhxghb70vj
Still no mention of those two anti-Simpson/Tester groups.
I am thinking that when the 14 wolf plaintiff groups issue their releases tomorrow, those two supposed hunting groups who tried to kill Simpson-Tester may get some recognition for their efforts to help the wolf nuts kill this bill.
Lots of work left ahead of us. Hopefully with the next step, all hunters will be working toward progress, rather than against.
Expect a new USFWS delisting decision for the Great Lakes states wolf populations in the next year. And expect the wolf lovers to keep their powder dry on that decision, for the most part.
They will send a couple of their smallest fringe groups into the fray with those delisting decisions, but they are not going to risk another ass whooping on wolves, as it has really messed up their strategy on grizzly bears, sage grouse, and other money making species.
This bill is the biggest thing to shake up the landscape on endangered species politics since the act was passed in 1973. But, don't take my word for it. Do your own research and Google what the wolf lovers think of it. They are making some serious political threats, which thankfully, are falling on deaf ears.
"Hunt when you can - You're gonna' run out of health before you run out of money!"
http://www.theoutdoorwire.com/story/13026830067zhxghb70vj
Still no mention of those two anti-Simpson/Tester groups.
I am thinking that when the 14 wolf plaintiff groups issue their releases tomorrow, those two supposed hunting groups who tried to kill Simpson-Tester may get some recognition for their efforts to help the wolf nuts kill this bill.
Lots of work left ahead of us. Hopefully with the next step, all hunters will be working toward progress, rather than against.
Expect a new USFWS delisting decision for the Great Lakes states wolf populations in the next year. And expect the wolf lovers to keep their powder dry on that decision, for the most part.
They will send a couple of their smallest fringe groups into the fray with those delisting decisions, but they are not going to risk another ass whooping on wolves, as it has really messed up their strategy on grizzly bears, sage grouse, and other money making species.
This bill is the biggest thing to shake up the landscape on endangered species politics since the act was passed in 1973. But, don't take my word for it. Do your own research and Google what the wolf lovers think of it. They are making some serious political threats, which thankfully, are falling on deaf ears.
"Hunt when you can - You're gonna' run out of health before you run out of money!"
Another Press Release....
Partial Delisting of Wolves Part of FY 2011 Budget Agreement in U.S. Congress
April 12, 2011 (Washington, DC) - A coalition of the nation's largest hunting and conservation organizations welcomed a provision championed by Congressional Sportsmen?s Caucus (CSC) member Rep. Mike Simpson of Idaho and CSC Senate Co-Chair, Sen. Jon Tester of Montana, to remove the gray wolf from the Endangered Species Act (ESA) as part of a the FY 2011 budget agreement to fund the federal government through the end of the fiscal year.
The coalition includes Safari Club International, the Congressional Sportsmen's Foundation, National Rifle Association, Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, Wild Sheep Foundation, the Boone and Crockett Club, and Pope and Young Club.
The groups support this initial step toward state management of recovered wolves and the clear assertion by Congress that recovered wildlife should be delisted from the ESA. The groups also note that other states have recovered wolf populations that have not yet been delisted and urge Congress to actively pursue delisting for those states also.
The Simpson-Tester rider directs the Secretary of the Interior to reissue the latest (2009) ruling declaring the wolf recovered and to return wolf management to state agencies in Montana and Idaho, as well as portions of Utah, Washington and Oregon. Additionally, the provision precludes further lawsuits and preserves the decision made by Wyoming U.S. District Judge Johnson in November 2010, that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) wrongfully rejected Wyoming?s wolf management plan.
?This agreement is only the first step in returning management of the gray wolf back to state authority where it belongs,? said Congressional Sportsmen?s Foundation President Jeff Crane. ?Thanks to the leadership of the bipartisan Congressional Sportsmen?s Caucus, a concrete move towards delisting has been taken and certain states will once again have the authority to manage wolves in the near future.?
Dr. Larry Rudolph, President of Safari Club International, said ?We are pleased that the work of this important coalition has yielded a historical precedent from the Congress to cut off the endless litigation and return recovered populations of wolves to state management.?
?Federal management goals were met for all wolf populations at least 10 years ago and wolves now number at least five times over the federal goals. Federal officials at the USFWS have attempted delisting three times in the Rockies and Great Lakes and - despite the clear achievement of recovery - each attempt was turned back to the USFWS on questions of process. This fix is long overdue and we applaud it,? said David Allen, CEO of Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation.
The coalition noted that the Congressional mandate applies to only a part of the area where wolves are beyond recovery goals. Wyoming?s wolves remain under federal ESA protection. Only parts of Washington, Oregon, and Utah are included in the delisting although wolves are moving into other parts of those states. The Western Great Lakes area is excluded from the provision, where a fourth round of rulemaking is expected to begin soon.
Chris Cox, Executive Director of the National Rifle Association Institute for Legislative Action, said, ?We are pleased with this important step and hope that opponents of delisting have gotten the message that Congress is sending. We will be closely watching the pending delisting in the Western Great Lakes. In the meantime, we will continue to push for a comprehensive solution in Congress.?
?It is unwise to try the same thing over and over again and expect a different result,? said Gray Thornton, CEO of the Wild Sheep Foundation. ?We?ve seen three times already that this process is unclear and causes ? as Judge Molloy described it ? ?turmoil of legal issues with practical management issues?. This is a problem only Congress can fix. Congress has now fixed part of the Rockies and the Northwest. Turmoil will continue until Congress completes the job in the Rockies, including Wyoming, the Northwest and the Great Lakes region ? and anywhere else where wolf populations are recovered.?
The wolf delisting agreement in the FY 2011 budget came on the heels of Montana U.S. District Judge Donald Molloy ruling against a settlement proposal by environmental groups that would have returned wolf management temporarily to Idaho and Montana only.
In order to return all recovered wolf populations to state managers, the group supports further efforts in Congress and the Administration until a comprehensive fix is complete.
Partial Delisting of Wolves Part of FY 2011 Budget Agreement in U.S. Congress
April 12, 2011 (Washington, DC) - A coalition of the nation's largest hunting and conservation organizations welcomed a provision championed by Congressional Sportsmen?s Caucus (CSC) member Rep. Mike Simpson of Idaho and CSC Senate Co-Chair, Sen. Jon Tester of Montana, to remove the gray wolf from the Endangered Species Act (ESA) as part of a the FY 2011 budget agreement to fund the federal government through the end of the fiscal year.
The coalition includes Safari Club International, the Congressional Sportsmen's Foundation, National Rifle Association, Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, Wild Sheep Foundation, the Boone and Crockett Club, and Pope and Young Club.
The groups support this initial step toward state management of recovered wolves and the clear assertion by Congress that recovered wildlife should be delisted from the ESA. The groups also note that other states have recovered wolf populations that have not yet been delisted and urge Congress to actively pursue delisting for those states also.
The Simpson-Tester rider directs the Secretary of the Interior to reissue the latest (2009) ruling declaring the wolf recovered and to return wolf management to state agencies in Montana and Idaho, as well as portions of Utah, Washington and Oregon. Additionally, the provision precludes further lawsuits and preserves the decision made by Wyoming U.S. District Judge Johnson in November 2010, that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) wrongfully rejected Wyoming?s wolf management plan.
?This agreement is only the first step in returning management of the gray wolf back to state authority where it belongs,? said Congressional Sportsmen?s Foundation President Jeff Crane. ?Thanks to the leadership of the bipartisan Congressional Sportsmen?s Caucus, a concrete move towards delisting has been taken and certain states will once again have the authority to manage wolves in the near future.?
Dr. Larry Rudolph, President of Safari Club International, said ?We are pleased that the work of this important coalition has yielded a historical precedent from the Congress to cut off the endless litigation and return recovered populations of wolves to state management.?
?Federal management goals were met for all wolf populations at least 10 years ago and wolves now number at least five times over the federal goals. Federal officials at the USFWS have attempted delisting three times in the Rockies and Great Lakes and - despite the clear achievement of recovery - each attempt was turned back to the USFWS on questions of process. This fix is long overdue and we applaud it,? said David Allen, CEO of Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation.
The coalition noted that the Congressional mandate applies to only a part of the area where wolves are beyond recovery goals. Wyoming?s wolves remain under federal ESA protection. Only parts of Washington, Oregon, and Utah are included in the delisting although wolves are moving into other parts of those states. The Western Great Lakes area is excluded from the provision, where a fourth round of rulemaking is expected to begin soon.
Chris Cox, Executive Director of the National Rifle Association Institute for Legislative Action, said, ?We are pleased with this important step and hope that opponents of delisting have gotten the message that Congress is sending. We will be closely watching the pending delisting in the Western Great Lakes. In the meantime, we will continue to push for a comprehensive solution in Congress.?
?It is unwise to try the same thing over and over again and expect a different result,? said Gray Thornton, CEO of the Wild Sheep Foundation. ?We?ve seen three times already that this process is unclear and causes ? as Judge Molloy described it ? ?turmoil of legal issues with practical management issues?. This is a problem only Congress can fix. Congress has now fixed part of the Rockies and the Northwest. Turmoil will continue until Congress completes the job in the Rockies, including Wyoming, the Northwest and the Great Lakes region ? and anywhere else where wolf populations are recovered.?
The wolf delisting agreement in the FY 2011 budget came on the heels of Montana U.S. District Judge Donald Molloy ruling against a settlement proposal by environmental groups that would have returned wolf management temporarily to Idaho and Montana only.
In order to return all recovered wolf populations to state managers, the group supports further efforts in Congress and the Administration until a comprehensive fix is complete.
The states should send obummer and reid a bill for $18 billion or so. That would be fair compensation to the states for the lost revenue in big game tag sales and recreational dollars not spent.
----------------------------------------
Measure wealth by the things you have,, for which you would not take money.
----------------------------------------
Measure wealth by the things you have,, for which you would not take money.
mightyhunter
Very Active Member
- Messages
- 1,182
RELH,
I don't think anyone is convinced that the wolf rider to the 2011 budget is a perfect solution. I personally am a little nervous that Jon Tester and Max Baucus are attached to the rider. If Tester's rider turns out to be a disaster, he is toast in his 2012 re-election bid and Rehberg is in.
I don't think for a minute that Big Fin thinks this is all over. He is right about the likliehood of of HR 509 and S 249 passing in today's partisan political scene. There are too many bunny huggers and there is too much campaign cash available to politicians that will fight the eco-elite cause. BGF never had a game plan for getting the ultimate wolf solution passed this year. Barbara Boxer (D Calif) and Ben Cardon (D Maryland) had it bottled up. It wasn't going to ever be voted on by the Senate. As a stand alone piece of legislation, there is no way Obama would ever sign it. It would be fundraising suicide to do so. HR 509 and S 249, because the legislation was so threatening to the eco-elites vision, did make the Tester/Simpson rider look more palatable. Wyoming has language in that rider that will make it much easier for Wyoming to obtain a delisting of the wolf. There will be an approved predator zone for most of Wyoming.It could happen in time for the fall hunts. There is a chance down the road that something like HR 509 and S 249 could pass. That may involve a switch in the balance of power in the U.S. Senate and also a change in who is president. It may also be passed if you can attach it to some piece of legislation that the Democrats are salivating over. Maybe raising the debt ceiling, maybe the 2012 budget, maybe some new spending spree or tax hike. I know that this rider is not perfect. However, it beats the heck out of the status quo. We all just need to calm down and see what happens. The wolf lovers overplayed there hand with the Molloy decision in 2010. They woke a sleeping giant that is not going to go away. Sportsman need to remain united and keep pushing these eco-elites back. Who cares who gets credit for what.
The grizzly bear battle is just around the corner. There numbers are way out of control in NW Wyoming. The Wyoming G&F is already butting heads with the USFWS on this. The pushing of all this delisting type legislation is going to make the USFWS more cooperative. Remember the House and Senate could vote to defund the USFWS 800 million dollar budget that is set aside for endanagered species. They could also defund the program that pays attorney's fees for the eco-elite groups that sue the federal government.
We need to agree to disagree as long as we keep moving forward. Taking wolves out of the Montana and Idaho ecosystem can only be beneficial to the rest of us. Lets be patient and see how this plays out.
I don't think anyone is convinced that the wolf rider to the 2011 budget is a perfect solution. I personally am a little nervous that Jon Tester and Max Baucus are attached to the rider. If Tester's rider turns out to be a disaster, he is toast in his 2012 re-election bid and Rehberg is in.
I don't think for a minute that Big Fin thinks this is all over. He is right about the likliehood of of HR 509 and S 249 passing in today's partisan political scene. There are too many bunny huggers and there is too much campaign cash available to politicians that will fight the eco-elite cause. BGF never had a game plan for getting the ultimate wolf solution passed this year. Barbara Boxer (D Calif) and Ben Cardon (D Maryland) had it bottled up. It wasn't going to ever be voted on by the Senate. As a stand alone piece of legislation, there is no way Obama would ever sign it. It would be fundraising suicide to do so. HR 509 and S 249, because the legislation was so threatening to the eco-elites vision, did make the Tester/Simpson rider look more palatable. Wyoming has language in that rider that will make it much easier for Wyoming to obtain a delisting of the wolf. There will be an approved predator zone for most of Wyoming.It could happen in time for the fall hunts. There is a chance down the road that something like HR 509 and S 249 could pass. That may involve a switch in the balance of power in the U.S. Senate and also a change in who is president. It may also be passed if you can attach it to some piece of legislation that the Democrats are salivating over. Maybe raising the debt ceiling, maybe the 2012 budget, maybe some new spending spree or tax hike. I know that this rider is not perfect. However, it beats the heck out of the status quo. We all just need to calm down and see what happens. The wolf lovers overplayed there hand with the Molloy decision in 2010. They woke a sleeping giant that is not going to go away. Sportsman need to remain united and keep pushing these eco-elites back. Who cares who gets credit for what.
The grizzly bear battle is just around the corner. There numbers are way out of control in NW Wyoming. The Wyoming G&F is already butting heads with the USFWS on this. The pushing of all this delisting type legislation is going to make the USFWS more cooperative. Remember the House and Senate could vote to defund the USFWS 800 million dollar budget that is set aside for endanagered species. They could also defund the program that pays attorney's fees for the eco-elite groups that sue the federal government.
We need to agree to disagree as long as we keep moving forward. Taking wolves out of the Montana and Idaho ecosystem can only be beneficial to the rest of us. Lets be patient and see how this plays out.
Mightyhunter, I think you need to get out a little more, because the sun doesn't rise and set on what big game hunters think, self importance can get people in trouble. I think this wolf game is a joke also,and Im all for getting rid of as many as possible, but grizzly bears are a different story when it comes to provoking passion, and they werent reintroduced. I also believe humans shouldn't wipe out other species just because we are such lazy, overweight, selfish creatures, so Im not for abolishing the ESA, or defunding it. And to begin with I think your snotty little ex senator Burns, who disliked working class people sure didn't help matters much.
N
NONYAMT
Guest
Molloy can go F himself now,all the liberal pull in the world wont stop a hunt now.
PleaseDear
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 10,450
Hey Kelly---
Nice thread by the way--
BUT----
Is it true you have a kid in every state you do your........ con-reck-tion work?
Lotsa Wolf hunting kids coming for the future----
Just sayin'
Robb
Nice thread by the way--
BUT----
Is it true you have a kid in every state you do your........ con-reck-tion work?
Lotsa Wolf hunting kids coming for the future----
Just sayin'
Robb
mightyhunter
Very Active Member
- Messages
- 1,182
Piper,
For your information, Burns was never my Senator. I live in NW Wyoming and have for many years. Prior to that, I lived in Idaho for 27 years. I personally don't trust Tester and I trust Baucus even less. That is MY personal opinion.You obviously don't like anyone criticizing Democrats and your less than civil comments reflect that. I don't care about party, I just see politicians for what they do and what they are. Many Democrats whore themselves out to the environmental movement. Baucus is a classic example. Many Republicans whore themselves out to big business. These aren't news flashes for anyone. Democrats would have stopped HR 509 and S 249 and so would President Obama. They won't stop the Tester/Simpson rider because they want the 2011 budget passed. For the Democrats to ease environmental restrictions, you have to sweeten it for them. It is too much of a cash cow for them to give in to common sense and real science. Only time will tell if this rider will work to alleviate the wolf problem.
This website is a big game hunting website hence the name "Monster Muleys". It isn't called "Monster Bunny Huggers". Whether the son rises and sets on big game hunters is certainly up for debate. I actually do get out alot and I would guess a great deal more than you do. I used to guide hunters in Montana and I personally hunt hard on foot from September through December all over Wyoming. When I am not hunting, I hike every day I can. I have hiked virtually every trail in the Sunlight and Crandall areas. I have done the same on most every trail on the North and South Fork of the Shoshone. The same goes for the Jackson Hole area. I have been charged by a grizzly and I have been around them for years in Wyoming and in Idaho. I see the grizzly bear issue on the horizon. If you read much, that is what the Wyoming Game and Fish is currently focused on. This wolf delisting and how it is handled will be a map for when grizzly bear delisting comes up. The grizzly bear is here to stay and you are right about that. I want some moderation from both sides on that debate. We have a grizzly bear problem in NW Wyoming that is getting worse. Maulings are up and two people were killed in 2010 within 60 miles of where I live. Wyoming Game and Fish had to move a record number of grizzly bears in 2010. They keep moving them around and around within the recovery area. Their hands are tied as populations increase. They are finding bears in places they normally would not be. The supply of white bark pine nuts is shrinking. The bears come to shots during hunting season. While elk hunting last fall, I had a grizzly on a bull elk kill within hours. If you don't think grizzly bear delisting is on the horizon, you aren't paying attention.
I don't consider myself lazy or selfish but I may be a little overweight. I am not for defunding USFWS or for eliminating the ESA. What I want to see is some moderation from both sides and I don't care how we get to that place.There has been zero moderation from the eco-elites on the subject of the wolf delisting. They didn't care if the elk or moose were wiped out. They didn't care if the wolf spread everywhere with no control. Their agenda was to ultimately stop big game hunting and wiping out the ungulates was a way to do it. Their zealousness has trumped science and they are about to lose because of this.
If you want to have a real discussion do it in these forums. Please stick to the facts as personal attacks are a waste of time and generally just reveal how weak your position is.
For your information, Burns was never my Senator. I live in NW Wyoming and have for many years. Prior to that, I lived in Idaho for 27 years. I personally don't trust Tester and I trust Baucus even less. That is MY personal opinion.You obviously don't like anyone criticizing Democrats and your less than civil comments reflect that. I don't care about party, I just see politicians for what they do and what they are. Many Democrats whore themselves out to the environmental movement. Baucus is a classic example. Many Republicans whore themselves out to big business. These aren't news flashes for anyone. Democrats would have stopped HR 509 and S 249 and so would President Obama. They won't stop the Tester/Simpson rider because they want the 2011 budget passed. For the Democrats to ease environmental restrictions, you have to sweeten it for them. It is too much of a cash cow for them to give in to common sense and real science. Only time will tell if this rider will work to alleviate the wolf problem.
This website is a big game hunting website hence the name "Monster Muleys". It isn't called "Monster Bunny Huggers". Whether the son rises and sets on big game hunters is certainly up for debate. I actually do get out alot and I would guess a great deal more than you do. I used to guide hunters in Montana and I personally hunt hard on foot from September through December all over Wyoming. When I am not hunting, I hike every day I can. I have hiked virtually every trail in the Sunlight and Crandall areas. I have done the same on most every trail on the North and South Fork of the Shoshone. The same goes for the Jackson Hole area. I have been charged by a grizzly and I have been around them for years in Wyoming and in Idaho. I see the grizzly bear issue on the horizon. If you read much, that is what the Wyoming Game and Fish is currently focused on. This wolf delisting and how it is handled will be a map for when grizzly bear delisting comes up. The grizzly bear is here to stay and you are right about that. I want some moderation from both sides on that debate. We have a grizzly bear problem in NW Wyoming that is getting worse. Maulings are up and two people were killed in 2010 within 60 miles of where I live. Wyoming Game and Fish had to move a record number of grizzly bears in 2010. They keep moving them around and around within the recovery area. Their hands are tied as populations increase. They are finding bears in places they normally would not be. The supply of white bark pine nuts is shrinking. The bears come to shots during hunting season. While elk hunting last fall, I had a grizzly on a bull elk kill within hours. If you don't think grizzly bear delisting is on the horizon, you aren't paying attention.
I don't consider myself lazy or selfish but I may be a little overweight. I am not for defunding USFWS or for eliminating the ESA. What I want to see is some moderation from both sides and I don't care how we get to that place.There has been zero moderation from the eco-elites on the subject of the wolf delisting. They didn't care if the elk or moose were wiped out. They didn't care if the wolf spread everywhere with no control. Their agenda was to ultimately stop big game hunting and wiping out the ungulates was a way to do it. Their zealousness has trumped science and they are about to lose because of this.
If you want to have a real discussion do it in these forums. Please stick to the facts as personal attacks are a waste of time and generally just reveal how weak your position is.
When I said you need to get out more, I meant to see how many people live in urban areas,even how many people enjoy the outdoors, yet don't hunt. Calling a spade a spade is good, but your earlier retoric about dems was a little overdone. I haven't seen anything from a New york or California politician as bad as what Butch Otter and Barbara Cubin did when they signed on to selling off huge amounts of public land a few years ago, my opinion anyway. I think us hunters should be a little smarter when stating our case against wolves, or bears for that matter.
Piper, no one wants to see grizzlies wiped off the face of the earth in fact 90% of the people that live in the affected states welcome bears.
Because they are completely recovered by any definition we would all like to see them removed from the the endangered species list. This will help the bear, and the people who live and recreate in bear country.
Public safety is becoming a great concern. Two fatalities this year in the Yellowstone area (the first in 25yrs)
Elk and moose populations also suffer a great deal at the hand of unchecked bear populations.
Grizzlies were removed from the ESA because they have fully recovered, and then relisted by the same activist judge that ruled on the wolves. As long as the ESA is used as a litigation tool from the eco terrorists, we as sportsmen and residents of the states affected are in big trouble.
Because they are completely recovered by any definition we would all like to see them removed from the the endangered species list. This will help the bear, and the people who live and recreate in bear country.
Public safety is becoming a great concern. Two fatalities this year in the Yellowstone area (the first in 25yrs)
Elk and moose populations also suffer a great deal at the hand of unchecked bear populations.
Grizzlies were removed from the ESA because they have fully recovered, and then relisted by the same activist judge that ruled on the wolves. As long as the ESA is used as a litigation tool from the eco terrorists, we as sportsmen and residents of the states affected are in big trouble.
mightyhunter
Very Active Member
- Messages
- 1,182
Piper,
I stand by my comments with regards to Democrats on many environmental issues. It isn't rhetoric, if it is true. How many of these eco-elite animal rights groups do you know that advocate or support hunting? How many of their members vote for anyone that isn't a Democrat? How many of them donate to Republicans? The ESA has been abused to force an anti-hunting agenda and a bunny hugger view of wildlife. Again, the animal rights people are a cash cow for the Democratic Party. At one time, if you donated to the Max Baucus campaign you got a membership in The Defenders of Wildlife. Did you know that the former chief of staff for Baucus is now the CEO of the Defenders of Wildlife? I just don't trust Democrats when it comes to issues involving gun control, hunting or logging. Again, just MY opinion.
I live minutes from Cody, Wyoming and see an onslaught of tourists from urban areas every year. I see them walk up to grizzly bears and buffalo to try and get a better picture. They ignore common sense and also the law. I see them hiking in the Wyoming backcountry without a gun or pepper spray. They don't take precautions with their food when they camp. Many of them are so clueless that they believe the bunny hugger version of the truth about wild animals. They have asked me why they don't see elk or moose anymore in Yellowstone Park. When you tell them the truth, they don't believe it. They are all for multiple use of the land as long as you don't hunt, operate an ATV, or cut a tree down.
Pointing out bad behavior by Republicans doesn't make the behavior of Democrats any less egregious. I don't look at politicians and say Republican GOOD and Democrat BAD. Both parties have some good ideas and both parties whore themselves on many issues. When it comes to hunting and gun control, the Democrats offer me nothing.
I agree that hunters should be a little smarter about stating our case against the wolf or grizzly bear. The SSS rhetoric gets a little old and doesn't help the cause. It is just a sign of frustration over a system that has allowed the ESA to be abused through litigation, political pressure and money. Playing nice with the anti-hunter eco-elites has proven to be a total waste of time for the last 20 years. Just ask the RMEF about that. They played nice and stood by while the imported Canadian Gray Wolf destroyed elk populations in Wyoming, Montana and Idaho. The animal rights people don't care about what I want as it gets in the way of their agenda.
For me, it has never been about about eliminating wolves or grizzly bears, it is about controlling their numbers and striking a balance between predator and prey.
I stand by my comments with regards to Democrats on many environmental issues. It isn't rhetoric, if it is true. How many of these eco-elite animal rights groups do you know that advocate or support hunting? How many of their members vote for anyone that isn't a Democrat? How many of them donate to Republicans? The ESA has been abused to force an anti-hunting agenda and a bunny hugger view of wildlife. Again, the animal rights people are a cash cow for the Democratic Party. At one time, if you donated to the Max Baucus campaign you got a membership in The Defenders of Wildlife. Did you know that the former chief of staff for Baucus is now the CEO of the Defenders of Wildlife? I just don't trust Democrats when it comes to issues involving gun control, hunting or logging. Again, just MY opinion.
I live minutes from Cody, Wyoming and see an onslaught of tourists from urban areas every year. I see them walk up to grizzly bears and buffalo to try and get a better picture. They ignore common sense and also the law. I see them hiking in the Wyoming backcountry without a gun or pepper spray. They don't take precautions with their food when they camp. Many of them are so clueless that they believe the bunny hugger version of the truth about wild animals. They have asked me why they don't see elk or moose anymore in Yellowstone Park. When you tell them the truth, they don't believe it. They are all for multiple use of the land as long as you don't hunt, operate an ATV, or cut a tree down.
Pointing out bad behavior by Republicans doesn't make the behavior of Democrats any less egregious. I don't look at politicians and say Republican GOOD and Democrat BAD. Both parties have some good ideas and both parties whore themselves on many issues. When it comes to hunting and gun control, the Democrats offer me nothing.
I agree that hunters should be a little smarter about stating our case against the wolf or grizzly bear. The SSS rhetoric gets a little old and doesn't help the cause. It is just a sign of frustration over a system that has allowed the ESA to be abused through litigation, political pressure and money. Playing nice with the anti-hunter eco-elites has proven to be a total waste of time for the last 20 years. Just ask the RMEF about that. They played nice and stood by while the imported Canadian Gray Wolf destroyed elk populations in Wyoming, Montana and Idaho. The animal rights people don't care about what I want as it gets in the way of their agenda.
For me, it has never been about about eliminating wolves or grizzly bears, it is about controlling their numbers and striking a balance between predator and prey.
B
BSFlag
Guest
Big Fin,
I bet you're going to claim that you were responsible for getting the language included that protected Judge Johnsons ruling and helps keep Wyoming in the gates for eventual delisting? No? Who then? Ask the Senators & Rep's who's been leading the effort to get congressional action. You will be embarassed to find out you've been un-informed.
You seem to be more interested in trashing the image of certain groups than working on the problem.
Most of us can see that a division of sportsmen is in the best interest of our enemies. Try working for good of the whole and stop all of the devisive rhetoric. All groups need to work together on this to keep this moving in the right direction.
I bet you're going to claim that you were responsible for getting the language included that protected Judge Johnsons ruling and helps keep Wyoming in the gates for eventual delisting? No? Who then? Ask the Senators & Rep's who's been leading the effort to get congressional action. You will be embarassed to find out you've been un-informed.
You seem to be more interested in trashing the image of certain groups than working on the problem.
Most of us can see that a division of sportsmen is in the best interest of our enemies. Try working for good of the whole and stop all of the devisive rhetoric. All groups need to work together on this to keep this moving in the right direction.
BigFin
Active Member
- Messages
- 693
BS - You would lose that bet. Unlike a few groups in this wolf battle, there is little interest in claiming credit for anything. For the most part, you can thank the WY Congressional delegation for that WY language being in there.
I know who has been leading the effort for Congressional action that could pass, and it is not the two groups you are implying. This bill is the only bill that had a chance to pass, and the groups you are implying to defend, had NOTHING to do with it, as we all now know they publicly tried to kill it.
If you think those groups had anything to do with this, feel free. Send them more money. So far, that money has returned nothing in DC, other than some bad relationships, ostracized from the mainstream hunting community, and a public beat down.
No embarassment on my part. Go through my posts and find where anything I said was incorrect, and in retrospect turned out differently than what was posted.
Go ahead and think I am uninformed. So far, the information has been accurate.
You seem to think that your friends in these two groups are the only people who have the ability to talk to the folks in DC who are making these decisions. Many people are far ahead of where those two groups are.
I have no interest in trashing other groups for the sake of trashing them. I wish they would get on the side of progress and not have everything be "Their way, or no way." Instead, they had their solution, and worked to kill any other solution, all while anyone with a Kindergarten diploma knew their solution had NO chance of passing.
I am interested in hunters knowing who was laying the pipe to them. If telling those facts here is a problem, then don't read the facts. If these are not facts, show me where any of those groups have provided proof otherwise.
If the truth hurts some, so be it. For some involved in this, the truth seems hard to come by.
And as expected, when the truth is told, some say they are being picked on. Too bad. For groups to fight against what is major progress, because it was not their solution, they need to be taken to task.
It is so hypocritcal when people who support what those two groups did, post things like this:
"Most of us can see that a division of sportsmen is in the best interest of our enemies. Try working for good of the whole and stop all of the devisive rhetoric. All groups need to work together on this to keep this moving in the right direction."
Seems those groups crying to stop dividing hunters wrote the book on how to do it. If they were not dividing hunters by trying to kill this delisting language, then I guess we just have a difference in interpretation of "dividing hunters."
If you want to see a stop to the dividing hunters, I think you should point those comments at the groups who are doing so.
Happy Hunting!
"Hunt when you can - You're gonna' run out of health before you run out of money!"
I know who has been leading the effort for Congressional action that could pass, and it is not the two groups you are implying. This bill is the only bill that had a chance to pass, and the groups you are implying to defend, had NOTHING to do with it, as we all now know they publicly tried to kill it.
If you think those groups had anything to do with this, feel free. Send them more money. So far, that money has returned nothing in DC, other than some bad relationships, ostracized from the mainstream hunting community, and a public beat down.
No embarassment on my part. Go through my posts and find where anything I said was incorrect, and in retrospect turned out differently than what was posted.
Go ahead and think I am uninformed. So far, the information has been accurate.
You seem to think that your friends in these two groups are the only people who have the ability to talk to the folks in DC who are making these decisions. Many people are far ahead of where those two groups are.
I have no interest in trashing other groups for the sake of trashing them. I wish they would get on the side of progress and not have everything be "Their way, or no way." Instead, they had their solution, and worked to kill any other solution, all while anyone with a Kindergarten diploma knew their solution had NO chance of passing.
I am interested in hunters knowing who was laying the pipe to them. If telling those facts here is a problem, then don't read the facts. If these are not facts, show me where any of those groups have provided proof otherwise.
If the truth hurts some, so be it. For some involved in this, the truth seems hard to come by.
And as expected, when the truth is told, some say they are being picked on. Too bad. For groups to fight against what is major progress, because it was not their solution, they need to be taken to task.
It is so hypocritcal when people who support what those two groups did, post things like this:
"Most of us can see that a division of sportsmen is in the best interest of our enemies. Try working for good of the whole and stop all of the devisive rhetoric. All groups need to work together on this to keep this moving in the right direction."
Seems those groups crying to stop dividing hunters wrote the book on how to do it. If they were not dividing hunters by trying to kill this delisting language, then I guess we just have a difference in interpretation of "dividing hunters."
If you want to see a stop to the dividing hunters, I think you should point those comments at the groups who are doing so.
Happy Hunting!
"Hunt when you can - You're gonna' run out of health before you run out of money!"
mightyhunter
Very Active Member
- Messages
- 1,182
BigFin is right on this issue. I was skeptical at first on the Tester/Simpson rider, but BigFin convinced me with his arguments in various posts on these forums. From the outset, I always wondered how HR 509 and S 249 were ever going to pass in the midst of all the partisanship in our country. BigFin is very connected on this issue. Only time will tell how much good will come as a result of the wolf rider to the 2011 budget. The House will pontificate on the 2011 budget and its riders this morning. A vote is expected late today.
B
BSFlag
Guest
Did I strike a nerve?
Would you have everyone believe that this all started with the Tester/Baucus/Simpson CR amendment?
Do you actually think that the enviro groups started fragmenting and wavering on their stand because of this CR amendment?
Take a look at the big picture. HR 509 & S 249 are the bills the enemy feared. They could see the writing on the wall that something better change or their beloved ESA would be damaged forever. Sure some of the extremists are fighting any sort of de-listing, but the 10 that wanted settlement are actually rooting for the 2 state bill. Check out their blogs.
I have not implied any groups are responsible for anything. I merely ask you to question the people on the hill for yourself. The CR amendment sponsors will of coarse take credit, but ask the others on the hill who it was that has carried this issue to where it is now. Also ask where this might have went without the Tester/Baucus/Simpson intervention.
You will likely find that there were those working on this issue, spending time, money, & talent to get to where we are today, even before you started blogging or before many others were involved.
Those people deserve our gratitude for getting all of us to where we are today. We still need all groups to focus on the end game, without the devisive and selfserving rhetoric that always does more harm than good.
We all want to see wolves de-listed. Period. You should be thankful for every effort made in that direction and for those who carried your water before you joined the team.
Would you have everyone believe that this all started with the Tester/Baucus/Simpson CR amendment?
Do you actually think that the enviro groups started fragmenting and wavering on their stand because of this CR amendment?
Take a look at the big picture. HR 509 & S 249 are the bills the enemy feared. They could see the writing on the wall that something better change or their beloved ESA would be damaged forever. Sure some of the extremists are fighting any sort of de-listing, but the 10 that wanted settlement are actually rooting for the 2 state bill. Check out their blogs.
I have not implied any groups are responsible for anything. I merely ask you to question the people on the hill for yourself. The CR amendment sponsors will of coarse take credit, but ask the others on the hill who it was that has carried this issue to where it is now. Also ask where this might have went without the Tester/Baucus/Simpson intervention.
You will likely find that there were those working on this issue, spending time, money, & talent to get to where we are today, even before you started blogging or before many others were involved.
Those people deserve our gratitude for getting all of us to where we are today. We still need all groups to focus on the end game, without the devisive and selfserving rhetoric that always does more harm than good.
We all want to see wolves de-listed. Period. You should be thankful for every effort made in that direction and for those who carried your water before you joined the team.
mightyhunter
Very Active Member
- Messages
- 1,182
BS Flag,
You didn't strike a nerve with me. I don't think anyone here is claiming that HR 501 or S 249 was not the legislative action that the eco-elites feared the most. I believe, that proposed legislation, and its sponsors, came onto the scene well before the Simpson/Tester wolf rider to the 2011 budget. I believe the settlement proposal in that Montana lawsuit was likely brought about by the pressure of HR 501 and S 249. Again, it is my understanding that the Simpson/Tester wolf rider appeared after the settlement motion was presented to Judge Molloy for consideration. I am sure that Tester will want all the credit because that is what politicians do. He jumped in because it would be political suicide for him in 2012 to continue to sit on the fence when it came to wolf delisting. If the Tester/Simpson rider doesn't work, or if it should blow up before his 2012 reeelection bid, he will be a one term senator with a nice pension living in rural Montana.
I am still in favor of passing HR 501 and S 249. My only question was how were you going to get it done. Specifically, how were you going to get it through the Senate or have it signed by Obama? No one from BGF has ever explained the political strategy for passage of such a bold proposal. No one.
I do claim B.S. on your comment that many of the eco-elite groups are rooting for passage of the wolf rider. I checked the sites and blogs of the Sierra Club, Defenders of Wildlife, Natural Resources Defense Council, Center for Biological Diversity, Greater Yellowstone Coalition and the Jackson Hole Conservation Alliance. I found nothing that supported your statement. Post some links and let us see all the support for the wolf rider from these groups and their members.
You didn't strike a nerve with me. I don't think anyone here is claiming that HR 501 or S 249 was not the legislative action that the eco-elites feared the most. I believe, that proposed legislation, and its sponsors, came onto the scene well before the Simpson/Tester wolf rider to the 2011 budget. I believe the settlement proposal in that Montana lawsuit was likely brought about by the pressure of HR 501 and S 249. Again, it is my understanding that the Simpson/Tester wolf rider appeared after the settlement motion was presented to Judge Molloy for consideration. I am sure that Tester will want all the credit because that is what politicians do. He jumped in because it would be political suicide for him in 2012 to continue to sit on the fence when it came to wolf delisting. If the Tester/Simpson rider doesn't work, or if it should blow up before his 2012 reeelection bid, he will be a one term senator with a nice pension living in rural Montana.
I am still in favor of passing HR 501 and S 249. My only question was how were you going to get it done. Specifically, how were you going to get it through the Senate or have it signed by Obama? No one from BGF has ever explained the political strategy for passage of such a bold proposal. No one.
I do claim B.S. on your comment that many of the eco-elite groups are rooting for passage of the wolf rider. I checked the sites and blogs of the Sierra Club, Defenders of Wildlife, Natural Resources Defense Council, Center for Biological Diversity, Greater Yellowstone Coalition and the Jackson Hole Conservation Alliance. I found nothing that supported your statement. Post some links and let us see all the support for the wolf rider from these groups and their members.
BigFin
Active Member
- Messages
- 693
BS - No nerves struck. It is the same stuff many have been posting since this wolf issue started. And for many, this started in 1995, not just one or two years ago.
Would you have everyone believe this started a year ago? Two years ago?
For many, this started way before Simpson-Tester, way before S.249, way before many of these groups were even in existence. I sure never said it started with Simpson-Tester. And it doesn't end with Simpson-Tester.
Evidently the passage of Simpson-Tester and the progress is represents, strikes a nerve with you. If so, that is too bad.
Evidently, people posting facts of how this unfolded, strikes a nerve with you. If so, not much we can do about that.
Simpson-Tester is a step, not the final solution. But, it is progress far beyond anything that has occurred in the last few years.
You asked - "Do you actually think that the enviro groups started fragmenting and wavering on their stand because of this CR amendment?"
Absolutely. Look at the dates of when they started whining, what bills they were whining about, and how their ridiculous settlement offer was thrown out the same week that word came down from DC that the wolf nuts were going to lose the Congressional battle via Simpson-Tester language.
Simpson-Tester was discussed immediately upon return of Congress in January. It was placed in the budgets for the Continuing Resolution in mid-February, about a day before the anti-progress crowd started their bahind the doors activities. I can share those emails, if you need them for proof of the timelines.
March 14th, word came down that enough Dems, urban Republicans, and the Pres would sign off on Simpson-Tester and would allow it to stay in the budget bill. The wolf nuts came out with their settlement offer, March 17th and it hit the press the following day.
If you have proof and evidence to the contrary, post it up. For most of us, "Because I said so," is not proof.
You state, "HR 509 & S 249 are the bills the enemy feared." Well, I guess we are going to disagree on that one.
For being so afraid of HR 509 and S.249, it sure is a strange coincidence that they did not get nervous until the word came out that the votes were lined up to pass Simpson-Tester.
The same week that NRA/SCI/CSF/B&C gave a public beat down to the groups who misrepesented their position. An awful lot of coincidences going on that week.
I notice how much fighting and wavering they were doing when S.249 and all of its 61 sponsors were announced. That answer would be - NONE.
Why? They knew that bill, and the people pushing it, had ZERO chance.
You say "They could see the writing on the wall that something better change or their beloved ESA would be damaged forever."
Here is the writing they, and everyone else, could see on the wall.
S.249 had, and still has, no chance of passing. Some would say odds of it passing have improved with Simpson-Tester now having passed. I would say it still has no chance, as much as I would like to see it pass.
These wolf loving groups have seen every other attempt to touch the ESA get wiped out, even with the most favorable groups in control in DC. We will never get such legislation passed with Dems and urban Republicans making up the majority in DC. The wolf plaintiffs know that. Hell, we all know that, so why pretend otherwise?
They had no fear of S.249. Anyone who thinks so should provide the evidence of such. It would be interesting to read. If you have evidence to support your assertion, let's see it.
S.249 would be a great solution, if the dream world would allow us to remove politics. But, politics is what drives this, unfortunately. Ignoring political realities is how people get made into fools.
Most any I hunter I talk to would love to have seen S.249 pass. But, it wasn't happening. If you think you can get it passed, why don't you provide the plan for such?
The request for details of such plan has been requested many times on these and other sites/threads. So far, not one answer. Not even the slightest iota of a plan, from any supporter.
Maybe you have details of the plan. If so, let's see it.
I would love to see it pass. It you can show me how it can get passed, count me in as a supporter.
In the meantime, fighting opportunities such as Simpson-Tester and continuing to have MT and ID held hostage, does not seem like a good idea. Working for efforts that have a chance of success, and get us closer to delisting in all states, is where most hunters are spending their efforts.
I have talked to plenty on "The Hill" about how S.249 would have fared without Simpson-Tester. The answer is "Nowhere." You may talk to others who say otherwise. I guess we get to disagree on that one.
You ask, "Who has carried this issue to where it is now?" A lot of people. A lot of people who have been working on it since 1995. Maybe we disagree on that one, also.
The point that has been made, and that you seem to disagree with, is this -
We could have got to this point sooner; with less struggle; and possibly gained a lot more than what we got; if some groups had not been so adamant in trying to kill this bill, in hope they could get their pet bill passed.
Fortunately, those groups have very little sway in DC, other than with a few of their close friends from their geographic area. They were unsuccessful in attempts to kill this, which is good.
I only wonder how far we could have gotten if these naysayers had put their effort into this opportunity and worked for even more than what we got. I guess we will never know.
I agree fully with this statement you made, "Those people deserve our gratitude for getting all of us to where we are today. We still need all groups to focus on the end game, without the divisive and self-serving rhetoric that always does more harm than good."
We would probably disagree on who "those people" are who really deserve the gratitude for getting us to where we are today. There are many who have worked very hard, and have been working hard for a long time. None of them have come forward asking for credit, as the spin machine has. Those who did the heavy lifting just want to keep the ball rolling.
Seems this week, others who had very little to do with this progress are making their announcements, making sure they get credit, and asking for more money. That is their prerogative.
And we would probably disagree with who has been providing the "divisive and self-serving rhetoric," which I agree, always does more harm than good.
Let's identify who was being divisive and self-serving, and hold them accountable. Again, I suspect we would disagree.
Time is here to move on to the next step. Still lots of work to be done. Wyoming and the Great Lakes still have issues that need support.
If you can find the way to get S.249 to solve the problems ahead, tell us where we can help. But first, give us the plan of how that is going to work.
In the meantime, we work toward more solutions - solutions that have a realistic chance of passing. And those who want to continue fighting those opportunities for progress can continue to do so. Just don't expect people to stand by and let it happen without pointing out the hypocrisy.
Happy Hunting!
Would you have everyone believe this started a year ago? Two years ago?
For many, this started way before Simpson-Tester, way before S.249, way before many of these groups were even in existence. I sure never said it started with Simpson-Tester. And it doesn't end with Simpson-Tester.
Evidently the passage of Simpson-Tester and the progress is represents, strikes a nerve with you. If so, that is too bad.
Evidently, people posting facts of how this unfolded, strikes a nerve with you. If so, not much we can do about that.
Simpson-Tester is a step, not the final solution. But, it is progress far beyond anything that has occurred in the last few years.
You asked - "Do you actually think that the enviro groups started fragmenting and wavering on their stand because of this CR amendment?"
Absolutely. Look at the dates of when they started whining, what bills they were whining about, and how their ridiculous settlement offer was thrown out the same week that word came down from DC that the wolf nuts were going to lose the Congressional battle via Simpson-Tester language.
Simpson-Tester was discussed immediately upon return of Congress in January. It was placed in the budgets for the Continuing Resolution in mid-February, about a day before the anti-progress crowd started their bahind the doors activities. I can share those emails, if you need them for proof of the timelines.
March 14th, word came down that enough Dems, urban Republicans, and the Pres would sign off on Simpson-Tester and would allow it to stay in the budget bill. The wolf nuts came out with their settlement offer, March 17th and it hit the press the following day.
If you have proof and evidence to the contrary, post it up. For most of us, "Because I said so," is not proof.
You state, "HR 509 & S 249 are the bills the enemy feared." Well, I guess we are going to disagree on that one.
For being so afraid of HR 509 and S.249, it sure is a strange coincidence that they did not get nervous until the word came out that the votes were lined up to pass Simpson-Tester.
The same week that NRA/SCI/CSF/B&C gave a public beat down to the groups who misrepesented their position. An awful lot of coincidences going on that week.
I notice how much fighting and wavering they were doing when S.249 and all of its 61 sponsors were announced. That answer would be - NONE.
Why? They knew that bill, and the people pushing it, had ZERO chance.
You say "They could see the writing on the wall that something better change or their beloved ESA would be damaged forever."
Here is the writing they, and everyone else, could see on the wall.
S.249 had, and still has, no chance of passing. Some would say odds of it passing have improved with Simpson-Tester now having passed. I would say it still has no chance, as much as I would like to see it pass.
These wolf loving groups have seen every other attempt to touch the ESA get wiped out, even with the most favorable groups in control in DC. We will never get such legislation passed with Dems and urban Republicans making up the majority in DC. The wolf plaintiffs know that. Hell, we all know that, so why pretend otherwise?
They had no fear of S.249. Anyone who thinks so should provide the evidence of such. It would be interesting to read. If you have evidence to support your assertion, let's see it.
S.249 would be a great solution, if the dream world would allow us to remove politics. But, politics is what drives this, unfortunately. Ignoring political realities is how people get made into fools.
Most any I hunter I talk to would love to have seen S.249 pass. But, it wasn't happening. If you think you can get it passed, why don't you provide the plan for such?
The request for details of such plan has been requested many times on these and other sites/threads. So far, not one answer. Not even the slightest iota of a plan, from any supporter.
Maybe you have details of the plan. If so, let's see it.
I would love to see it pass. It you can show me how it can get passed, count me in as a supporter.
In the meantime, fighting opportunities such as Simpson-Tester and continuing to have MT and ID held hostage, does not seem like a good idea. Working for efforts that have a chance of success, and get us closer to delisting in all states, is where most hunters are spending their efforts.
I have talked to plenty on "The Hill" about how S.249 would have fared without Simpson-Tester. The answer is "Nowhere." You may talk to others who say otherwise. I guess we get to disagree on that one.
You ask, "Who has carried this issue to where it is now?" A lot of people. A lot of people who have been working on it since 1995. Maybe we disagree on that one, also.
The point that has been made, and that you seem to disagree with, is this -
We could have got to this point sooner; with less struggle; and possibly gained a lot more than what we got; if some groups had not been so adamant in trying to kill this bill, in hope they could get their pet bill passed.
Fortunately, those groups have very little sway in DC, other than with a few of their close friends from their geographic area. They were unsuccessful in attempts to kill this, which is good.
I only wonder how far we could have gotten if these naysayers had put their effort into this opportunity and worked for even more than what we got. I guess we will never know.
I agree fully with this statement you made, "Those people deserve our gratitude for getting all of us to where we are today. We still need all groups to focus on the end game, without the divisive and self-serving rhetoric that always does more harm than good."
We would probably disagree on who "those people" are who really deserve the gratitude for getting us to where we are today. There are many who have worked very hard, and have been working hard for a long time. None of them have come forward asking for credit, as the spin machine has. Those who did the heavy lifting just want to keep the ball rolling.
Seems this week, others who had very little to do with this progress are making their announcements, making sure they get credit, and asking for more money. That is their prerogative.
And we would probably disagree with who has been providing the "divisive and self-serving rhetoric," which I agree, always does more harm than good.
Let's identify who was being divisive and self-serving, and hold them accountable. Again, I suspect we would disagree.
Time is here to move on to the next step. Still lots of work to be done. Wyoming and the Great Lakes still have issues that need support.
If you can find the way to get S.249 to solve the problems ahead, tell us where we can help. But first, give us the plan of how that is going to work.
In the meantime, we work toward more solutions - solutions that have a realistic chance of passing. And those who want to continue fighting those opportunities for progress can continue to do so. Just don't expect people to stand by and let it happen without pointing out the hypocrisy.
Happy Hunting!
PleaseDear
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 10,450
Here is the Pathetic attempt of covering the backstabbing booty of these give us your money 'Charity Pay Check' crowd of SFW/BGF/UTFNAWS/Full Curl/SFH--- That went way overboard to get this bill rejected/reworded.....
Read this pure BS and go Vomit----
"It appears that a wolf delisting bill will very likely pass this week in Congress. The wolf delisting language is included in the continuing resolution to keep the government funded. We expect that this bill will pass by the end of this week. The language will be a victory primarily for Idaho and Montana, though portions of Utah, Oregon and Washington are also included in the delisting. Important language was also added yesterday to preserve Wyoming's court victory in support of important aspects of its wolf management plan. This bill stops short of returning full state management authority back to these states, including Idaho and Montana. So USFWS remains in a supervisory role. If USFWS does not interfere and allows the states do their job, a wide variety of wolf management activities can be resumed by these states. We are hopeful this would be a step in the right direction for some of these states. This action does very clearly show that Congressional action is not only possible, but also necessary to delist no longer endangered wolf populations.
We could name a long list of names of members of Congress who have worked so diligently to delist wolf populations. Specifically, thanks go out to Senator Hatch and Lee of Utah, Senators Barrasso and Enzi of Wyoming, Senators Crapo and Risch of Idaho, Senators Kyl and McCain of Arizona, Senators Tester and Baucus of Montana, Congressman Rehberg of Montana, Congresswoman Lummis of Wyoming, Congressman Simpson of Idaho, Congressmen Matheson, Bishop and Chaffetz of Utah. We have not always agreed with some of these members, but all played an important role in getting wolves delisted. Thanks also go to many sportsmen and conservation organizations that have lent their efforts and donations to Big Game Forever and to the wolf delisting efforts. Most importantly, this victory belongs to thousands and thousands of sportsmen from all 50 states who have truly gotten in the fight to protect the future of hunting through Big Game Forever. This week we will win an important victory in Congress that many experts said couldn't be won. You can't win a fight, if you are not willing to fight. So thank you to all those who have worked so diligently to make this happen. Your phone calls, emails and ongoing efforts were constantly a major conversation among members of Congress and legislative staff. This was truly a game changer in this fight for the future of wildlife in America.
While this has been an extremely difficult victory, it is hard to celebrate too much when we know that this bill does not delist most Western and Midwestern states. To our friends in Wyoming, Arizona, New Mexico, Michigan, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Utah, Nevada, Colorado, California, North Dakota, South Dakota, Iowa and many other states: We share your frustration that you were not included in this delisting. While it was not our decision to go with a two state bill, the actions of a few made this a self-fulfilling conclusion. We also worked very hard to make sure the bill did not destroy Wyoming's court victory in support of the right of states to make important wildlife management decisions. So while we celebrate the fact that Congress has now recognized that they must act to delist wolves. We know this is not good enough to fix the challenges of unmanaged wolves across the country.
We call on all sportsmen and all members of Congress to increase their effort and resolve to finish the fight. Thousands of emails are going to members of Congress to try to slow wolf delisting for the rest of the country. Let's counter this effort with thousands of emails asking members of Congress to finish the fight. There are some who will use this two-state provision to try to kill the momentum on additional Congressional actions. We cannot let this happen. It is time to delist wolves in all states. Wildlife populations in the Midwest and West have suffered terribly. It is clear that Congress is willing act to address the problems of unmanaged wolves for some states. It is time for members of Congress to engage in the battle to delist wolves in your state and restore the primacy of states to manage their own wildlife.
Help us finish the fight. Ask all of your friends to join the effort at Big Game Forever to engage in this important fight for the future of hunting and wildlife in America. Signing the petition is fast, it's easy and it's free. Make a donation to help fund the ongoing efforts. Let's finish what we started. -- Ryan Benson National Director, Big Game Forever Please take a minute and ask your friends to sign the petition at http://biggameforever.org/ "
Go Figure----after the fact---trying to get this bill removed---- these clowns want to get on board for some credit????
Robb
Read this pure BS and go Vomit----
"It appears that a wolf delisting bill will very likely pass this week in Congress. The wolf delisting language is included in the continuing resolution to keep the government funded. We expect that this bill will pass by the end of this week. The language will be a victory primarily for Idaho and Montana, though portions of Utah, Oregon and Washington are also included in the delisting. Important language was also added yesterday to preserve Wyoming's court victory in support of important aspects of its wolf management plan. This bill stops short of returning full state management authority back to these states, including Idaho and Montana. So USFWS remains in a supervisory role. If USFWS does not interfere and allows the states do their job, a wide variety of wolf management activities can be resumed by these states. We are hopeful this would be a step in the right direction for some of these states. This action does very clearly show that Congressional action is not only possible, but also necessary to delist no longer endangered wolf populations.
We could name a long list of names of members of Congress who have worked so diligently to delist wolf populations. Specifically, thanks go out to Senator Hatch and Lee of Utah, Senators Barrasso and Enzi of Wyoming, Senators Crapo and Risch of Idaho, Senators Kyl and McCain of Arizona, Senators Tester and Baucus of Montana, Congressman Rehberg of Montana, Congresswoman Lummis of Wyoming, Congressman Simpson of Idaho, Congressmen Matheson, Bishop and Chaffetz of Utah. We have not always agreed with some of these members, but all played an important role in getting wolves delisted. Thanks also go to many sportsmen and conservation organizations that have lent their efforts and donations to Big Game Forever and to the wolf delisting efforts. Most importantly, this victory belongs to thousands and thousands of sportsmen from all 50 states who have truly gotten in the fight to protect the future of hunting through Big Game Forever. This week we will win an important victory in Congress that many experts said couldn't be won. You can't win a fight, if you are not willing to fight. So thank you to all those who have worked so diligently to make this happen. Your phone calls, emails and ongoing efforts were constantly a major conversation among members of Congress and legislative staff. This was truly a game changer in this fight for the future of wildlife in America.
While this has been an extremely difficult victory, it is hard to celebrate too much when we know that this bill does not delist most Western and Midwestern states. To our friends in Wyoming, Arizona, New Mexico, Michigan, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Utah, Nevada, Colorado, California, North Dakota, South Dakota, Iowa and many other states: We share your frustration that you were not included in this delisting. While it was not our decision to go with a two state bill, the actions of a few made this a self-fulfilling conclusion. We also worked very hard to make sure the bill did not destroy Wyoming's court victory in support of the right of states to make important wildlife management decisions. So while we celebrate the fact that Congress has now recognized that they must act to delist wolves. We know this is not good enough to fix the challenges of unmanaged wolves across the country.
We call on all sportsmen and all members of Congress to increase their effort and resolve to finish the fight. Thousands of emails are going to members of Congress to try to slow wolf delisting for the rest of the country. Let's counter this effort with thousands of emails asking members of Congress to finish the fight. There are some who will use this two-state provision to try to kill the momentum on additional Congressional actions. We cannot let this happen. It is time to delist wolves in all states. Wildlife populations in the Midwest and West have suffered terribly. It is clear that Congress is willing act to address the problems of unmanaged wolves for some states. It is time for members of Congress to engage in the battle to delist wolves in your state and restore the primacy of states to manage their own wildlife.
Help us finish the fight. Ask all of your friends to join the effort at Big Game Forever to engage in this important fight for the future of hunting and wildlife in America. Signing the petition is fast, it's easy and it's free. Make a donation to help fund the ongoing efforts. Let's finish what we started. -- Ryan Benson National Director, Big Game Forever Please take a minute and ask your friends to sign the petition at http://biggameforever.org/ "
Go Figure----after the fact---trying to get this bill removed---- these clowns want to get on board for some credit????
Robb
B
Bozeman
Guest
It's obvious that it's all about the money with these groups. They have documented cases on this site of being against this bill and now wording like the above posted. What a joke. It's one thing to admit that this is going through and wasn't your ideas or desire but too flat out lie and take credit is stupid. Shameful. Those of you that subscribe to this bull are helpless. Anyone who doesn't read through all these wolf threads and find out the real truth about what was said by whom is doing themselves a real disservice.
MNHunter
Active Member
- Messages
- 938
Look at the bull$hit being spewed in this release...
For those of you who have been following the wolf wars in Congress, I am pleased to report the first battle for wolf delisting has been won, primarily due to the efforts of Ryan Benson, Executive Director of Big Game Forever (SFW) and Don Peay, founder of Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife (SFW). I have been working with both of these men for months. ?
?
While some of the big national groups are out claiming credit for the win, having been deeply engaged in the effort myself there is no question that most of the heavy lifting to create the firestorm that demanded action was done by Big Game Forever. Please let Ryan Benson and Don Peay know how much you appreciate their tireless efforts to ignite the wolf delisting fire in Congress. ?
?
While Ryan, Don and myself were disappointed that Arizona, Utah, Wyoming, New Mexico and many other states were excluded from this bill, we feel that this does set a precedent that Congress can follow to address concerns related to unmanaged wolves for other states, including Arizona. Without their effort, this first step would not have even been a remote possibility. ?
?
The Facts: ?
SFW/Big Game Forever repeatedly asked other national organizations to join the wolf delisting effort beginning in early 2010
?
These groups and many other "experts" repeatedly said it couldn't be done; some even were worried "that we would upset the environmentalists" and that "the wrong party controlled the White House and the Senate."
?
SFW/BGF set about getting support from Congress; in 2010 HR 6028 and S 3919 were introduced to provide for delisting of the gray wolf. Working with Western and Midwestern state organizations, an incredible amount of pressure was brought to bear. Congress responded by making this a hotly debated issue, particularly among western Senators and Congressmen. As a result, wolves were debated on the very last days of Congress in 2010. It appeared that an initial delisting would occur in Congress in 2010, however wolf-delisting negotiations broke down in the final hours of the last two days in which Congress was in session.?
?
SFW/BGF built on the 2010 momentum in Congress with HR 509 and S 249 in 2011 once again calling for National Delisting. The bills, co-sponsored by more than 60 Representatives and Senators and representing 32 states, continued to increase the momentum necessary for action on wolf delisting.?
?
Wolf Delisting was hitting a high pitch in DC when SFW/BGF convened a meeting in Washington in February 16, 2011, bringing together representatives from a cross-section of wildlife and sportsmen groups, the Farm Bureau, Cattlemen. It appeared that a multi-state deal was very close and efforts were commenced to include Arizona in the deal as well.?
?
These efforts were largely halted when Idaho Representative Mike Simpson, amended the first Continuing Resolution Bill to obtain delisting in Idaho and Montana. While portions of Oregon, Washington and a sliver of Utah were included as part of the delisted Distinct Population Segment, the Simpson language amounted to a deal for Idaho and Montana. In particular, the bill required "approved management plans" to manage wolf populations to protect other wildlife which clearly was targeted to just Idaho and Montana.
?
National wildlife organizations endorsed Congressman Simpson's amendment (which later became known as the Simpson/Tester amendment) in addition to S 249 and HR 509. This action immediately switched the focus from national delisting as Congress turned it's attention to the bill which is now included as part of the continuing resolution to fund the government.?
?
SFW/BGF worked for the last several weeks to improve upon the two state delisting and was able to provide some safe harbor language for Wyoming due primarily to perceived inequities of reversing a favorable court ruling for Wyoming's plan. No additional improvements were provided.
?
End Result: The Simpson amendment prevailed - not because of the work done by national organizations- rather because of the extensive support for Congressional delisting built over the last year. It is apparent that key Senators in the Democratic majority passed the Simpson/Tester amendment in response to the groundwork that had been laid for national wolf delisting by SFW/BGF. When well known national organizations capitulated to political pressure and supported all options, these members of Congress felt they had sufficient political support from the sportsmen community to pass a watered-down bill.?
?
While Congressional intervention to provide for lasting wolf delisting is an important symbolic step in the right direction, it is clear that the bill did not solve the issue for 48 states. We are grateful SFW/BGF was not afraid to take on the fight and build the firestorm to ensure some level of wolf delisting. I am proud to have been a part of their effort and know from where I speak because I was in the belly of the beast as things were unfolding and witnessed this incredible happening. ?
Is this wolf-delisting bill a good thing for sportsmen and wildlife in the West? Though it is not what we hoped for and many states were left stranded, the fact that Congress was willing to start the fight leads us to conclude that this was a good first step. A strong message has been sent by a bi-partisan Congress to take on abuses of the ESA for the first time in its more than 30 years of existence. ?
?
The first phase result shows that Congressional delisting is possible and necessary, but the job is not finished. We still have U. S. Fish and Wildlife management of wolves in all 50 states - not the states where it belongs. As a result states are prevented from effectively managing other species with balance and responsibility including elk, moose and deer. So it appears round one of a much larger effort will soon be done. There is still much work to be done. ?
?
Thank you Ryan and Don. Arizona Sportsmen for Wildlife is proud to be a supporting member of BGF. Thank you for making the first step happen. We must all step up now to help. Sportsmen of Arizona, here is how you can help: ?
Voice your frustration to Arizona's Congressional delegation that nothing was done to stop the federal intrusions into Arizona's wolf management decision.
Help us increase the political pressure within Arizona to stop micromanagement by USFWS.
Continue to respond to calls to action which will be necessary to finish the job.
If you have not yet joined the effort at Big Game Forever, visit http://biggameforever.org/takeaction and send a letter to our Congressional delegation. It only takes about 30 seconds to send a letter to the entire delegation using the BGF system and it's free to do.
?
Suzanne Gilstrap
Executive Director/Government Affairs Consultant for AZSFW
"Whatever you are, be a good one."
- Abraham Lincoln
For those of you who have been following the wolf wars in Congress, I am pleased to report the first battle for wolf delisting has been won, primarily due to the efforts of Ryan Benson, Executive Director of Big Game Forever (SFW) and Don Peay, founder of Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife (SFW). I have been working with both of these men for months. ?
?
While some of the big national groups are out claiming credit for the win, having been deeply engaged in the effort myself there is no question that most of the heavy lifting to create the firestorm that demanded action was done by Big Game Forever. Please let Ryan Benson and Don Peay know how much you appreciate their tireless efforts to ignite the wolf delisting fire in Congress. ?
?
While Ryan, Don and myself were disappointed that Arizona, Utah, Wyoming, New Mexico and many other states were excluded from this bill, we feel that this does set a precedent that Congress can follow to address concerns related to unmanaged wolves for other states, including Arizona. Without their effort, this first step would not have even been a remote possibility. ?
?
The Facts: ?
SFW/Big Game Forever repeatedly asked other national organizations to join the wolf delisting effort beginning in early 2010
?
These groups and many other "experts" repeatedly said it couldn't be done; some even were worried "that we would upset the environmentalists" and that "the wrong party controlled the White House and the Senate."
?
SFW/BGF set about getting support from Congress; in 2010 HR 6028 and S 3919 were introduced to provide for delisting of the gray wolf. Working with Western and Midwestern state organizations, an incredible amount of pressure was brought to bear. Congress responded by making this a hotly debated issue, particularly among western Senators and Congressmen. As a result, wolves were debated on the very last days of Congress in 2010. It appeared that an initial delisting would occur in Congress in 2010, however wolf-delisting negotiations broke down in the final hours of the last two days in which Congress was in session.?
?
SFW/BGF built on the 2010 momentum in Congress with HR 509 and S 249 in 2011 once again calling for National Delisting. The bills, co-sponsored by more than 60 Representatives and Senators and representing 32 states, continued to increase the momentum necessary for action on wolf delisting.?
?
Wolf Delisting was hitting a high pitch in DC when SFW/BGF convened a meeting in Washington in February 16, 2011, bringing together representatives from a cross-section of wildlife and sportsmen groups, the Farm Bureau, Cattlemen. It appeared that a multi-state deal was very close and efforts were commenced to include Arizona in the deal as well.?
?
These efforts were largely halted when Idaho Representative Mike Simpson, amended the first Continuing Resolution Bill to obtain delisting in Idaho and Montana. While portions of Oregon, Washington and a sliver of Utah were included as part of the delisted Distinct Population Segment, the Simpson language amounted to a deal for Idaho and Montana. In particular, the bill required "approved management plans" to manage wolf populations to protect other wildlife which clearly was targeted to just Idaho and Montana.
?
National wildlife organizations endorsed Congressman Simpson's amendment (which later became known as the Simpson/Tester amendment) in addition to S 249 and HR 509. This action immediately switched the focus from national delisting as Congress turned it's attention to the bill which is now included as part of the continuing resolution to fund the government.?
?
SFW/BGF worked for the last several weeks to improve upon the two state delisting and was able to provide some safe harbor language for Wyoming due primarily to perceived inequities of reversing a favorable court ruling for Wyoming's plan. No additional improvements were provided.
?
End Result: The Simpson amendment prevailed - not because of the work done by national organizations- rather because of the extensive support for Congressional delisting built over the last year. It is apparent that key Senators in the Democratic majority passed the Simpson/Tester amendment in response to the groundwork that had been laid for national wolf delisting by SFW/BGF. When well known national organizations capitulated to political pressure and supported all options, these members of Congress felt they had sufficient political support from the sportsmen community to pass a watered-down bill.?
?
While Congressional intervention to provide for lasting wolf delisting is an important symbolic step in the right direction, it is clear that the bill did not solve the issue for 48 states. We are grateful SFW/BGF was not afraid to take on the fight and build the firestorm to ensure some level of wolf delisting. I am proud to have been a part of their effort and know from where I speak because I was in the belly of the beast as things were unfolding and witnessed this incredible happening. ?
Is this wolf-delisting bill a good thing for sportsmen and wildlife in the West? Though it is not what we hoped for and many states were left stranded, the fact that Congress was willing to start the fight leads us to conclude that this was a good first step. A strong message has been sent by a bi-partisan Congress to take on abuses of the ESA for the first time in its more than 30 years of existence. ?
?
The first phase result shows that Congressional delisting is possible and necessary, but the job is not finished. We still have U. S. Fish and Wildlife management of wolves in all 50 states - not the states where it belongs. As a result states are prevented from effectively managing other species with balance and responsibility including elk, moose and deer. So it appears round one of a much larger effort will soon be done. There is still much work to be done. ?
?
Thank you Ryan and Don. Arizona Sportsmen for Wildlife is proud to be a supporting member of BGF. Thank you for making the first step happen. We must all step up now to help. Sportsmen of Arizona, here is how you can help: ?
Voice your frustration to Arizona's Congressional delegation that nothing was done to stop the federal intrusions into Arizona's wolf management decision.
Help us increase the political pressure within Arizona to stop micromanagement by USFWS.
Continue to respond to calls to action which will be necessary to finish the job.
If you have not yet joined the effort at Big Game Forever, visit http://biggameforever.org/takeaction and send a letter to our Congressional delegation. It only takes about 30 seconds to send a letter to the entire delegation using the BGF system and it's free to do.
?
Suzanne Gilstrap
Executive Director/Government Affairs Consultant for AZSFW
"Whatever you are, be a good one."
- Abraham Lincoln
B
Bozeman
Guest
I like her Abe Lincoln quote at the end. "Whatever you are be a good one!" Looks like they are taking that to heart.
A
AZWALKER
Guest
LAST EDITED ON Apr-14-11 AT 07:21PM (MST)[p]:EDIT: I posted the letter from AZSFW after someone else did... disregard
"The deadliest weapon in the world is a Marine and his rifle." General John J. "Black Jack" Pershing, US Army
"Most men go through life wondering if they made a difference, Marines don't have that problem." President Ronald Regan
"The deadliest weapon in the world is a Marine and his rifle." General John J. "Black Jack" Pershing, US Army
"Most men go through life wondering if they made a difference, Marines don't have that problem." President Ronald Regan
A
AZWALKER
Guest
You know whats funny? I was reading this thread earlier today and then while at work I got that last letter sent to my phone. Boy it was pretty obvious to me why it was sent... Damage control.
"The deadliest weapon in the world is a Marine and his rifle." General John J. "Black Jack" Pershing, US Army
"Most men go through life wondering if they made a difference, Marines don't have that problem." President Ronald Regan
"The deadliest weapon in the world is a Marine and his rifle." General John J. "Black Jack" Pershing, US Army
"Most men go through life wondering if they made a difference, Marines don't have that problem." President Ronald Regan
M
matt4695
Guest
got goose bumps reading these posts,,,,, I"M READY,,,, cut'em boys
A
AZWALKER
Guest
The ball is rolling.... Finally a step in the right direction. Even though its only 2 states, Wyoming will soon follow and once that happens I think it'll be a done deal.
"The deadliest weapon in the world is a Marine and his rifle." General John J. "Black Jack" Pershing, US Army
"Most men go through life wondering if they made a difference, Marines don't have that problem." President Ronald Regan
"The deadliest weapon in the world is a Marine and his rifle." General John J. "Black Jack" Pershing, US Army
"Most men go through life wondering if they made a difference, Marines don't have that problem." President Ronald Regan
SMOKESTICK
Active Member
- Messages
- 852
I received the following late last night. This happens to be from Wyoming's lone Congresswomen. I will let her speak for herself.
WASHINGTON, D.C. ? U.S. Representative Cynthia Lummis released the following statement regarding the inclusion of new language to uphold Judge Alan Johnson?s November 2010 ruling in the budget agreement to be voted on later this week:
?Upholding Judge Johnson?s ruling is crucial to advancing negotiations on a common sense wolf management plan. This language removes obstacles that would have otherwise hindered discussions on the status of the fully recovered gray wolf in Wyoming.
Returning management of the gray wolf to the State of Wyoming is the ultimate goal. Much work remains, but with this provision intact, I am confident we are closer than ever to realizing a full delisting. I look forward to that happy day.?
National Director of Big Game Forever, Ryan Benson, spoke on Lummis? efforts: ?Representative Lummis has been one of the most effective leaders to restore state?s rights to manage its wildlife, including balanced levels of wolves. She has strongly represented the people of the state of Wyoming throughout this Herculean effort. By ensuring that the wolf delisting language in CR did not reverse Judge Johnson?s ruling in favor of Wyoming?s wolf management plan, Rep. Lummis dramatically improved Wyoming?s ability to obtain approval of a common sense wolf management plan.?
Background: In a November 2010 ruling, Wyoming Federal District Court Judge Alan Johnson ruled that the USFWS had acted ?arbitrarily and capriciously? in rejecting Wyoming?s wolf management plan.
The FY2011 Continuing Resolution included language authored by Representative Mike Simpson (R-ID) and Senator Jon Tester (D-MT) that overturned the August 2010 district court decision in Montana to put wolves in Idaho, Montana, Oregon, Washington, and Utah back on the endangered species list.
In effect, the provision delists wolves in Idaho and Montana but threatened to supersede Judge Johnson?s November 2010 ruling. Repudiation of the ruling would jeopardize the progress of wolf management negotiations in Wyoming. The language Lummis successfully inserted allows for negotiation to continue without the language of the 2009 delisting rule hindering Judge Johnson?s ruling.
Congress is expected to approve the overall legislation later this week.
Washington, D.C. ? U.S. Senators Mike Enzi and John Barrasso, made the following comments after wolf language in a budget bill was released. The new bill would not delist wolves in Wyoming, but makes clear a court ruling last fall that U.S. Fish and Wildlife was wrong to reject Wyo-ming?s wolf management plan, would not be effected by the new bill.
?Ideally Wyoming wolves should be removed from the Endangered Species list along with Montana and Idaho. But short of a regional delisting the next best scenario is ensuring that Wyoming is not disadvantaged in the future and that the favorable court decision is intact,? said Enzi.
?I will work to ensure that this issue is resolved and management of the wolves is returned to Wyoming. While the language does not go far enough in terms of delisting the wolves in Wyoming, it is another important step to protect our rights to have a plan that works for our state.? said Barrasso.
The Wyoming delegation worked with other members from the region to ensure that the language did not nullify District Judge Alan Johnson?s ruling that it was wrong for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife (FWS) service to reject Wyoming?s wolf plan which includes appropriate protections for wolves throughout the state. The wolf provision is part of an appropriations bill to fund the government through September and is expected to be brought up for a vote in the Senate this week.
The delegation will continue to support Governor Mead?s efforts to work with the FWS to delist Wyoming?s wolves.
WASHINGTON, D.C. ? U.S. Representative Cynthia Lummis released the following statement regarding the inclusion of new language to uphold Judge Alan Johnson?s November 2010 ruling in the budget agreement to be voted on later this week:
?Upholding Judge Johnson?s ruling is crucial to advancing negotiations on a common sense wolf management plan. This language removes obstacles that would have otherwise hindered discussions on the status of the fully recovered gray wolf in Wyoming.
Returning management of the gray wolf to the State of Wyoming is the ultimate goal. Much work remains, but with this provision intact, I am confident we are closer than ever to realizing a full delisting. I look forward to that happy day.?
National Director of Big Game Forever, Ryan Benson, spoke on Lummis? efforts: ?Representative Lummis has been one of the most effective leaders to restore state?s rights to manage its wildlife, including balanced levels of wolves. She has strongly represented the people of the state of Wyoming throughout this Herculean effort. By ensuring that the wolf delisting language in CR did not reverse Judge Johnson?s ruling in favor of Wyoming?s wolf management plan, Rep. Lummis dramatically improved Wyoming?s ability to obtain approval of a common sense wolf management plan.?
Background: In a November 2010 ruling, Wyoming Federal District Court Judge Alan Johnson ruled that the USFWS had acted ?arbitrarily and capriciously? in rejecting Wyoming?s wolf management plan.
The FY2011 Continuing Resolution included language authored by Representative Mike Simpson (R-ID) and Senator Jon Tester (D-MT) that overturned the August 2010 district court decision in Montana to put wolves in Idaho, Montana, Oregon, Washington, and Utah back on the endangered species list.
In effect, the provision delists wolves in Idaho and Montana but threatened to supersede Judge Johnson?s November 2010 ruling. Repudiation of the ruling would jeopardize the progress of wolf management negotiations in Wyoming. The language Lummis successfully inserted allows for negotiation to continue without the language of the 2009 delisting rule hindering Judge Johnson?s ruling.
Congress is expected to approve the overall legislation later this week.
Washington, D.C. ? U.S. Senators Mike Enzi and John Barrasso, made the following comments after wolf language in a budget bill was released. The new bill would not delist wolves in Wyoming, but makes clear a court ruling last fall that U.S. Fish and Wildlife was wrong to reject Wyo-ming?s wolf management plan, would not be effected by the new bill.
?Ideally Wyoming wolves should be removed from the Endangered Species list along with Montana and Idaho. But short of a regional delisting the next best scenario is ensuring that Wyoming is not disadvantaged in the future and that the favorable court decision is intact,? said Enzi.
?I will work to ensure that this issue is resolved and management of the wolves is returned to Wyoming. While the language does not go far enough in terms of delisting the wolves in Wyoming, it is another important step to protect our rights to have a plan that works for our state.? said Barrasso.
The Wyoming delegation worked with other members from the region to ensure that the language did not nullify District Judge Alan Johnson?s ruling that it was wrong for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife (FWS) service to reject Wyoming?s wolf plan which includes appropriate protections for wolves throughout the state. The wolf provision is part of an appropriations bill to fund the government through September and is expected to be brought up for a vote in the Senate this week.
The delegation will continue to support Governor Mead?s efforts to work with the FWS to delist Wyoming?s wolves.
I'd like to know where the "Johnson ruling" said it was wrong for USF&WS to reject Wyoming's plan, because it provides appropriate protections. It doesn't say that at all. It said they didn't look at it close enough and give a reason why they rejected it. Does nobody any good to through more words in the decision to make it sound better.
I wanted to take a scalp,but the kill was not mine.
I wanted to take a scalp,but the kill was not mine.
In November 2010, Johnson ruled that the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service must take another look at Wyoming?s wolf management plan and reassess its decision not to delist wolves in Wyoming. Johnson ruled FWS was arbitrary and capricious in requiring that wolves in all of Wyoming be included in a trophy game classification rather than just "a portion of northwestern Wyoming."
By having the Johnson ruling reinstated in extra language placed in the rider to the Budget Bill, the State of Wyoming and FWS will go back to the table to hash things out in an attempt get the Wyoming plan approved. IMO it's going to be rather difficult for the FWS not to approve the plan when it had already approved it late in 2007, only to rescind the ruling when political pressure was put on it by the antis.
Nowhere, after she was successful in getting language instated in the rider addressing the Johnson ruling, did Congresswoman Lummis give any credit to SWF or BGF for helping to have that language placed in the Budget Bill. However, the statement by Mr. Benson sure makes it sound like BGF is tooting it's horn and was in the forefront helping secure that language in the Bill, when all along it appears they were attempting to scuttle the rider along with SWF!!!
By having the Johnson ruling reinstated in extra language placed in the rider to the Budget Bill, the State of Wyoming and FWS will go back to the table to hash things out in an attempt get the Wyoming plan approved. IMO it's going to be rather difficult for the FWS not to approve the plan when it had already approved it late in 2007, only to rescind the ruling when political pressure was put on it by the antis.
Nowhere, after she was successful in getting language instated in the rider addressing the Johnson ruling, did Congresswoman Lummis give any credit to SWF or BGF for helping to have that language placed in the Budget Bill. However, the statement by Mr. Benson sure makes it sound like BGF is tooting it's horn and was in the forefront helping secure that language in the Bill, when all along it appears they were attempting to scuttle the rider along with SWF!!!
SMOKESTICK
Active Member
- Messages
- 852
Like I said earlier. This is a press release from Rep. Lummis. If she included a quote from Ryan, don't you understand there was a reason for that? Do you think she just looked for a quote that sounded good and used it or does it make more sense that she asked him to provide her with a quote as they had been working together to salvage what could have been a loss and turn it into a victory? Are you guys really that naive?
I know firsthand that she has been trying since the middle of February to fix the rider so as to protect Wyoming's gains.
While I am no attorney, it my understanding that "arbitrary and capricious" is very strong language for a Judge to use. I believe in layman's terms it is similar to stating they had 'no legal standing to reject Wyoming's plan'.
Having played a part in getting Wyoming's Wolf Management Plan written and approved by the USFWS I know Ed Bangs said they could defend everything within it. It now looks as though Wyoming may be forced to make one more expansion in order to provide cover for the USFWS to once again approve our plan.
I know firsthand that she has been trying since the middle of February to fix the rider so as to protect Wyoming's gains.
While I am no attorney, it my understanding that "arbitrary and capricious" is very strong language for a Judge to use. I believe in layman's terms it is similar to stating they had 'no legal standing to reject Wyoming's plan'.
Having played a part in getting Wyoming's Wolf Management Plan written and approved by the USFWS I know Ed Bangs said they could defend everything within it. It now looks as though Wyoming may be forced to make one more expansion in order to provide cover for the USFWS to once again approve our plan.
Smokestick, USFWS had all the reason in the world not to accept Wyoming's wolf management plan. You forgot about the Judges ruling that said so. If they approve the plan again, look for another lawsuit, followed by another. The plan won't hold mustard as it is written now. Wyoming will have to give up more of the Predator zone.
I hope it works for them, and don't really care one way or another. We are managing wolves and that's all I care about.
I wanted to take a scalp,but the kill was not mine.
I hope it works for them, and don't really care one way or another. We are managing wolves and that's all I care about.
I wanted to take a scalp,but the kill was not mine.
SMOKESTICK
Active Member
- Messages
- 852
4100fps,
Wyoming has been working with Sec. Salazar and numerous other interests to ascertain what can be done to expand the trophy game area. The point is that Wyoming will have a trophy area as well as a predator area. Wyoming is in the process of formulating an offer to Sec. Salazar.
It was not the USFWS and still is not the USFWS that has a problem with Wyoming's Wolf Management Plan. Did you see that they wrote it? Ask Ed Bangs if he hasn't said they could defend everything within Wyoming's plan.
It would appear that you do not understand what Judge Johnson's ruling said. Too many critics do not understand it. He said that Wyoming's only obligation is to ensure that once removed from ESA protections, wolves must be maintained at some minimal number. He said that Wyoming's plan does that. He did add that Wyoming might need to expand the trophy game area in order to address the genetic connectivity issue raised by Molloy; however, after his ruling the best available science showed that genetic connectivity is not an issue with the NRM DPS.
Wyoming has been working with Sec. Salazar and numerous other interests to ascertain what can be done to expand the trophy game area. The point is that Wyoming will have a trophy area as well as a predator area. Wyoming is in the process of formulating an offer to Sec. Salazar.
It was not the USFWS and still is not the USFWS that has a problem with Wyoming's Wolf Management Plan. Did you see that they wrote it? Ask Ed Bangs if he hasn't said they could defend everything within Wyoming's plan.
It would appear that you do not understand what Judge Johnson's ruling said. Too many critics do not understand it. He said that Wyoming's only obligation is to ensure that once removed from ESA protections, wolves must be maintained at some minimal number. He said that Wyoming's plan does that. He did add that Wyoming might need to expand the trophy game area in order to address the genetic connectivity issue raised by Molloy; however, after his ruling the best available science showed that genetic connectivity is not an issue with the NRM DPS.
Utah400Elk
Very Active Member
- Messages
- 1,267
Smokestick:
I asked for a little clarification on another thread and you have not replied so I will ask you again. Is SFW/BGF for or against the Simpson/Tester amendment? Don says they never tried to kill it, Ryan Benson did not deny that BGF was trying to remove it from the spending bill and then you posted a link from your attorney outlining why its bad. Which way are guys going on this one? I really can't tell.
I asked for a little clarification on another thread and you have not replied so I will ask you again. Is SFW/BGF for or against the Simpson/Tester amendment? Don says they never tried to kill it, Ryan Benson did not deny that BGF was trying to remove it from the spending bill and then you posted a link from your attorney outlining why its bad. Which way are guys going on this one? I really can't tell.
D
dkpeay
Guest
Utah 400, i explained this a few weeks ago.
i asked you to send me an email so you could POST a DRAFT bill that would have completely DELISTED ALL of WYOMING and ALL of UTAH along with all of ID and all of MT.
BGF was working with many senators and congressman to get MORE done, than was done.
BGF was NEVER tried to kill the Simpson/TEster Language, simply was working to get more.
There was a two week period the end of Feb. when there was a lot of issues on the table, and lots of options.
Would it not be nice to have all of WY and all of UT off the list as well ?
BGF was also working to get AZ and NM taken care of, and AZ SFW was able to get Sen. McCain and Kyle on Board.
For anyone who thinks Benson at BGF does not know how to do a deal, he was in the Mergers and Acquistions business after Harvard Law School where they teach you the best of the best.
Clearly the PRESSURE from HR. 501 and S. 249 had a significant role in the overall outcome.
A day to celebrate if you love to hunt big game in the west.
Now, a second piece of Legislation is needed to finish a lot of undone business for 48 other states.
don
i asked you to send me an email so you could POST a DRAFT bill that would have completely DELISTED ALL of WYOMING and ALL of UTAH along with all of ID and all of MT.
BGF was working with many senators and congressman to get MORE done, than was done.
BGF was NEVER tried to kill the Simpson/TEster Language, simply was working to get more.
There was a two week period the end of Feb. when there was a lot of issues on the table, and lots of options.
Would it not be nice to have all of WY and all of UT off the list as well ?
BGF was also working to get AZ and NM taken care of, and AZ SFW was able to get Sen. McCain and Kyle on Board.
For anyone who thinks Benson at BGF does not know how to do a deal, he was in the Mergers and Acquistions business after Harvard Law School where they teach you the best of the best.
Clearly the PRESSURE from HR. 501 and S. 249 had a significant role in the overall outcome.
A day to celebrate if you love to hunt big game in the west.
Now, a second piece of Legislation is needed to finish a lot of undone business for 48 other states.
don
The thing that's really neat about the computer age, is the fact that everything is recorded electronically.I'm sure everything is on record of who did what on which date.Nothing other than damage control at this point.
Smokestick, I'm not the one who you have to convince. I think Wyoming should do what works for Wyoming. If they want to wait until hell freezes over, I'm good with that.
Funny though, If Wyoming would have had a plan like Montana, and Idaho, 8 years ago, the protections mechanism in the ESA would have ended 3 years ago, and Wyoming could have had their predator zone right up to Yellowstone Nation Park, as long as the wolf numbers stayed above the min. Too bad politics are played at hunters and tax payers expense.
I wanted to take a scalp,but the kill was not mine.
Smokestick, I'm not the one who you have to convince. I think Wyoming should do what works for Wyoming. If they want to wait until hell freezes over, I'm good with that.
Funny though, If Wyoming would have had a plan like Montana, and Idaho, 8 years ago, the protections mechanism in the ESA would have ended 3 years ago, and Wyoming could have had their predator zone right up to Yellowstone Nation Park, as long as the wolf numbers stayed above the min. Too bad politics are played at hunters and tax payers expense.
I wanted to take a scalp,but the kill was not mine.
B
BSFlag
Guest
BigFin:
While your strutting around with your chest puffed out here's a few quotes from the other elites:
The following is a statement from Suzanne Stone, Northern Rockies representative for Defenders of Wildlife:
?Congress? action to strip protections for wolves is an absolute and unnecessary travesty. What happens next is entirely up to the states.
?For years, western states and Idaho and Montana in particular have been demanding the right to manage wolves like they manage other wildlife. Now here?s their chance to prove that they can do so responsibly, based on the scientific principles of wildlife conservation rather than the incendiary rhetoric of anti-wolf fanatics.
?As we move forward, we will be monitoring how wolves are managed, and we'll work together with those who are willing to do their part to ensure a long-term future for wolves. We urge all Americans who care about wildlife to do the same to make sure that the wolves we fought so hard to restore are not needlessly eliminated once again.?
---Are you happy they will still be monitoring you?
? Defenders of Wildlife
Settlement reached on wolf recovery in Idaho and Montana
Wolves to remain protected in Oregon and Washington
MISSOULA, Mont. (March 18, 2011) - Ten conservation groups reached a legal settlement today with the Department of the Interior regarding wolf recovery and management in the Northern Rockies. The settlement was filed for approval with a U.S. Federal District Court in Montana. If approved by the court, the agreement would remove Endangered Species Act protections for gray wolves in Idaho and Montana and return management authority to those states, while retaining full protection in Washington, Oregon, Wyoming and Utah. It will also require Department of the Interior to withdraw a controversial policy memo used to justify not protecting imperiled species throughout their entire range.
The following is a joint statement from the 10 conservation groups:
?We hope today?s agreement will mark the beginning of a new era of wolf conservation in the Northern Rockies, as well as confirm the success of the Endangered Species Act and this country?s boldest wildlife reintroduction effort in history. The proposed settlement maintains protections in Oregon and Washington where wolves have not yet fully recovered, while allowing for responsible state management in Idaho and Montana.
?In return for allowing the states of Montana and Idaho to manage wolves according to approved conservation plans, the Department of the Interior agrees to conduct rigorous scientific monitoring of wolf populations across the region and an independent scientific review by an expert advisory board after three years. This is a critical safety net to ensure a sustainable wolf population in the region over the long run. The settlement offers a workable solution to the increasingly polarized debate over wolves.
?Wolves are a keystone species that allow many other plants and animals?from beaver and trout, to willows and migratory birds?to thrive in a way that will fascinate and benefit Americans for generations to come. Wolves have a place on the landscape, and continued conflict doesn't benefit anyone.?
The ten conservation groups that have agreed to the settlement are Cascadia Wildlands, Center for Biological Diversity, Defenders of Wildlife, Greater Yellowstone Coalition, Hells Canyon Preservation Council, Jackson Hole Conservation Alliance, Natural Resources Defense Council, Oregon Wild, Sierra Club and Wildlands Network.
---This was important reading because:
From GYC:
Wolves: Congress to remove endangered species protections
What's Happening:On April 9, 2011, Montana's federal district court denied the settlement agreement reached between a coalition of 10 conservation groups ? including GYC ? and the U.S. Department of the Interior. For more background on the settlement itself to to GYC's detailed fact sheet.
The settlement would have returned wolf management to the states of Montana and Idaho while retaining Endangered Species Act protections in the states where wolves remain threatened: Wyoming, Oregon, Washington and Utah. You can read the settlement agreement here.
---Careful with this next part, gonna have to change your calender...
On the same day that the court ruled, we also learned that a rider to delist wolves will be included in the budget package that was negotiated to avert a government shutdown. This rider directs the Secretary of Interior to reinstate the 2009 delisting decision and exempts this action from further judicial review. This will mark the first time Congress has intervened to remove Endangered Species Act protections from an individual species, setting an unfortunate precedent of placing politics over science in management decisions regarding sensitive wildlife.
For wolves in Greater Yellowstone, the immediate on-the-ground effect of Congressional delisting will be the same as under the settlement proposal: Montana and Idaho will manage wolves in those states, while Wyoming's wolves will remain protected until the state develops an acceptable management plan
---The same as under the settlement proposal? I would take another look at that settlement proposal before I got too excited.
From Hells Canyon:
The other big development was our move to try and settle our federal litigation, along with most the other plaintiff groups. This received a lot of press at the time. While certainly not an ideal scenario, we feel it was the best move for the long-term protection of wolves in the west. Unfortunately, Judge Molly did not approve the settlement, which means more protracted battles over the federal Endangered Species Act listing of wolves, and ... likely Congressional legislation to delist wolves across the west.
----Across the west, not just 2 states!
From Wildlands network:
The nonsettling parties allege in the court documents filed Tuesday that the only new twists in the ongoing saga are the bills in Congress that could permanently remove wolves from Endangered Species Act protections in the northern Rockies. He said the fear of those potential acts of Congress is the real motivation behind the settlement proposal. "Essentially, what has changed is they couldn't take the heat," Garrity said
----Bills in Congress that could PERMANENTLY remove wolves from the ESA! The fear of those potential acts of Congress is the real motivation... I think I mentioned that! It appears that you are the only one claiming they couldn't be passed.
Mike Clark, executive director for the Greater Yellowstone Coalition -- one of the larger of the 10 groups pushing for the settlement -- readily agreed with that, saying the potential for congressional action to change the Endangered Species Act prompted everyone to take a closer look at settling the case. "I live in the real world that says when Congress talks to you, you better pay attention," Clark said. "Congress can step into, at any time, any issue and do what it wants. That's our reality. And certainly, Congress is taking an interest in this.
http://coyotes-wolves-cougars.blogspot.com/
Check it out yourself!
This should explain my earlier point that the pressure was being put on Congress to delist wolves before Simpson/Tester realized that it was good politics. You & I both know who was applying that pressure. I don't mention names because they do not wish to claim credit. I joined this thread because you are dividing the sportsmen with deceit and an unknown agenda. Give credit where credit is due and let the sporting community unite on this issue so that together we can finish it right with states control of their own wildlife and wildlife programs.
While your strutting around with your chest puffed out here's a few quotes from the other elites:
The following is a statement from Suzanne Stone, Northern Rockies representative for Defenders of Wildlife:
?Congress? action to strip protections for wolves is an absolute and unnecessary travesty. What happens next is entirely up to the states.
?For years, western states and Idaho and Montana in particular have been demanding the right to manage wolves like they manage other wildlife. Now here?s their chance to prove that they can do so responsibly, based on the scientific principles of wildlife conservation rather than the incendiary rhetoric of anti-wolf fanatics.
?As we move forward, we will be monitoring how wolves are managed, and we'll work together with those who are willing to do their part to ensure a long-term future for wolves. We urge all Americans who care about wildlife to do the same to make sure that the wolves we fought so hard to restore are not needlessly eliminated once again.?
---Are you happy they will still be monitoring you?
? Defenders of Wildlife
Settlement reached on wolf recovery in Idaho and Montana
Wolves to remain protected in Oregon and Washington
MISSOULA, Mont. (March 18, 2011) - Ten conservation groups reached a legal settlement today with the Department of the Interior regarding wolf recovery and management in the Northern Rockies. The settlement was filed for approval with a U.S. Federal District Court in Montana. If approved by the court, the agreement would remove Endangered Species Act protections for gray wolves in Idaho and Montana and return management authority to those states, while retaining full protection in Washington, Oregon, Wyoming and Utah. It will also require Department of the Interior to withdraw a controversial policy memo used to justify not protecting imperiled species throughout their entire range.
The following is a joint statement from the 10 conservation groups:
?We hope today?s agreement will mark the beginning of a new era of wolf conservation in the Northern Rockies, as well as confirm the success of the Endangered Species Act and this country?s boldest wildlife reintroduction effort in history. The proposed settlement maintains protections in Oregon and Washington where wolves have not yet fully recovered, while allowing for responsible state management in Idaho and Montana.
?In return for allowing the states of Montana and Idaho to manage wolves according to approved conservation plans, the Department of the Interior agrees to conduct rigorous scientific monitoring of wolf populations across the region and an independent scientific review by an expert advisory board after three years. This is a critical safety net to ensure a sustainable wolf population in the region over the long run. The settlement offers a workable solution to the increasingly polarized debate over wolves.
?Wolves are a keystone species that allow many other plants and animals?from beaver and trout, to willows and migratory birds?to thrive in a way that will fascinate and benefit Americans for generations to come. Wolves have a place on the landscape, and continued conflict doesn't benefit anyone.?
The ten conservation groups that have agreed to the settlement are Cascadia Wildlands, Center for Biological Diversity, Defenders of Wildlife, Greater Yellowstone Coalition, Hells Canyon Preservation Council, Jackson Hole Conservation Alliance, Natural Resources Defense Council, Oregon Wild, Sierra Club and Wildlands Network.
---This was important reading because:
From GYC:
Wolves: Congress to remove endangered species protections
What's Happening:On April 9, 2011, Montana's federal district court denied the settlement agreement reached between a coalition of 10 conservation groups ? including GYC ? and the U.S. Department of the Interior. For more background on the settlement itself to to GYC's detailed fact sheet.
The settlement would have returned wolf management to the states of Montana and Idaho while retaining Endangered Species Act protections in the states where wolves remain threatened: Wyoming, Oregon, Washington and Utah. You can read the settlement agreement here.
---Careful with this next part, gonna have to change your calender...
On the same day that the court ruled, we also learned that a rider to delist wolves will be included in the budget package that was negotiated to avert a government shutdown. This rider directs the Secretary of Interior to reinstate the 2009 delisting decision and exempts this action from further judicial review. This will mark the first time Congress has intervened to remove Endangered Species Act protections from an individual species, setting an unfortunate precedent of placing politics over science in management decisions regarding sensitive wildlife.
For wolves in Greater Yellowstone, the immediate on-the-ground effect of Congressional delisting will be the same as under the settlement proposal: Montana and Idaho will manage wolves in those states, while Wyoming's wolves will remain protected until the state develops an acceptable management plan
---The same as under the settlement proposal? I would take another look at that settlement proposal before I got too excited.
From Hells Canyon:
The other big development was our move to try and settle our federal litigation, along with most the other plaintiff groups. This received a lot of press at the time. While certainly not an ideal scenario, we feel it was the best move for the long-term protection of wolves in the west. Unfortunately, Judge Molly did not approve the settlement, which means more protracted battles over the federal Endangered Species Act listing of wolves, and ... likely Congressional legislation to delist wolves across the west.
----Across the west, not just 2 states!
From Wildlands network:
The nonsettling parties allege in the court documents filed Tuesday that the only new twists in the ongoing saga are the bills in Congress that could permanently remove wolves from Endangered Species Act protections in the northern Rockies. He said the fear of those potential acts of Congress is the real motivation behind the settlement proposal. "Essentially, what has changed is they couldn't take the heat," Garrity said
----Bills in Congress that could PERMANENTLY remove wolves from the ESA! The fear of those potential acts of Congress is the real motivation... I think I mentioned that! It appears that you are the only one claiming they couldn't be passed.
Mike Clark, executive director for the Greater Yellowstone Coalition -- one of the larger of the 10 groups pushing for the settlement -- readily agreed with that, saying the potential for congressional action to change the Endangered Species Act prompted everyone to take a closer look at settling the case. "I live in the real world that says when Congress talks to you, you better pay attention," Clark said. "Congress can step into, at any time, any issue and do what it wants. That's our reality. And certainly, Congress is taking an interest in this.
http://coyotes-wolves-cougars.blogspot.com/
Check it out yourself!
This should explain my earlier point that the pressure was being put on Congress to delist wolves before Simpson/Tester realized that it was good politics. You & I both know who was applying that pressure. I don't mention names because they do not wish to claim credit. I joined this thread because you are dividing the sportsmen with deceit and an unknown agenda. Give credit where credit is due and let the sporting community unite on this issue so that together we can finish it right with states control of their own wildlife and wildlife programs.
Utah400Elk
Very Active Member
- Messages
- 1,267
Don:
There is no reason to email it to me to so I can post it. Go ahead and do it yourself.
You claim "BGF was NEVER tried to kill the Simpson/TEster Language".
In another thread you stated:
BGF asked the national hunting groups to withdraw support of a two state bill"
I am new to this political stuff but that sounds a lot like "kill" to me?
The NRA, SCI, and CSF press release states:
"The release in question claimed that the NRA, SCI and CSF along with the other organizations listed below are OPPOSED to language relating to the delisting of gray wolves in spending legislation currently pending before the U.S. Congress. In fact, these organizations support that language, as well as every other measure that has been introduced in the U.S. House and Senate to date addressing this important issue."
BGF then issues a press release stating:
"Big Game Forever was disappointed by the inaccurate press release issued by National Rifle Association, Safari Club International and The Congressional Sportsmen's Foundation (the "Joint Press Release") regarding Big Game Forever and Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife. The Joint Press Release focused on private communications that were purportedly leaked to the public. We welcome the opportunity to set the record straight. The draft communications from Big Game Forever were sent to a very limited group of trusted individuals. Any dissemination was without the permission or knowledge of Big Game Forever. Additionally, such draft communications were not only preliminary and non-final in nature, but were prepared in an effort to increase collaboration based on conversations with third parties. At no point was Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife involved with the preparation or distribution of any of these communications. To the best of our knowledge these communications have not been distributed to the public. While we cannot control the actions of third parties, Big Game Forever has acted in good faith and has attempted to address concerns as they were expressed. Big Game Forever was surprised by the tone and content of this very public press release as we had no indication that this matter had not been resolved privately."
Ryan Benson, whom you claim "was in the Mergers and Acquistions business after Harvard Law School where they teach you the best of the best", somehow foegets to say that BGF was not opposed to language relating to the delisting of gray wolves in spending legislation currently pending before the U.S. Congressnot. What Benson does release in his response is "such draft communications were not only preliminary and non-final in nature" and "to the best of our knowledge these communications have not been distributed to the publicthat the press release was not public and should not have been sent out."
Can you please explain that?
A press release reportedly from Harriot Hageman, attorney for Wyoming Wolf Coalition, which includes SFW stated:
"The actions of Representative Simpson and Senators Tester and Baucus are beyond troubling, and should be cause for concern for anyone who seeks to protect our wildlife populations, our livestock producers, and our States? rights. Perhaps as significantly (and of grave concern), there are four groups that have endorsed Congressman Simpson?s efforts, and appear to be willing to sacrifice Wyoming? interests:
* National Rifle Association (NRA)
* Safari Club International (SCI)
* Congressional Sportsmen Foundation (CSF)
* Boone and Crockett"
If SFW/BGF was a major force behind the Simpson/Tester bill why would an attorney who represnts Wyoming Wolf Coalition (SFW) not claim SFW was behind the amendment?
You stated on a previous thread:
"If MT and ID get a wolf delisting, good. A great start for the rest of the states."
The same press release reportedly from Harriot Hageman furher states:
"Passage of the Simpson/Tester/Baucus amendment is not an incremental victory as some would claim. This is not an incremental victory for ensuring that States have the right to manage their own wildlife populations, or an incremental victory under the ESA. Judge Johnson?s decision was a victory. The Simpson/Tester/Baucus effort is designed to take that victory away."
So is this a victory accoding to SFW or not?
The same press release goes on to say:
"Please contact the NRA, SCI, CFS and Boone and Crocket and ask them to stop their support"
If SFW/BGF was behind this amendment shouldn't she have included them in this last part?
Smokestick, who I believe is the head of Wyoming SFW stated:
"Simply put - BGF/SFW was forced to support the Tester/Baucus/Simpson amendment by the political machine and Washington, D.C. insiders. Their only option was to make it palatable by getting language added to ensure Wyoming was not harmed in the process."
Again, Don if SFW was behind the Simpson/Tester amendment why were they "forced" to support it?
I am lost on this one....
Finally Don, you previously stated:
"Senator Risch of Idaho had a four state delisting - i can email you a copy of it - that would have included all of ID, MT, WY and UT, with much lower numbers of wolves required than the Simpson and TEster bill. We wanted a couple of changes to teh Risch Bill, put a little more teeth in it.
Did SFW/BGF support the Simpson Tester amendment or the Risch amendment? Which bill passed?
Again please explain because I am lost.
To me it looks like SFW/BGF did everything they could to stop the Simpson/Tester amendment and You and Smokestick are now claiming that the main reason that amendment passed is because of SFW and BGF.
There is no reason to email it to me to so I can post it. Go ahead and do it yourself.
You claim "BGF was NEVER tried to kill the Simpson/TEster Language".
In another thread you stated:
BGF asked the national hunting groups to withdraw support of a two state bill"
I am new to this political stuff but that sounds a lot like "kill" to me?
The NRA, SCI, and CSF press release states:
"The release in question claimed that the NRA, SCI and CSF along with the other organizations listed below are OPPOSED to language relating to the delisting of gray wolves in spending legislation currently pending before the U.S. Congress. In fact, these organizations support that language, as well as every other measure that has been introduced in the U.S. House and Senate to date addressing this important issue."
BGF then issues a press release stating:
"Big Game Forever was disappointed by the inaccurate press release issued by National Rifle Association, Safari Club International and The Congressional Sportsmen's Foundation (the "Joint Press Release") regarding Big Game Forever and Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife. The Joint Press Release focused on private communications that were purportedly leaked to the public. We welcome the opportunity to set the record straight. The draft communications from Big Game Forever were sent to a very limited group of trusted individuals. Any dissemination was without the permission or knowledge of Big Game Forever. Additionally, such draft communications were not only preliminary and non-final in nature, but were prepared in an effort to increase collaboration based on conversations with third parties. At no point was Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife involved with the preparation or distribution of any of these communications. To the best of our knowledge these communications have not been distributed to the public. While we cannot control the actions of third parties, Big Game Forever has acted in good faith and has attempted to address concerns as they were expressed. Big Game Forever was surprised by the tone and content of this very public press release as we had no indication that this matter had not been resolved privately."
Ryan Benson, whom you claim "was in the Mergers and Acquistions business after Harvard Law School where they teach you the best of the best", somehow foegets to say that BGF was not opposed to language relating to the delisting of gray wolves in spending legislation currently pending before the U.S. Congressnot. What Benson does release in his response is "such draft communications were not only preliminary and non-final in nature" and "to the best of our knowledge these communications have not been distributed to the publicthat the press release was not public and should not have been sent out."
Can you please explain that?
A press release reportedly from Harriot Hageman, attorney for Wyoming Wolf Coalition, which includes SFW stated:
"The actions of Representative Simpson and Senators Tester and Baucus are beyond troubling, and should be cause for concern for anyone who seeks to protect our wildlife populations, our livestock producers, and our States? rights. Perhaps as significantly (and of grave concern), there are four groups that have endorsed Congressman Simpson?s efforts, and appear to be willing to sacrifice Wyoming? interests:
* National Rifle Association (NRA)
* Safari Club International (SCI)
* Congressional Sportsmen Foundation (CSF)
* Boone and Crockett"
If SFW/BGF was a major force behind the Simpson/Tester bill why would an attorney who represnts Wyoming Wolf Coalition (SFW) not claim SFW was behind the amendment?
You stated on a previous thread:
"If MT and ID get a wolf delisting, good. A great start for the rest of the states."
The same press release reportedly from Harriot Hageman furher states:
"Passage of the Simpson/Tester/Baucus amendment is not an incremental victory as some would claim. This is not an incremental victory for ensuring that States have the right to manage their own wildlife populations, or an incremental victory under the ESA. Judge Johnson?s decision was a victory. The Simpson/Tester/Baucus effort is designed to take that victory away."
So is this a victory accoding to SFW or not?
The same press release goes on to say:
"Please contact the NRA, SCI, CFS and Boone and Crocket and ask them to stop their support"
If SFW/BGF was behind this amendment shouldn't she have included them in this last part?
Smokestick, who I believe is the head of Wyoming SFW stated:
"Simply put - BGF/SFW was forced to support the Tester/Baucus/Simpson amendment by the political machine and Washington, D.C. insiders. Their only option was to make it palatable by getting language added to ensure Wyoming was not harmed in the process."
Again, Don if SFW was behind the Simpson/Tester amendment why were they "forced" to support it?
I am lost on this one....
Finally Don, you previously stated:
"Senator Risch of Idaho had a four state delisting - i can email you a copy of it - that would have included all of ID, MT, WY and UT, with much lower numbers of wolves required than the Simpson and TEster bill. We wanted a couple of changes to teh Risch Bill, put a little more teeth in it.
Did SFW/BGF support the Simpson Tester amendment or the Risch amendment? Which bill passed?
Again please explain because I am lost.
To me it looks like SFW/BGF did everything they could to stop the Simpson/Tester amendment and You and Smokestick are now claiming that the main reason that amendment passed is because of SFW and BGF.
This is great information, and I'm learning a lot. I wonder about some language in the Settlement Proposal however. It states that Montana and Idaho wuold be alowed to manage wolves according to "approved conservation plans". Whose plans? Also it states that there would be an "independent scientific review by an expert advisory board after 3 years". All that seems to say is it would keep the door open for litigation by pro-wolf groups when they determined the settlement was not proceeding as they saw fit. Kinda looked on the surface as they were starting to co-operate, but actually not much changed. mtmuley
mightyhunter
Very Active Member
- Messages
- 1,182
BSFlag,
I have never met BigFin but I doubt very seriously that he is running around with his chest puffed out. There is no doubt that pressure was being brought about long before the Tester/Simpson rider appeared on the scene. This all started to unravel for the eco-elite groups last year when they overplayed their hand after the Molloy decision relisted the wolf. Settlement negotiations had been scheduled and the eco-elite groups cancelled them because they thought they had finally won the battle for unlimited wolf expansion and numbers.
No one doubts for a minute that Tester jumped in late because it was good politics for his 2012 re-election bid. Hell, it was more than good politics, he had to do it. I have been a critic of Tester from the outset. I don't trust him or Baucus. That made me inherently suspicious of the rider to the 2011 budget. Baucus and Tester as Democrats were surely twisting Cardon's and Boxer's arms not to stop the wolf rider. I am sure they told old Ben and old Barbara that Tester was "##### up" in 2012 if they didn't go for this. That would be one more nail in the coffin for their majority status and leadership of key committees. Whether right or wrong, Tester and Baucus weren't going to do the same thing for HR 509 and S 249.
No matter what legislation passed, the eco-elite groups would be monitoring every action taken by the states with regard to wolves. If HR 509 and S 249 passed, do you think that monitoring and meddling with state management would stop and the issue would be over? Thats absurd. Legislation can be passed. It can also be repealed. And heaven knows history has shown us that some lawyer can show up and find a sympathetic judge to issue an injunction. No one thinks this is over. It is just one step. However, it is a step in the right direction.
I am still waiting for you to produce all the information supporting your claim that the eco-elite groups and their members were rooting for passage of the Tester/Simpson wolf rider. Sounds like bluster, sour grapes and BS from you. The comments "absolute and unnecessary travesty" or "setting an unfortunate precedent" don't appear like rooting for passage of the wolf rider to me.
Sportsman are glad that the status quo has changed with regard to wolf management. The ultimate result is yet to be seen.
As a final matter, you and no one from BGF or SFW has ever explained how they were going to get HR 509 and S 249 passed. What was the game plan or is that a secret?
I agree that the sporting community should unite on this issue. Your last post just facilitates more division. Some sportsman's groups got caught playing both sides in an attempt to advance their agenda and they were called on it. They will be a lot smarter next time. I don't care who gets credit for what, I am more interested in the ultimate achievement of a goal. I just want the devasted elk and wolf populations to recover in my lifetime.
I have never met BigFin but I doubt very seriously that he is running around with his chest puffed out. There is no doubt that pressure was being brought about long before the Tester/Simpson rider appeared on the scene. This all started to unravel for the eco-elite groups last year when they overplayed their hand after the Molloy decision relisted the wolf. Settlement negotiations had been scheduled and the eco-elite groups cancelled them because they thought they had finally won the battle for unlimited wolf expansion and numbers.
No one doubts for a minute that Tester jumped in late because it was good politics for his 2012 re-election bid. Hell, it was more than good politics, he had to do it. I have been a critic of Tester from the outset. I don't trust him or Baucus. That made me inherently suspicious of the rider to the 2011 budget. Baucus and Tester as Democrats were surely twisting Cardon's and Boxer's arms not to stop the wolf rider. I am sure they told old Ben and old Barbara that Tester was "##### up" in 2012 if they didn't go for this. That would be one more nail in the coffin for their majority status and leadership of key committees. Whether right or wrong, Tester and Baucus weren't going to do the same thing for HR 509 and S 249.
No matter what legislation passed, the eco-elite groups would be monitoring every action taken by the states with regard to wolves. If HR 509 and S 249 passed, do you think that monitoring and meddling with state management would stop and the issue would be over? Thats absurd. Legislation can be passed. It can also be repealed. And heaven knows history has shown us that some lawyer can show up and find a sympathetic judge to issue an injunction. No one thinks this is over. It is just one step. However, it is a step in the right direction.
I am still waiting for you to produce all the information supporting your claim that the eco-elite groups and their members were rooting for passage of the Tester/Simpson wolf rider. Sounds like bluster, sour grapes and BS from you. The comments "absolute and unnecessary travesty" or "setting an unfortunate precedent" don't appear like rooting for passage of the wolf rider to me.
Sportsman are glad that the status quo has changed with regard to wolf management. The ultimate result is yet to be seen.
As a final matter, you and no one from BGF or SFW has ever explained how they were going to get HR 509 and S 249 passed. What was the game plan or is that a secret?
I agree that the sporting community should unite on this issue. Your last post just facilitates more division. Some sportsman's groups got caught playing both sides in an attempt to advance their agenda and they were called on it. They will be a lot smarter next time. I don't care who gets credit for what, I am more interested in the ultimate achievement of a goal. I just want the devasted elk and wolf populations to recover in my lifetime.
C
creasy
Guest
"We could name a long list of names of members of Congress who have worked so diligently to delist wolf populations. Specifically, thanks go out to Senator Hatch and Lee of Utah, Senators Barrasso and Enzi of Wyoming, Senators Crapo and Risch of Idaho, Senators Kyl and McCain of Arizona, Senators Tester and Baucus of Montana, Congressman Rehberg of Montana,"
I guess we are thanking Lee, Crapo, Risch, Hatch and Rehberg for all voting NAY. go figure.
I guess we are thanking Lee, Crapo, Risch, Hatch and Rehberg for all voting NAY. go figure.
SMOKESTICK
Active Member
- Messages
- 852
LAST EDITED ON Apr-16-11 AT 09:48AM (MST)[p]Mightyhunter,
You asked the following question: "If HR 509 and S 249 passed, do you think that monitoring and meddling with state management would stop and the issue would be over?" The followed with your own answer: "Thats absurd. Legislation can be passed. It can also be repealed. And heaven knows history has shown us that some lawyer can show up and find a sympathetic judge to issue an injunction."
In fact, if S.249 & H.R509 were passed they would remove wolves from the ESA entirely. This would be a Congressional Action. Judges and lawyers could only challenge the Constitutionality of Congress removing wolves from the ESA. Since the created the ESA, they can determine what species it would apply to as well. There is no Constitutional protection of the ESA. It was created by Congress.
Those that keep asking if BGF/SFW was for or against the Tester/Baucus/Simpson rider, I will give you the benefit of doubt and assume you are sincerely asking.
No one has yet been able to produce any legal review that counters Harriet Hageman's 12 page letter, which articulated Wyoming's concerns about the rider. It appears as though none of the 4 groups which chose to support all efforts of delisting without understanding the potential consequences was troubling at best.
When dealing with legislative or congressional action, things happen relatively slowly at times and at times they morph by the minute. I can only speak for myself, but I did not want the rider to pass if it in fact harmed Wyoming and caused us to loose our legal gains obtained with Judge Johnson's ruling. Until a last minute amendment was made which ensured that Wyoming's gains were not lost, I would have preferred to only focus on passing S.249 & H.R.509 as they were the only viable solution which helped all states equally and caused no harm to any other state.
Once Rep. Lummis was able to obtain the amendment to the Rider, I could support it as it was no longer harmful to Wyoming. So, yes at times I was against the rider, but ultimately, I was able to support it as the threat to Wyoming was removed by Rep. Lummis obtaining that amendment.
Now the question remains, BGF/SFW are still working to get S.249 & H.R.509 passed to completely remove wolves from the ESA and restore state wildlife management authority to the states. This action will remove any and all oversight authority of the USFWS. It will stop endless litigation. It will stop endless expansion and protection of a species which never was threatened nor endangered. It will take one more tool away from perpetual funding of the environmental organizations.
Those that say it cannot be done because BGF/SFW are refusing to proclaim their strategy on a public forum either are politically ignorant or they are attempting to undermine our success.
Okay, a two state delisting will occur in 60 days. Utah, WA and OR can follow once they have "approved plans". Those that continue to say S.249 & H.R.509 cannot pass, what is the next step then? Is the process over? Are hunters to be content with this victory? What is your plan to achieve delisting in the remaining states?
You asked the following question: "If HR 509 and S 249 passed, do you think that monitoring and meddling with state management would stop and the issue would be over?" The followed with your own answer: "Thats absurd. Legislation can be passed. It can also be repealed. And heaven knows history has shown us that some lawyer can show up and find a sympathetic judge to issue an injunction."
In fact, if S.249 & H.R509 were passed they would remove wolves from the ESA entirely. This would be a Congressional Action. Judges and lawyers could only challenge the Constitutionality of Congress removing wolves from the ESA. Since the created the ESA, they can determine what species it would apply to as well. There is no Constitutional protection of the ESA. It was created by Congress.
Those that keep asking if BGF/SFW was for or against the Tester/Baucus/Simpson rider, I will give you the benefit of doubt and assume you are sincerely asking.
No one has yet been able to produce any legal review that counters Harriet Hageman's 12 page letter, which articulated Wyoming's concerns about the rider. It appears as though none of the 4 groups which chose to support all efforts of delisting without understanding the potential consequences was troubling at best.
When dealing with legislative or congressional action, things happen relatively slowly at times and at times they morph by the minute. I can only speak for myself, but I did not want the rider to pass if it in fact harmed Wyoming and caused us to loose our legal gains obtained with Judge Johnson's ruling. Until a last minute amendment was made which ensured that Wyoming's gains were not lost, I would have preferred to only focus on passing S.249 & H.R.509 as they were the only viable solution which helped all states equally and caused no harm to any other state.
Once Rep. Lummis was able to obtain the amendment to the Rider, I could support it as it was no longer harmful to Wyoming. So, yes at times I was against the rider, but ultimately, I was able to support it as the threat to Wyoming was removed by Rep. Lummis obtaining that amendment.
Now the question remains, BGF/SFW are still working to get S.249 & H.R.509 passed to completely remove wolves from the ESA and restore state wildlife management authority to the states. This action will remove any and all oversight authority of the USFWS. It will stop endless litigation. It will stop endless expansion and protection of a species which never was threatened nor endangered. It will take one more tool away from perpetual funding of the environmental organizations.
Those that say it cannot be done because BGF/SFW are refusing to proclaim their strategy on a public forum either are politically ignorant or they are attempting to undermine our success.
Okay, a two state delisting will occur in 60 days. Utah, WA and OR can follow once they have "approved plans". Those that continue to say S.249 & H.R.509 cannot pass, what is the next step then? Is the process over? Are hunters to be content with this victory? What is your plan to achieve delisting in the remaining states?
mightyhunter
Very Active Member
- Messages
- 1,182
Smokestick,
You raise some interesting points. I think you gloss over some others. I have been an attorney for 31 years and don't consider myself particularly naive. I live in NW Wyoming. If Congress can delist a species, they certainly have the power to change their collective minds. Enough eco-elite group campaign money thrown one way could accomplish this. Enough propaganda from the eco-elites about how the states are mismanaging the wolf will be easy to come by. Truth on the issue of the wolf has never been a major concern of these eco-elite groups or the publications that support them. Do you think that these groups won't file lawsuits against how the various states manage the wolf? These people are fanatics and they have lots of money to spend. Do you think they aren't going to start hiring "scientists" to under estimate the actual number of wolves? I can see them trying to back door this by arguing that wolf management by the USFWS under the ESA, for the states not covered in this rider, is being seriously undermined by state management in Idaho, Montana or even Wyoming. All legal arguments are not constitutional in origin. I see the potential for more trouble down the road. This isn't over by any means.
I have never been opposed to HR 509 or S 249. I think they were a great idea and I have stated so in numerous posts and forums. They proved to be a great club to hold over the heads of the various eco-elite groups. Unfortunately, I don't see how this legislation could pass in the current political environment. I think the stars were aligned perfectly for the Simpson/Tester rider to pass. Mr. Tester was up for re-election in 2012 and he needed this very badly so he called in political favors. This, combined with the hot potato of a potential government shutdown over the 2011 budget, made for a real opportunity. Maybe after the 2012 elections, the chance will be greater if a change in the political power structure takes place. Meanwhile without change, the Northern Yellowstone elk herd that slipped from 6,000 to 4,500 this year slips even further into a place from which it can't recover.
I am not politically ignorant. Your suggestion that posting the details or strategy on a public forum is unwise may be true. On the other hand, your statement could be easily construed as a suggestion that some super secret strategy actually exists that only a select few, like you, are privy to. Come on.
Again, I don't think the process is over. I am glad that Rep. Lummis got legislative language inserted that protects Wyoming's interests. I think the process is just beginning. I am not content with this victory. I am not naive enough to believe that the eco-elites have suddenly surrendered on the issue of the wolf. They are plotting their strategy and will use this loss to raise more money to stop it any way they can.
I do not belong to SFW or the RMEF. I do belong to the MDF and the NRA. I think that Ryan Benson working for the BGF was fine. I was a little put off by those continually touting him just because he graduated from a particular law school. Heaven knows, we have enough of those in our government today. I never heard if he had any prior political or lobbying experience of any kind. That is what was needed for this issue.
A victory on the wolf issue has been obtained. Only time will tell if it was a minor or major victory, or if it was just hollow.
The grizzly bear delisting issue is just around the corner. I believe that Wyoming will become the focus of that particular battle. Nothing is over when you have two groups of people whose thinking is the polar opposite of each other.
You raise some interesting points. I think you gloss over some others. I have been an attorney for 31 years and don't consider myself particularly naive. I live in NW Wyoming. If Congress can delist a species, they certainly have the power to change their collective minds. Enough eco-elite group campaign money thrown one way could accomplish this. Enough propaganda from the eco-elites about how the states are mismanaging the wolf will be easy to come by. Truth on the issue of the wolf has never been a major concern of these eco-elite groups or the publications that support them. Do you think that these groups won't file lawsuits against how the various states manage the wolf? These people are fanatics and they have lots of money to spend. Do you think they aren't going to start hiring "scientists" to under estimate the actual number of wolves? I can see them trying to back door this by arguing that wolf management by the USFWS under the ESA, for the states not covered in this rider, is being seriously undermined by state management in Idaho, Montana or even Wyoming. All legal arguments are not constitutional in origin. I see the potential for more trouble down the road. This isn't over by any means.
I have never been opposed to HR 509 or S 249. I think they were a great idea and I have stated so in numerous posts and forums. They proved to be a great club to hold over the heads of the various eco-elite groups. Unfortunately, I don't see how this legislation could pass in the current political environment. I think the stars were aligned perfectly for the Simpson/Tester rider to pass. Mr. Tester was up for re-election in 2012 and he needed this very badly so he called in political favors. This, combined with the hot potato of a potential government shutdown over the 2011 budget, made for a real opportunity. Maybe after the 2012 elections, the chance will be greater if a change in the political power structure takes place. Meanwhile without change, the Northern Yellowstone elk herd that slipped from 6,000 to 4,500 this year slips even further into a place from which it can't recover.
I am not politically ignorant. Your suggestion that posting the details or strategy on a public forum is unwise may be true. On the other hand, your statement could be easily construed as a suggestion that some super secret strategy actually exists that only a select few, like you, are privy to. Come on.
Again, I don't think the process is over. I am glad that Rep. Lummis got legislative language inserted that protects Wyoming's interests. I think the process is just beginning. I am not content with this victory. I am not naive enough to believe that the eco-elites have suddenly surrendered on the issue of the wolf. They are plotting their strategy and will use this loss to raise more money to stop it any way they can.
I do not belong to SFW or the RMEF. I do belong to the MDF and the NRA. I think that Ryan Benson working for the BGF was fine. I was a little put off by those continually touting him just because he graduated from a particular law school. Heaven knows, we have enough of those in our government today. I never heard if he had any prior political or lobbying experience of any kind. That is what was needed for this issue.
A victory on the wolf issue has been obtained. Only time will tell if it was a minor or major victory, or if it was just hollow.
The grizzly bear delisting issue is just around the corner. I believe that Wyoming will become the focus of that particular battle. Nothing is over when you have two groups of people whose thinking is the polar opposite of each other.
SMOKESTICK
Active Member
- Messages
- 852
So far, I have not seen anyone willing to divulge what happens next?
I believe we can all agree; now, that the two state delisting was a good first step. What is the next step?
How do we get all wolves removed from protection. I believe we are all in agreement that wolves are neither threatened nor endangered. So how do we finish the fight?
I believe we can all agree; now, that the two state delisting was a good first step. What is the next step?
How do we get all wolves removed from protection. I believe we are all in agreement that wolves are neither threatened nor endangered. So how do we finish the fight?
mightyhunter---Good post and you have hit on another huge Wyoming problem when you speak of the grizzly situation. With their numbers now being way over the goal and the decreasing pine bark nut trees they depend on in the fall before hibernation I can see more human conflicts than ever before and there will be more human casualties before that even gets addressed!
BigFin
Active Member
- Messages
- 693
BS - That is some impressive stuff you copied and pasted. If that is how your groups research and support your positions, no wonder they got sized for a 3XL asshat in this wolf issue.
Like most hunters, I could care less who gets credit, as there are many who deserve credit. Just don't expect hunters to sit by and let two groups, who were doing everything in their power to kill progress, try to BS their way out of the truth. And then silently watch these same groups try to take credit for something they had no hand in, but rather wanted to see killed.
Keep digging yourself deeper holes by blindly believing that the stories you have been spoon-fed is the way things really went down. Your pals who are feeding you the info are not the only ones who participate in DC politics when it comes to wolves, hunting, or conservation matters.
To your comment, "This should explain my earlier point that the pressure was being put on Congress to delist wolves before Simpson/Tester realized that it was good politics."
Pressure has been put on Congress since 2003. Hello! If you and your pals had been there since the beginning, you would know that. Where did anyone here say that it started with Simpson-Tester? Nowhere.
The pressure on the Montana delegation started long before BGF was even formed, and way before SFW landed foot in the Big Sky state. If you think otherwise, it confirms a lack of understanding and history of this issue.
The fact that your groups showed up on the MT and ID wolf scene, just as the wagon was reaching the crest of the hill, does not mean you were the ones who pushed the wagon out of the canyon. The truth is that the wolf wagon was in a deep canyon for MT/ID hunters. Your organization showed up just about the time MT/ID hunters got the wagon to the top of the ridge. How convenient. Thanks for nothing.
In fact, your group was willing to push the MT/ID wolf wagon back down in the canyon. And now you want us to give you the reins to the horses. Good luck with that one.
And you provided this statement, "You & I both know who was applying that pressure. I don't mention names because they do not wish to claim credit."
Yes, we know who was applying pressure, and it sure wasn't the two groups you imply, and the one you are the Wyoming leader of. Thanks for clarifying that.
The groups now beating their chest provided nothing but static in the background with some doped up fantasy idea that had no chance of progress. That idea was laughed at in DC. You might be told differently by your leaders, as they have guys out on the money trail, so if the S.249 pipe dream was shown as DOA, how would the money continue to roll in?
You defend your actions with this comical statement, "I joined this thread because you are dividing the sportsmen with deceit and an unknown agenda."
Who is dividing sportsmen? ?Pot, meet Kettle!?
Your organizations are the ones who decided to divide hunters along state lines. The glory seekers are the ones who thought it would be great to divide MT/ID/WY hunters.
I am not the one who decided to start working behind the scenes to kill this bill. You and your pals did that.
MT/ID hunters knew what your groups were doing for many months. Most knew that sooner or later, such political neophytes would step in it. All that was needed was to sit back and let those groups make fools of themselves.
It didn't take long. No one could have ever imagined those groups would do it in such a grand fashion.
When your parent group sent the entire Congress a release that blatantly misstated the position of the hunting political powers in DC, that was about as good as it gets. When that was done to the NRA, et al, many knew the public beat down was coming, but waited until NRA made the official release.
Only rebuttal we have from your groups about that misrepresentation was that some third party scab was to blame. And that it was a private communication. As if trying to screw hunters in private is somehow more acceptable than screwing them over in public.
If there is deceit in anything I provided, show me where it is. If you find that people telling the truth is an agenda, knock yourself out.
I do agree with this one, "Give credit where credit is due and let the sporting community unite on this issue so that together we can finish it right with states control of their own wildlife and wildlife programs."
Sounds like your groups should take your own advice. Uniting is fine, but it is not accomplished by trying to kill progress for those you claim should join you.
Hunters will probably continue to be divided by your group and their actions. Funny how you, and the other party liners, are out on all the websites asking for unity. Hypocrisy to the highest degree.
The groups you are speaking on behalf of wanted to screw MT/ID hunters. And you think MT/ID hunters are inclined to let those groups in the foxhole when the artillery is raining down? I am not.
It boils down to this. Your groups had three choices.
1. Support this bill, and the progress it represented, and try to get as much out of it as possible. Then work for more progress.
2. Sit on the sidelines and be neutral. Don't support it, but don't try to kill it.
3. Work the same angles as the wolf lovers, and try to kill this bill. That had huge risk, as you knew if you got caught, the difficulty of explaining your actions would be extreme.
Your groups chose Option 3. None of the hunters posting on these threads made that decision for you.
Your groups made a decision to divide hunters; A decision to pit MT/ID hunters against WY hunters; A decision your guys hoped would never see the light of day.
Now you have to deal with that. Your groups gambled and lost. Yet, the spin and the plea for unity continues.
If the truth is divisive to you, not much I can do about that. You and your pals chose Option 3, so live with it.
If you can post anything that proves you did not chose Option 3, let's see it. So far, nothing has been provided to dispute the fact that your organization worked to sell MT and ID hunters down the river.
If you have the facts showing otherwise, post 'em up. Just make sure they are facts. Many MT/ID hunters are in the same loops as your leaders, making it is easy to call BS when the BS is posted.
We have been waiting for those facts, almost as long as we have been waiting for the miracle plan that would get the S.249 pipe dream passed. Let me guess, those facts and that plan are top secret at BGF/SFW galactic headquarters and no one has the security clearance to provide such.
It this was not so entertaining, it would not be worth the time to reply to these desperate attempts at revising history. Everyone now knows the facts of what went down and who was in bed with the wolf lovers. But, it is humorous to see the next line of BS that will be posted by tomorrow morning.
Like most hunters, I could care less who gets credit, as there are many who deserve credit. Just don't expect hunters to sit by and let two groups, who were doing everything in their power to kill progress, try to BS their way out of the truth. And then silently watch these same groups try to take credit for something they had no hand in, but rather wanted to see killed.
Keep digging yourself deeper holes by blindly believing that the stories you have been spoon-fed is the way things really went down. Your pals who are feeding you the info are not the only ones who participate in DC politics when it comes to wolves, hunting, or conservation matters.
To your comment, "This should explain my earlier point that the pressure was being put on Congress to delist wolves before Simpson/Tester realized that it was good politics."
Pressure has been put on Congress since 2003. Hello! If you and your pals had been there since the beginning, you would know that. Where did anyone here say that it started with Simpson-Tester? Nowhere.
The pressure on the Montana delegation started long before BGF was even formed, and way before SFW landed foot in the Big Sky state. If you think otherwise, it confirms a lack of understanding and history of this issue.
The fact that your groups showed up on the MT and ID wolf scene, just as the wagon was reaching the crest of the hill, does not mean you were the ones who pushed the wagon out of the canyon. The truth is that the wolf wagon was in a deep canyon for MT/ID hunters. Your organization showed up just about the time MT/ID hunters got the wagon to the top of the ridge. How convenient. Thanks for nothing.
In fact, your group was willing to push the MT/ID wolf wagon back down in the canyon. And now you want us to give you the reins to the horses. Good luck with that one.
And you provided this statement, "You & I both know who was applying that pressure. I don't mention names because they do not wish to claim credit."
Yes, we know who was applying pressure, and it sure wasn't the two groups you imply, and the one you are the Wyoming leader of. Thanks for clarifying that.
The groups now beating their chest provided nothing but static in the background with some doped up fantasy idea that had no chance of progress. That idea was laughed at in DC. You might be told differently by your leaders, as they have guys out on the money trail, so if the S.249 pipe dream was shown as DOA, how would the money continue to roll in?
You defend your actions with this comical statement, "I joined this thread because you are dividing the sportsmen with deceit and an unknown agenda."
Who is dividing sportsmen? ?Pot, meet Kettle!?
Your organizations are the ones who decided to divide hunters along state lines. The glory seekers are the ones who thought it would be great to divide MT/ID/WY hunters.
I am not the one who decided to start working behind the scenes to kill this bill. You and your pals did that.
MT/ID hunters knew what your groups were doing for many months. Most knew that sooner or later, such political neophytes would step in it. All that was needed was to sit back and let those groups make fools of themselves.
It didn't take long. No one could have ever imagined those groups would do it in such a grand fashion.
When your parent group sent the entire Congress a release that blatantly misstated the position of the hunting political powers in DC, that was about as good as it gets. When that was done to the NRA, et al, many knew the public beat down was coming, but waited until NRA made the official release.
Only rebuttal we have from your groups about that misrepresentation was that some third party scab was to blame. And that it was a private communication. As if trying to screw hunters in private is somehow more acceptable than screwing them over in public.
If there is deceit in anything I provided, show me where it is. If you find that people telling the truth is an agenda, knock yourself out.
I do agree with this one, "Give credit where credit is due and let the sporting community unite on this issue so that together we can finish it right with states control of their own wildlife and wildlife programs."
Sounds like your groups should take your own advice. Uniting is fine, but it is not accomplished by trying to kill progress for those you claim should join you.
Hunters will probably continue to be divided by your group and their actions. Funny how you, and the other party liners, are out on all the websites asking for unity. Hypocrisy to the highest degree.
The groups you are speaking on behalf of wanted to screw MT/ID hunters. And you think MT/ID hunters are inclined to let those groups in the foxhole when the artillery is raining down? I am not.
It boils down to this. Your groups had three choices.
1. Support this bill, and the progress it represented, and try to get as much out of it as possible. Then work for more progress.
2. Sit on the sidelines and be neutral. Don't support it, but don't try to kill it.
3. Work the same angles as the wolf lovers, and try to kill this bill. That had huge risk, as you knew if you got caught, the difficulty of explaining your actions would be extreme.
Your groups chose Option 3. None of the hunters posting on these threads made that decision for you.
Your groups made a decision to divide hunters; A decision to pit MT/ID hunters against WY hunters; A decision your guys hoped would never see the light of day.
Now you have to deal with that. Your groups gambled and lost. Yet, the spin and the plea for unity continues.
If the truth is divisive to you, not much I can do about that. You and your pals chose Option 3, so live with it.
If you can post anything that proves you did not chose Option 3, let's see it. So far, nothing has been provided to dispute the fact that your organization worked to sell MT and ID hunters down the river.
If you have the facts showing otherwise, post 'em up. Just make sure they are facts. Many MT/ID hunters are in the same loops as your leaders, making it is easy to call BS when the BS is posted.
We have been waiting for those facts, almost as long as we have been waiting for the miracle plan that would get the S.249 pipe dream passed. Let me guess, those facts and that plan are top secret at BGF/SFW galactic headquarters and no one has the security clearance to provide such.
It this was not so entertaining, it would not be worth the time to reply to these desperate attempts at revising history. Everyone now knows the facts of what went down and who was in bed with the wolf lovers. But, it is humorous to see the next line of BS that will be posted by tomorrow morning.
