The Wolf Poltics Continue

BigFin

BigFin

Active Member
Messages
693
Press release issued by the NRA this week.

Just sayin.......

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

NRA, SCI, and CSF Disavow Misleading Press Release

Today the National Rifle Association, Safari Club International and the Congressional Sportsmen?s Foundation publicly disavowed a misleading press release distributed on Friday, March 11th to congressional offices and other outlets. The press release blatantly misrepresents the position of these organizations regarding legislation to delist gray wolves under the Endangered Species Act.

The draft release was circulated by an individual representing Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife and Big Game Forever. The individual representing these two groups was immediately advised to remove the aforementioned organizations named in the release. Unfortunately, he did not, and the release was transmitted without correcting the inaccurate information.

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.

Congressional offices and members of the media should exercise caution in accepting as fact, or repeating, any claims made by Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife, Big Game Forever or any person claiming to represent them. Due to the blatant misrepresentation contained in the press release circulated by these two groups, any claims they make in the future should be thoroughly investigated and independently confirmed.


NRA Federal Affairs
Jeff Freeman
Senior Federal Lobbyist
[email protected]
410 First Street S.E.
2nd Floor
Washington, D.C. 20003
tel: 202.651.2568
fax: 202.651.2577


"Hunt when you can - You're gonna' run out of health before you run out of money!"
 
Shows their true colors! If they can't play with their ball and bat, their going home. Sad, truly sad!



I wanted to take a scalp,but the kill was not mine.
 
I grew up in an Italian neighborhood......is it now "time" to take DP for a "ride"? I don't know, cause I get conflicting facts, when I am on ONE SIDE!! I got an email from those organizations too. Funny, it is still cloudy, all this supposed good news.

I am here to support the delisting of wolves, period! Who can I trust with my money to help this process....no political bullsheet involved? Again, who can I trust as my voice.....you will have my dollars if I can trust you! Most of you all spinnin this thing are making me puke!

Time is just right to galvanize all of us for this cause, yet you do this (intentional or not) to make us not want to help. Can someone explain??

Sorry to vent!
 
>I don't know, cause I
>get conflicting facts, when I
>am on ONE SIDE!!


There are Facts and then there is "other" SFW spews a whole lot of "Other"
 
Is this the same Don guy that's been into it with people on this BB? I think his last name is Peay or something like that! If he put out a release saying he was speaking for those three organziations when he wasn't authorized to do so and was told not to, I would think they should sue his pants off if that the shoddy way he operates!!!
 
This morning, the same release was issued in the Outdoor Wire, the biggest and most read newswire in the entire hunting and shooting industry.

Item #1 as the "Top Story." Any of you who subscribe could not miss it.

Here is a link to their transmittla if you care to read it. Seems like a pretty harsh release if it was just an oversight.

"Due to the blatant misrepresentation contained in the press release circulated by these two groups, any claims they make in the future should be thoroughly investigated and independently confirmed."


http://www.theoutdoorwire.com/story/13004394711jzrfxykqtu


"Hunt when you can - You're gonna' run out of health before you run out of money!"
 
Ahhh, classic. They are playing the 'misrepresentation in the press release' card. How convenient! Damage control SFW/DP, damage control! Funny thing is we were discussing similar lines on that other thread about wolves just a few weeks ago. Where are all the blind supporters coming out to defend the "misrepresentation"?
 
This seems like this a really selfish and arrogant move on SFW. I am trying to understand why SFW would do this and through these other organizations under the buss like that.

Is SFW trying to take away market share from these other organizations? Maybe SFW doesn't understand they aren't the only kids playing in the sandbox!

If you were to put wolf management on a scale of 0 to 10, with zero being an unlimited number of wolves with no management and 10 being the complete eradication of wolves out west. SFW will accept nothing short of a 10 and anybody who is not a 10 might as well be 0.

Look, as a hunter I hate wolves just as much as SFW but I also live in the real world and respect the democratic principle that I am not the only person in the US who loves Mother Nature. Their are just as many tree-huggers, as their are hunters, who want wolves. If we are to make any progress we need a plan that allows for some wolves but not too many. We need to set the population numbers and the geographical home range of wolves and then allow all methods of management that include hunting, poisoning, relocation, shoot on site..ect to keep wolves in that box.

It is SFW's aristocratic way of doings things that keeps me from supporting them.
 
LAST EDITED ON Mar-18-11 AT 11:11AM (MST)[p]Very interesting! Living way back here in Michigan I'm not familiar with that outfit or the BGF operation, but it sounds like almost all the members of this site are talking very negative about them and apparently for good reasons. I'm not quite getting the gist of the post by nv_kremer, so which organizations are you for or against?
 
Topgun, my comments were focused toward the sham/shady operation happening as it relates to the supposed wolf delisting. In a nutshell, I'm calling BS on DP & Co.
 
And today we find out that the attorneys for the wolf lovers cannot agree on how to proceed, now that they see so many bills in Congress that will allow the three states to separate from each other. Got love the infighting when the heat gets turned up on them.

If that happens, the wolf lovers are out of ammo and out of solutions - they know it and the pressure is mounting. Looks like they are fighting among themselves as to how to keep the money train alive. Time for them to manufacture a new crisis. A recession might be looming on the horizon for those in the wolf industry.

Evidently those wolf lover attorneys are also worried that these other wolf bills, such as the Continuing Budget Resultion are going to pass.

The Contuniung Resoltuion, or the Simpson language as most call it, refers to Representative Simpson from Idaho, a Republican who craftily put such language in the bill that will keep the Federal government funded, is one most think will pass first.

But, who knows if it will pass. In this strange world of wolf politics, anything is possible and nothing is predictable, except for the chase of money.

That was the same bill that was mentioned in the NRA release. The one that a hunting group was opposed to and was blatantly using the NRA/SCI/CSF name and clout to try kill.

Sure seems like a lot of these politically-smart people are thinking that it will pass, and are working hard to kill it, or manage their damage that will result if it passes.

From the NRA release, it appears we have a hunting group wanting to kill that bill, and now with this report, the wolf lovers cannot decide among themselves how to act in the face of that bill possibly passing Congress and be signed by the President.

Desperate times call for desperate measures.

Politics and money makes for some strange bedfellows.

Link provided - http://helenair.com/news/article_c3a0e442-511e-11e0-b154-001cc4c03286.html

Here is what the link reports.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<


A rift among plaintiffs over whether to settle the federal court lawsuit filed to try to keep the gray wolf listed as an endangered species has prompted their attorneys to remove themselves from the case.

Doug Honnold, an attorney with Earthjustice in Bozeman, filed a motion Wednesday saying his firm has an ?ethical obligation to terminate their legal representation? in the controversial case. He declined to comment on Thursday on the reason for the move, other than to say he regrets not being able to continue to represent the plaintiffs.

?I wish I could talk about it, but the motion speaks for itself and we have to withdraw,? Honnold said on Thursday.

An ethics opinion he sought from the Montana State Bar notes that a ?global settlement has been proposed,? and that some of the clients desire to accept it while others do not. The bar?s ethics subcommittee wrote in the informal opinion that ?conflicts between the lawyer?s clients over their disparate settlement positions may create a conflict of interest that could require the withdrawal of counsel.?

The subcommittee?s opinion adds that the federal district court retains discretion to refuse to permit the lawyers to withdraw, or to impose conditions on the withdrawal request.

Ten of the groups that brought the lawsuit against the Department of Interior ? including the Sierra Club, the Natural Resources Defense Council and Defenders of Wildlife ? want to settle the dispute over whether wolves in the northern Rockies should be taken off the list of animals under federal protection. Three other plaintiffs ? the Alliance for the Wild Rockies, Western Watersheds and the Friends of the Clearwater ? argue that U.S. District Court Judge Donald Molloy has already ruled in their favor, and there's no reason for them to back down now.

Mike Garrity, the Alliance?s executive director, said he believes the other groups are going to ask Molloy to ?stay? his Aug. 5, 2010, decision, which would then allow wolves to be delisted in Montana, Idaho, Oregon, Washington and Utah, while remaining an endangered species in Wyoming. Molloy had ruled that they can't be delisted in Montana and Idaho but remain on the list in adjoining states.

?We all sued and won, and now I believe they're going to go back and ask Judge Molloy to stay his ruling that put them back on the endangered species list,? Garrity said. ?We didn't go to court for entertainment purposes. We take this seriously and we don't think it would be right or respectful to the court to go back and say we changed our minds.

?I believe they first were going to ask him to vacate his ruling, which means he would say the way he ruled was wrong. But since we split up, I believe they're going to ask the court to stay his ruling.?

The reason for seeking the settlement, according to representatives from some of the organizations, is they fear that legislation introduced in Congress to delist wolves in the northern Rockies would set a precedent for political action on other listed species.

?There?s definitely a real concern about legislation being a bad road to go down,? said Noah Greenwald, endangered species director for the Center for Biological Diversity, one of the groups that is involved in the settlement talks. ?It's never happened before, having politicians making scientific decisions on which species need protection. It sets a bad precedent.?

He added that another issue of concern with some of the recently proposed legislation is that it would delist wolves in Oregon, Washington and Utah, where they have either transient or fledgling populations. Of those three states, only Oregon has a wolf management plan, and it hasn't been approved by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, unlike Montana and Idaho?s plans.

?That's always been a concern,? Greenwald said. ?It doesn't make sense.?

Under the settlement, wolves could remain listed in Oregon, Washington, Utah and Wyoming.

Other groups involved in the settlement discussions with the Department of Interior include the Jackson Hole Conservation Alliance, Oregon Wild, Cascadia Wildlands, Wildlands Network and Hells Canyon Preservation Council and the Greater Yellowstone Coalition.

Garrity adds that those opposing the settlement believe anywhere from 2,000 to 5,000 wolves are needed on the landscape to ensure biological diversity, and that includes having stable wolf populations in states like Oregon, Washington and Utah. To him, that's another reason why both the potential settlement and some of the proposed legislation that delists them in those states without protection is bad.

At last count, at least 1,651 gray wolves were counted in Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, Oregon and Washington. Montana is home to 566 wolves, Idaho has 705 and Wyoming has 343.

Wolves once were prolific throughout the Northern Rockies, but were trapped, poisoned and shot to near extinction by the early 1900s. Wolves were listed as an endangered species in 1974 and reintroduced in Yellowstone National Park in 1994.

?We want them to be recovered and removed from the Endangered Species list, once they've reached population levels supported by science,? Garrity said. ?To get to those numbers, they have to be spread throughout the states.?

Along with his request to withdraw Earthjustice from the lawsuit, Honnold asked Molloy for a continuance of the previously scheduled March 24 hearing, saying the plaintiff?s new attorneys needed time to prepare.

Molloy denied that request on Thursday, saying that the new counsel hadn't represented the need.

?It is further noted that the parties have fully briefed the issues, and the Court can decide the issues on the current record,? Molloy wrote. ?Continuing the hearing creates conflicts for many parties in the case.?

But he added that ?if good cause to continue the hearing exists,? the plaintiff?s counsel can renew the motion by 4 p.m. today.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

"Hunt when you can - You're gonna' run out of health before you run out of money!"
 
and now this. Seems stuff is starting to happen and the rats are jumping the ships...

Breaking News
Wildlife groups want to de-list wolves in Idaho, Montana
March 18, 2011, 10:12 am

BILLINGS, Mont. (AP) � Wildlife advocates say they will file a settlement agreement with the U.S. government Friday in federal court that would take wolves off the endangered species list in Montana and Idaho.

Kieran Suckling with the Center for Biological Diversity said the agreement with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service would keep the species listed as endangered in Oregon, Washington, Utah and Wyoming.

Suckling says political pressure forced environmentalists into the settlement to avoid intervention from Congress that could have broadly undermined the Endangered Species Act.

But a split among the plaintiffs in the case has left three groups opposed to the deal. Tom Woodbury with the Western Watersheds Project says his group thinks wolves still need federal protection.
The settlement would need approval from U.S. District Judge Donald Molloy in Missoula.

Visit lmtribune.com or see Saturday's Lewiston Tribune for more on this story.
 
This couldnt be more poetic if it were scripted...

Even Don may not be able to spin out of this one.

Any sportsmens group that opposed and fights against getting wolves delisted and hunting seasons going again is going to have troubles and alot to answer for.

Yet, theres not been a peep from the SFW about these latest huge developments??? Gee, I wonder why?

Funny stuff.

Also, its pretty funny to see that Wyoming is being left out of the equation...who'd a thunk it?
 
LAST EDITED ON Mar-18-11 AT 12:40PM (MST)[p]I had a good laugh when I read where the spokesperson for CBD stated that politicians shouldn't make scientific decisions because it would set a bad precedent. However, they seem to have no problem taking it before Judge Malloy when they think he will rule in their favor and there is obviously no science used in his thinking or lack of it when he makes a ruling!!!

BuzzH---Surely you jest! You know exactly why Wyoming was left out right now and as soon as their deal is finalzied with USFW, whenever that is, I would presume they will then enter the picture. Until then, I would say it's very obvious why and I think the ball is now in the USFW court to seal the deal ASAP after they dropped their lawsuit a few days ago and sort of put Wyoming in the drivers seat to join the delisting process.
 
LAST EDITED ON Mar-18-11 AT 12:48PM (MST)[p]BS back at ya because when that deal is finalized his ruling will then have to be changed or he will lose at a higher level on appeal! It's either that or the courts will continue to do all the dictating on this crap and obviously the way things are going in DC that's going to be changed and the individual states will get the final say within their boundaries like it should have been all along. Oh, and please don't come back again with your "Well they already agreed to it years ago and didn't keep up their end of the bargain!" BS!!!
 
It does seem like SFW has kind of crapped in their own bed.

It also seems like the enviro groups are making a last ditch effort to get out of this pickle they have caused.

Right now I am of the mind that it is too little too late. They had the chance to be reasonable and chose not to. I kind of think "we" should keep the pedal down and not accept this (ok now we agree MT and ID should manage their wolves). Let Congress vote on the changes to ESA. I suppose there is risk in that as well for Hunters, but after getting the crap kicked out of us for the last several years on the wolf issue I want some blood.
 
I bet you'll get to find out if Molloy's ruling will pass a higher court. Wyoming's not going anywhere, the train left the station, and there not on it.


I wanted to take a scalp,but the kill was not mine.
 
$FW-BGF never ever want the Wolf issue to end----it is a great big Cash Cow for the 'Charity Pay Check' that they recieve from Non-Profit Donations to Fight the Wolves.....blah-blah-blah....

It is so very sad that we hunters have such greedy $o called repre$entation.

Robb
 
LAST EDITED ON Mar-18-11 AT 01:17PM (MST)[p]Yep, Wyoming is on the outside looking in...and thats exactly what they deserve.

Hey Topgun,

Why do you suppose Rep. Lummis was begging to get on board with MT and ID????

Ask yourself that.
 
LAST EDITED ON Mar-18-11 AT 02:06PM (MST)[p]Being way away from the action living where I do, I have no idea about Lummis, but maybe he's a big ##### cat! I really don't see where Wyoming has any alternative than being on the outside right now, as you put it, now that the Feds dropped the lawsuit and until the Feds allow what Judge Johnson has already ruled is a proper plan to be finalized. Only then can they move into the delisting phase with the others and I hope it happens quickly. It's obvious you are not for states rights on this or maybe anything else happening between the Feds and various states like AZ and their "illegals" lawsuit, so there's really not much point in the two of us debating the issue.


Jeez, I got #ed out for saying what they must consider a dirty word, LOL!
 
Wyoming screwed Idaho and Montana, and continues to screw themselves..."Stick to your guns Wyoming"!, laffin, I'm sure it will work out,heck in 10 or 15 years you may even get to hunt them..Of course after ID and MT separate, WY will get all the wolf lovers undivided attention...Brilliant

Don's been screwing with AK, now he's crossed the NRA...That should be good for business..
 
Topgun, Johnson never said Wyoming's plan was a "proper plan". He said that the USF&WS should revisit the plan.


I wanted to take a scalp,but the kill was not mine.
 
I have been critical of Wy in the past for "sticking to their guns". Mostly due to how it impacted Idaho. However, it makes you wonder if the legislation that is scaring the crapola out of the Enviro groups is in part due to WY digging in and forcing the issue?
 
Nope, Wyoming isnt even a player in the current legislation.

Precisely why Cynthia Lummis tried as hard as she could to get WY on board with the current bills making their way through congress.

Wyoming hasnt forced any issue other than its own bullheadedness.
 
On Oct-28-10, 07:46 AM Dkpeay wrote:

"It just amazes me that two sportsmen in particular, Ryan Benson of Big Game Forever and myself are working 24/7 on this issue, giving up all our hunts, and yet there are sportsmen on this site, blasting us. Go join PETA and Destroyers of wildlife."

I wonder if we Don is going to tell the National Rifle Association, Safari Club International and the Congressional Sportsmen?s Foundation to join PETA and Destroyers of Wildlife since they are also "blasting them".

I can't understand why any group would try and stop legislation that would allow wolf hunting to continue. It might not be what Don wants but it is at the very least a step in the right direction. I also can't understand the reason for sending out a press release including those groups when they were opposed to it?

I will guess at the response....

Because of SFW Utah's elk herd has grown to what it is...
Because of SFW Utah is the home of all the giant bulls...
Last year conservation tag money raised millions of dollars for X Y and Z.
SFW is the reason all of the hunting in Utah that has gotten better. By the way, the fact that the deer hunt sucks is not our fault. If Utah would just give us another couple hundred tags for the convention and a higher percentage of the LE tags than we could turn all of this around.
The Expo has raised millions of dollars and if you don't agree you should go join PETA (or the NRA or SCI, I guess).
The things that were promised at the meeting before the expo tags were extended will be provided very soon.
 
4100fps---I probably should have worded that sentence a little differently. What I meant is that USFWS had already approved the Wyoming plan and then because of politics rescinded it. Now that they have dropped the lawsuit, I would think that should put the State of Wyoming in pretty good shape to get the plan approved with little, if any, changes because it was science on their side that allowed the plan to be approved by USFWS in the first place.
 
>On Oct-28-10, 07:46 AM Dkpeay wrote:
>
>
>"It just amazes me that two
>sportsmen in particular, Ryan Benson
>of Big Game Forever and
>myself are working 24/7 on
>this issue, giving up all
>our hunts, and yet there
>are sportsmen on this site,
>blasting us. Go join PETA
>and Destroyers of wildlife."
>
>I wonder if we Don is
>going to tell the National
>Rifle Association, Safari Club International
>and the Congressional Sportsmen?s Foundation
>to join PETA and Destroyers
>of Wildlife since they are
>also "blasting them".
>
>I can't understand why any group
>would try and stop legislation
>that would allow wolf hunting
>to continue. It might
>not be what Don wants
>but it is at the
>very least a step in
>the right direction. I
>also can't understand the reason
>for sending out a press
>release including those groups when
>they were opposed to it?
>
>
>I will guess at the response....
>
>
>Because of SFW Utah's elk herd
>has grown to what it
>is...
>Because of SFW Utah is the
>home of all the giant
>bulls...
>Last year conservation tag money raised
>millions of dollars for X
>Y and Z.
>SFW is the reason all of
>the hunting in Utah that
>has gotten better. By
>the way, the fact that
>the deer hunt sucks is
>not our fault. If
>Utah would just give us
>another couple hundred tags for
>the convention and a higher
>percentage of the LE tags
>than we could turn all
>of this around.
>The Expo has raised millions of
>dollars and if you don't
>agree you should go join
>PETA (or the NRA or
>SCI, I guess).
>The things that were promised at
>the meeting before the expo
>tags were extended will be
>provided very soon.


NAILED IT!!
 
Topgun,

Wyoming still doesnt have an accepted plan...lawsuit aside.

They're back to the negotiating table while MT and ID are on their way to reestablishing State wolf control and hunting seasons.

WY will be lucky to be where ID and MT are NOW within the next 10 years.

But, they sure showed the Feds!
 
Your wrong again Topgun. USFWS approved the plan, after repeatadly telling them it wouldn't hold up in court. Wyoming kept submitting the same plan over and over again. So USFWS said OK, let the courts decide. The suit was filed, and Wyoming's plan was proven to be not acceptable according to the ESA, and wolf recovery plan. So the next time USWFS came back to Wyoming, and said give us you management plan, Wyoming gave the same one. So USFWS didn't even look it over. Thats where the Johnson decisson came in. They didn't look at it very long. I must have typed this a thousand times. Wyoming's plan, as is, won't pass any court. Got it. Wow! The only chance for Wyoming is to change their plan. BTW, their plan is legislatively approved, and their legislature just finished up. They meet every 2 years. I don't see any silver linning for them.



I wanted to take a scalp,but the kill was not mine.
 
Boy you sure have some revisionist history going on here.

The USFWS pretty much wrote the current Wyoming plan, after they many times declined Wyoming's plan that had a much smaller Trophy game area. They are the ones who even had it peer reviewed by their so called wolf experts. Maybe you remember all the links I provided you a few weeks ago? The USFWS are the ones who have declined to defend the plan that they wrote, peer reviewed, and accepted in court. There is no scientific evidence that Wyoming's plan fails to meet de-listing requirements. Any decision by the courts would be based on Politics and not science. Even in 2008 Molloy failed to state the reason that he felt Wyoming's plan did not meat de-listing requirements, so he fell back on his safety net of lack of proof for genetic exchange.

Also Wyoming's plan can be changed without legislative approval. The size of the Trophy game size can be changed without legislative approval, the amount of wolves that will be allowed in the Trophy game area can be changed without legislative approval, and the amount of breading pairs can be changed without legislative approval. About the only thing that can not be changed without legislative approval would be completely getting rid of a Predator Management area.

Oh and one last thing, Wyoming legislature meets every year from January through the first part of March, not every other year like you claim. And if needed the Governor can call a special session at anytime.
 
There is no longer a lawsuit, the Feds dropped their appeal of Johnson's decision regarding Wyoming's lawsuit.

I would bet good money that Wyoming will have wolves de-listed within the year, and they will have a so called Predator area as part of that decision.

The decision by the feds to drop their appeal, along with today's announcement that the Eco-terrorists have reached a deal with the feds to stop any lawsuits for five years even if they write a new rule that includes Wyoming, tells me that there most likely has been some type of deal already developed Wyoming and the Feds.

My guess is the Game and Fish will expand the Trophy Game area to include the portion of the Wyoming Range and Wind River Range that were found to be suitable wolf habitat prior to re-introduction. I also believe they will drop the movable Trophy game boundaries, and stick with a solid boundary that can not be moved without USFWS service approval.
 
Wyoming was left out of the current deal...and that wasnt by accident.

I'll take some of that bet on the delisting in WY within a year. Wont happen, all the energy left in the wolf huggers will be spent on WY, UT, WA, and OR.

They know they're well past done in MT and ID.
 
Alright, I'll buy you a beer next time I am in Laramie for a game if they are not de-listed in Wyoming by the end of the year.
 
LAST EDITED ON Mar-18-11 AT 08:34PM (MST)[p]BuzzH---I don't even know why I respond to your posts since they make no sense to me most of the time! Do you just type after I put up a post on this issue to see your name on the BB, lack reading comprehension, or what, LOL? I didn't say Wyoming had an accepted plan by the Feds at the present time. I know Wyoming had a plan that USFWS had accepted at one time, then rescinded. Of that I'm sure and there is no doubt or debate! Now that plan is back on the table for further deliberation, including possible changes, after the Feds dropped their lawsuit in Johnson's court. It will be very interesting to see how the Feds try to get out of the squeeze they put themselves in when they first accepted the plan and then suddenly reversed their decision because of a little outside pressure put on by the antis. From many people's standpoint who want to see state controls and a significant decrease in wolf numbers, dropping the lawsuit would seem to put Wyoming in the driver's seat on the issue now with the reason being that the Feds will need to come up with scientific evidence to refute what they already have accepted at one time. The only way I see these talks not ending fairly soon in favor of Wyoming is if the Feds try to extend the established boundaries again and/or increase the number of wolves/packs needed to delist in Wyoming. If they try that, they will really be playing right into the hands of the legislators, who I would imagine have all the scientific facts, and are working to give all states their individual rights to manage the animals within their boundaries. Then again, maybe with Wyoming having a new Governor, things will change on their part to speed the process up. I know the easy thing for them to do would be to follow your "simple" solution, but that would be a big reversal from their previous stance and would surprise me if it happens. I would have to agree with the last few posts in that there may already be a deal on the table due to things that have happened the last few days.
 
Topgun, NOPE! Wyoming's plan is still unacceptable. Remember the Molloy Court ruling! This plan is also approved by the Wyoming state legislature. So any new plan would have to be re-written, and approved by that legislature. They won't re convene for 2 more years. Nothings changed for Wyoming. I dont see them being able to even move on this.

I wanted to take a scalp,but the kill was not mine.
 
Topgun,

Wyoming isnt even in the car...let alone the drivers seat.

They're back to negotiations trying to get an acceptable plan in place.

I agree with 4100fps, it will be a couple more years before WY get their chance...they've pi$$ed this chance away.
 
Seriously dude, where do you get this stuff from? You are really making yourself look very uneducated on the Wyoming wolf issue.

First of all our legislature meets yearly from January through the first week of March. Odd numbered years are General Session years and even years are Budget Session years. Even in Budget session years General Session items can be brought to the floor as long as they have 2/3 vote prior to being introduced. The Governor can also call a special session if needed any time the legislature is in recess.

Second of all I recommend you read up on some Wyoming statutes. I would start with WS 23-1-101. The Governor of Wyoming for de-listing purposes can instruct the Wyoming Game and Fish commission to enlarge the Trophy Game area boundary to include all of the state of Wyoming that has been deemed as suitable wolf habitat, and have that decision certified without legislative approval.

The Wyoming Game and Fish can also set minimum population numbers,and minimum breeding pair numbers (as long as breeding pairs are above 15 pairs, per WS 23-1-109) without legislative approval.

Wyoming's plan can be changed rather dramatically without ANY legislative approval.
 
If true, I stand corrected. That would be nice. I would guess, thats what is going to happen then. Makes sense now.

I wanted to take a scalp,but the kill was not mine.
 
4100fps, and buzzh don't ever let the facts get in the way. At least the angry Buzzh hasn't surfaced yet. Wyoming will hunt wolves about the same time Id and MT will which will not be until some kind of ESA reform is passed. (kinda like what BGF is introducing). If you think otherwise all you have to do is review the grizzly saga. Public safety, a plethora of bears, and strong support from moderate enviromental groups in favor of delisting didn't stop a activist judge from relisting grizzlies for some BS excuse. The same will happen with wolves. Even if Malloy accepts the comprimise The enviromental groups that "filed for release of counsel" Will find another activist judge and file in the court of a different activist judge with a different BS excuse.
As wyosheds said we can change the plan any time we need but we can change the plan to State wide Trophy Management, and make every resident "adopt a wolf",promise to feed and nuture said named wolf, and give our first born child to the adopted wolf as a sacrifice. We can't win without ESA reform, or without taking matters into our own hands which most Wyoming residents have already decided to do.
 
Fedup, Wyoming's wolf population increased by 7% this past year. Hows that Wyoming resident management going for ya.

Your SFW, BS is getting old. Either this deal will give Montana, and Idaho management, or the 2 Bills knocking on the door steps in Washington will. Wyoming will be left out unless, they change their plan. I don't know the details but that might happen. Nothing BGF introduced will go anywhere. You must not be reading the papers. Guess you didn't know that they chit in their mess kit today.
But hey, you don't let information get in the way of a intelligent conversation.

I wanted to take a scalp,but the kill was not mine.
 
UUUGGGHHH!!

Are we all not on the same team here?? Let's lose the bickering & legal jargon & get together & solve this once & for all. SFW, in my opinion did not give us clear leadership. If they did, I missed that post. Can someone (SFW included if they have the nuts) step up & give the majority of us (who do not know the "exact" details) a basic version of what is really the truth?

I have no dog in this fight other than I support NRA & MDF...SFW has not helped me want to support them, and I want to support wolf delisting. Am I not getting the facts here....where can I find them? Whole thing pisses me off.
 
There is a lot of political BS going on and SFW's focus is on grassroots and State issues. Big Game Forever is one of the few dogs in this fight and it appears that some of those other groups are feeling some pressure to act. It would be nice if they would act like they wanted wolves delisted in all states and not just Idaho and Montana where the Wolves have already done their job. While some of you are slamming Don Peay and SFW the Enviros are figuring another way to stop us from doing what we love. Maybe the Sage grouse or the Spotted Owl or maybe the yellow spotted song bird. Either way SFW is working on the issues in each State and Big Game Forever is fighting the Wolf Fight. Read the article below and if you support SCI, NRA, CSF or Boone & Crocket please encourage them to swallow their pride and get in the game with Big Game Forever,SFW, RMEF, and MDF.

http://westinstenv.org/wildpeop/201...mine-judge-johnsons-ruling-on-wyoming-wolves/
 
ABE:
Looks like there is no need to ask these other groups to swallow their pride, SFW and BGF will claim to have their support already (even when they are told they don't). There is no way to spin this, SFW and BGF got flat busted. SCI has been a leader in the wolf fight from the start. Do you think this is a step in the right direction for Montana and Idaho? Should the hunters in those states reject the deal and allow their wolf populations to go unchecked? Do you, like Don, believe that ypu should either join BGF or PETA. SFW does not speak for me and apparently they don't speak for NRA, SCI etc. What state do you live in? I live in? I live and hunt in Wyoming and think the recent developments are a huge step in the right direction for all states.
.
 
Hey Dino,

Are you really suggesting that "DP" be taken for a ride? Are you thinking about riding around Utah and seeing all of the habitat work that "DP" has helped get done. Are you thinking about taking a ride to the Henry Mountains and seeing the best Mule Deer and Buffallo in the world that "DP" has worked his ass off for? Are you thinking about going for a ride with "DP" to thank him and for that matter the rest of us who bust our humps everyday trying to fix the problems with wildlife? I like Italian food if you are ever interested in sitting down and having a civil open discussion about how we can all help with first the Wolf Issue and then we can go from there.

Thanks for caring and now focus your efforts on helping rather than making threats.
 
UTAH Elk 400 says it all. You want to fix Montana and Idaho while living in and hunting in Wyoming but thinking there are going to be 400" Bulls in Utah. The wolves are already running around Utah and SCI and NRA's lobbiest is sucking up to political intersts for some reason. The Press Release was not sent out publicly it was drafted and sent for review but that is only my opinion.

Giving in and settling with the enemy before the war is won is not an option. Thanks for your reply.
 
ABE:

You have no idea who I am. My name on MM has nothing to do with me thinking that there are going to 400 bulls in Utah. The press release was released by SFW after they were told that NRA and SCI did not aporve of them being included. I have never said it is time to stop the fight but to not accept some ground is a joke. What about Don saying you either join BGF or PETA. This is not an all or nothing deal. To me, every step in the right direction is a good thing. I will bet that if you keep blowing Don's horn it will eventually get you something special from Don :) JMO
 
LAST EDITED ON Mar-19-11 AT 01:38PM (MST)[p] Johnny ABE has a whopping 3 posts.... Don't look at him as a Koolaid sipper look at him as inexperienced.

Some will continue to sip the $FW Koolaid until they figure out that the hangover ain't worth it!!!

Look DP tripped over his ##### on this deal... Fess up and move on Peayday






2010 TOTALS
P.E.T.A. = 0 HUNTERS GONE
UTAH WILDLIFE BOARD = 13,000 HUNTERS GONE
 
Yeah and this is my 4th and last post for a while. I spend my time working on fixing the problem and not bitching about it. All of you "Don Peay Haters" are a disgrace. "We all hate Don because he has found a formula to fix to problem". It isn't about who's special group is better, who the hell cares. Its about the war we are fighting. I don't believe you give in and take a little when you are getting ready to win the whole war. I am going to set back now and see if SCI and NRA join and help us conquer or if they sit back an try to suck up to the Enviromentalists and Liberals who BGF, SFW, RMEF, and MDF have on the run. If you want to suck a little liberal pipe go ahead I'm not interested. While you are checking your email I will be working on the solution.

"If you aren't involved you are part of the problem" (best said by Ted Nugent)
 
LAST EDITED ON Mar-19-11 AT 04:51PM (MST)[p] Alright ABE I asked for restraint on your stoopid ass!!! Last I looked Genius this came about with a Lib in the White House. Last I looked this was pushed in Utah by Matheson a Democrat. Last I looked Wyoming was still not a part of this.

Any of your other brain dead Tea Bag rhetoric you want to spew??? How did W and The ##### Cheney and the GOP fare with getting this done over the previous 8 years?

How about the most conservative pro gun org in the world telling you and $fw to kiss their ASS??

Keep taking the proverbial $FW money shot square in the face
douchebag...

Go to bed now ABE the grown ups want to continue this discussion...




2010 TOTALS
P.E.T.A. = 0 HUNTERS GONE
UTAH WILDLIFE BOARD = 13,000 HUNTERS GONE
 
LAST EDITED ON Mar-19-11 AT 05:05PM (MST)[p]I'll bet ABE is a regular on this site, and a SFW dude that's trying to hide his identity. I would too. I would be totally ashamed of Don Peay,SFW and BGF. What a joke. We all know that Peay does prey on the Bottom feeders to further his cause, and make money.




I wanted to take a scalp,but the kill was not mine.
 
Maybe it's Don himself blowing his own horn under another name! From what I've read here about what you guys are saying about him, it sounds like he's pretty good at it, LOL!!!
 
4100fps,

If you want to see how the wolf thing turns out just look at the grizzly. I've brought this up numerous times and you won't even acknowledge this happened. This is because your either on the wrong side (i.e. card carrying member of Defenders)or you don't want to admit to the facts.
The first three yrs Don was in the wolf fight he thought just like you. Compromise, Compromise, Compromise. He finally realized you can't compromise with people that have a idealogical beliefs. Once again this has nothing to do with wolves, and all to do with ending sport hunting, and Our western heritage.
The Wyoming wolf population may be on the rise but there are the same amount of wolves in the proposed predator area. They haven't really spread because as soon as they travel south of Bondourant they get gunned down by Govt hunters. Thank god for public land grazing.
I'm sorry we will have to see moose become extinct in NW Wyoming but those who will have blood on their hands will be the enviromental groups, and USFWS; not those who who tried to prevent this mess in first place. When there are no moose and wolves are dying of starvation no one from my side will say "I wish we would have compromised more, We could have prevented all of this"
No doubt your side will still be blaming us "if Wyoming would of compromised it could have turned out just like the grizzly", oh wait that didn't turn out to good either. its the same idealogical beliefs.
 
LAST EDITED ON Mar-19-11 AT 11:27PM (MST)[p]Fedup, how does Don Peay's lying about the positions of these other national organizations help protect Wyoming moose, control predators, fight off the anti's, or improve access and opportunities for hunters?

That action goes directly against my idealogical beliefs.
____________________________

I hunt. I fish. I VOTE.

Get the F out of SFW
 
I won't speak to what Don has said and his apparant misrepsentation of SCI, and the NRA. I don't know the facts and I'm in no way affliated with SFW, other than I believe SFW, and BGF is the only group on the right track in the wolf fight. He can speak to these if he wishes to do so.
I'm just saying that no amount of compromise, back room deals with extremist enviromental groups or the USFWS (same thing by the way) will do anything to help Wyoming moose.
The only long term solution is ESA reform. As long as enviromental groups (USFWS) can put and keep animals on the ESA that are not endangered we as sportsmen and tax payers are sunk.
 
Note: the following is excerpted from a March 17, 2011, letter written to members of the Wyoming Wolf Coalition by their able attorney, Harriet Hageman. The full text is [here].

Alert! High Priority! Call to Action!

Please ask Congress to stop throwing Wyoming to the wolves

by Harriet M. Hageman

Executive Summary

We reported to you earlier this week that the Federal Defendants in the above-referenced actions have voluntarily withdrawn their appeal to the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals. We were a bit surprised by the agencies? move in that regard, but now believe that we have uncovered the reasoning behind it.

* Judge Johnson?s decision has now ?gone final? in favor of Wyoming?s Wolf Management Plan, and has the full force and effect of law.

* There are troubling efforts afoot in Congress that are designed to reverse this important victory for Wyoming, to ?undo? Judge Johnson?s decision, and to nullify the rights of all States to manage their wildlife resources.

The purpose of this letter is to describe those activities, and to issue a call to action for all of you who have fought this battle over the last several decades.

Ruling in Favor of Wyoming?s Wolf Management Plan Becomes Law of the Land

On November 18, 2010, the Honorable Alan B. Johnson, the Federal District Court Judge for the District of Wyoming, issued his ?Order Setting Aside Agency Decision in Part and Remanding Agency Decision in Part,? finding that the Defendants (the Department of Interior (DOI), the Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), Ken Salazar, Rowan Gould, and Stephen Guertin) had acted ?arbitrarily and capriciously? in rejecting the Wyoming Wolf Management Plan [here]. More specifically, Judge Johnson concluded (among other things) that the Defendants violated the Endangered Species Act (ESA) when they rejected Wyoming?s proposal to designate wolves as trophy game animals in certain areas, and predators in others. ?

Key testimony provided by the top federal wolf biologist (Ed Bangs) concluded that the ?2007 Wyoming wolf plan is a solid science-based conservation plan that will adequately conserve Wyoming?s share of the GYA wolf population so that the NRM wolf population will never be threatened again.? Id. at 032183. As you know, Wyoming has since adopted even more safeguards that what existed in the 2007 Plan.

The Defendants initially appealed Judge Johnson?s decision to the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals. On Monday of this week, however, they voluntarily dismissed that appeal. Such action resulted in Judge Johnson?s decision ?going final,? thereby ensuring that it is not subject to collateral attack. In other words, Judge Johnson?s decision is now ?the law of the land? and cannot be attacked by either the federal agencies or any environmental groups. We are pleased that this common-sense result affirms the science-based reality that Wyoming?s Plan provides adequate protections to Wyoming?s wolf population.

Judge Johnson?s decision was a great victory for all of the citizens of the State of Wyoming, including our livestock producers, our sportsmen groups, and our outfitters. It was a great victory for those cities and counties in Wyoming that have suffered the economic impacts of an ever-expanding wolf population. Judge Johnson?s decision, and the dismissal of the 10th Circuit Appeal, will also allow Wyoming to protect its historically-abundant wildlife species, including those elk and moose populations that have suffered so tremendously as the result of the federal agencies? intransigence associated with the ?wolf experiment.? ?

TROUBLING EFFORTS BREWING IN CONGRESS AS IT SEEKS TO REVERSE WYOMING?S VICTORY

I am now writing to you with great disappointment, as I fear that our victory in the wolf saga is now at risk. Once again it appears that politics may prevail over science and good public policy. Wyoming?s Wolf Management Plan and our victory before Judge Johnson are now at risk as the direct result of an amendment that has been introduced by Representative Mike Simpson, a Republican from Idaho, and Senators John Tester and Max Baucus, Democrats from Montana. The amendment would either be added to the ?continuing resolutions? that have been in the news lately (to keep the federal government running as the House and Senate seek to hammer out the 2011 budget), or to the budget bill itself.

The purpose of the Simpson/Tester/Baucus amendment is as simple as it is troubling. It is designed to delist the wolf populations in Idaho and Montana, as well as parts of Oregon, Utah and Washington, while the remainder of the States ?- including Wyoming -? are left to fend for themselves. Most importantly, however, the very wording of the proposed amendment appears to be designed to nullify Judge Johnson?s decision in its entirety.

Mr. Simpson?s amendment works by reinstating the USFWS?s 2009 Final Rule (the one rejected by Judge Molloy in Montana). There are two sections of the 2009 Rule that are important here, both of which would become law if the Simpson/Tester/Baucus amendment passes. As you remember, the first portion of that Rule approved the then-existing Montana and Idaho Wolf Management Plans, both of which allowed the States to assume management authority over their wolves (although with federal permission and involvement). The second part of the 2009 Final Rule rejected Wyoming?s Wolf Management Plan, stating that ?the Wyoming portion of the range represents a significant portion of range where the species remains in danger of extinction because of inadequate regulatory mechanisms.? 74 Fed.Reg. 15123.

Considering the language of the 2009 Rule, if Congressman Simpson and Senators Tester and Baucus were to be successful in including their proposed language as part of either a short-term ?continuing resolution,? or the 2011 budget, and such bill passes both the U.S. House and the Senate, we can fully expect that the federal agencies and the environmental groups will argue that Judge Johnson?s decision has been congressionally nullified. Even more troubling is the fact that their amendment includes language that is intended to then block Wyoming from challenging the statute: ?Such reissuance [of the Final Rule] shall not be subject to judicial review.? HR 1, Sec. 1713. To state that this is a real and immediate threat to Wyoming?s ability to assume management of the wolf population is an understatement.

You may ask: ?why would Simpson, Tester and Baucus seek to impose a rule from 2009 when, from the States? rights standpoint, and from the standpoint of wolf management, Judge Johnson?s decision is much more favorable to every State in the Union?? I have asked the same question, and none of the answers are favorable.

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

By supporting only limited delisting in just a few of the affected States, these four so-called sportsmen groups have essentially sold out everyone else that has been affected by this issue. While these groups also support all of the wolf delisting bills, including some very good legislation (discussed below), their actions in supporting HR 1 (with Congressman Simpson?s amendment) has allowed the Representatives and Senators to ?race for the bottom? in order to take the weakest stand possible on the issue.

While these groups publicly claim that they support delisting in all western States, as well as in Wisconsin, Michigan and Minnesota, their actions are counterproductive. Their support of the amendment described above will likely undermine other pending wolf litigation that will protect all States. Their actions will also have a more dire outcome: the important victory that is represented by Judge Johnson?s decision, and that resulted from years of hard-fought battles and the investment of tens of thousands of dollars, could be lost. This does not hurt only Wyoming, but will hurt every State in the nation that seeks to manage its own wildlife without the federal agencies? unlawful (and often-times destructive) micro-management out of Washington, D.C.

There are two other bills currently pending in Congress - HR509 and S249, both of which would return management of wolves to all of the affected States. The Simpson/Tester/Baucus approach not only undermines our ability to get either one of these bills passed, but will likely make it more difficult to obtain any additional Congressional action into the foreseeable future. In other words, the actions of Simpson/Tester/Baucus, along with the NRA, SCI, CFS, and Boone and Crocket, have enabled those who seek to prevent the passage of any other bill that would actually provide for legitimate and effective delisting of the wolves.

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.

By supporting a weak piece of legislation, these groups have allowed several of the Congressional Representatives and Senators to play both sides of the aisle -? to argue that they support delisting when such claims suit their political aspirations, and to argue that they fought against delisting when such a position will garner them votes from the so-called ?environmental? groups. In other words, this amounts to nothing more than obtaining only the slightest and short-term moral victory for a limited number of people, and at the same time ensuring a very troubling defeat for the citizens of Wyoming and for the States? right to manage wildlife. While we recognize that political compromises are sometimes necessary, I cannot support legislation that is specifically designed to undo Judge Johnson?s finding that the Wyoming Wolf Management Plan is biologically and scientifically sound. This is simply not good science, good public policy or even good politics. ?

We fully and whole-heartedly support delisting in Idaho and Montana (and all of the States where wolves exist). Such delisting, however, cannot be done so that Wyoming is sacrificed at the alter of environmental extremism.

Judge Johnson?s decision must stand. We must fight against this effort to use the promise of delisting in Idaho and Montana (and portions of Oregon, Utah, and Washington) as a ruse to nullify the most important decision that the States have obtained in the last seventeen (17)+ years of wolf battles, as well as the rights of States to control their own destiny in terms of wildlife management.

Please contact the offices of Congressman Simpson, and Senators Tester and Baucus and ask them to support only HR 509 and S249. Please request that they not re-introduce the Wyoming-busting amendment described above.

Please contact Representative Lummis? office and thank her for her strength and continued efforts to fight this battle on your behalf. Please call the offices of Senators Enzi and Barrasso and thank them for their hard work in supporting the right bills on this issue, while fighting against the bad ones. Our Congressional Delegation has stood strong on this issue, and we need to commend them for their efforts on our behalf.

Please contact the NRA, SCI, CFS and Boone and Crocket and ask them to stop their support of an amendment that is specifically designed to undo our important and hard-fought victories. Ask them to instead focus their efforts on passing a solution that protects all of the States that have been plagued by this predator. Ask them to stop throwing Wyoming to the wolves.

Please distribute this letter to anyone you believe could help us to expose what is going on in Congress.

Sincerely,

Harriet M. Hageman
18 Mar 2011, 10:52am
by Mike


Rep. Mike Simpson is a RINO and frequent saboteur of conservative causes. Sen. Jon Tester is a pro-holocaust forest destroyer and darling of the Earth First! monkey-wrencher crowd. Sen. Max Baucus is the single most corrupt, bribe-taking member of Congress.

This unholy troika seeks to undermine wolf delisting and ensure endless litigation. They wish to thwart HR509 and S249, which would delist gray wolves nationwide.

H 509 and S249 are supported by Representatives and Senators from over 30 states. Those bills are on the verge of passage. Simpson/Tester/Baucus are attempting to backstab those bills through cynical maneuvers.

Don?t be fooled by the Unholy Troika!

It is appalling that organizations such as the NRA and SCI are supporting Simpson/Tester/Baucus. We really don't need to be backstabbed by those pseudo-conservative lobbyist groups, either. If you are a member, please withdraw your support and cut off their funding.

Snatching defeat from the jaws of victory is the dumbest thing conservative conservationists could do right now.
18 Mar 2011, 10:54am
by John R.


I have had gnawing doubts about the real value of the ?compromise bill? sponsored by Idaho Representative Simpson and Senators Tester and Baucus of Montana. This compromise bill would reinstate USFWS 2009 Final Rule while delisting the wolf in Idaho, Montana and in parts of Washington, Oregon, and Utah, while leaving all other states out in the trade off.

That was bad enough; but there is an even greater deleterious effect of this bill that has come to light. In addition, the Simpson/Tester/Baucus bill will overrule and sacrifice the great victory that Wyoming just obtained in Federal Court (Judge Johnson) upholding the Wyoming wolf management plan, which designated wolves as trophy animals in the NW part of the State and as a predator capable of being shot elsewhere in the State. Contrary to Judge Johnson?s ruling, the 2009 Final Rule rejected Wyoming?s wolf management plan states that ?the Wyoming portion of the range represents a significant portion of range where the species remains in danger of extinction because of inadequate regulatory mechanisms.? In his decision, Judge Johnson found, ?There is no scientific or commercial data that suggests the state?s dual classification of wolves, in and of itself, cannot meet, accomplish, and maintain the identified recovery goals in the GYA, including northwestern Wyoming.? Reimplementation of the 2009 Final Rule will eradicate this great court decision, which is now final and beyond the appeal time.

Moreover, the Simpson/Tester/Baucus bill will significantly weaken the chances for the passage of other contemporary companion bills that are in play: HR509 and S249. These two companion bills provide far more flexibility and control over wolves and don't throw Wyoming under the bus. The Simpson/Tester/Baucus bill is a ?political bill,? that will enable politicians to satisfy both sides. The Wyoming victory is the first major victory in the wolf wars. It should not be sacrificed.
19 Mar 2011, 5:14pm
by Barry


Mr. Simpson is playing a dangerous political game considering he is from Idaho. Tester and Baucus may have the liberty of playing to the progressives of Montana, but if Simpson thinks he'll slide through the next election by claiming a victory in getting wolves ?delisted? under such a guise in the state of Idaho, he is seriously mistaken.

He has already been contacted, and he has already been informed of the people who will work against his reelection should he continue down this path of deceit. Crawling in bed with those two clowns sure isn't going to fly well in this state.

Allowing continued abuse of the system and the EAJA by these environmental, so called, nonprofits, so-called, just is not acceptable. Watching a state by state attack take place that is nothing but a rerun of what this state was put through is not something I will stand by and just watch happen.

We have learned about you, Mr. Simpson. It would be wise to take note of the changes our side has brought about, and if you want that working against you, so be it, but when you find yourself booted in the next primary, you won't have anyone to blame but
 
LAST EDITED ON Mar-20-11 AT 11:52AM (MST)[p]Translation - Some claiming to represent Wyoming don't want Wyoming to be disconnected from MT and ID. What happened to the entire state's rights thing?

This diatribe makes it sound as though the attorney representing Wyoming doesn't want MT and ID to be able to exercise our state rights. Is that correct?

I am all for WY exercising their rights, and have supported their right to do so. Now that MT and ID have found a solution to disconnect all of us, seems like some don't want us disconnected.

Sounds like "Mike" and "John R.", whoever they are, don't have much use for MT and ID exercising their state rights. Why, I don't know.

Make no mistake, the reason the wolf lovers are fighting among themselves and running for the doors is that they see the Simpson bill will pass. They know it, and they can do nothing about it. They are trying to save face.

Now that they are gasping for air, we need to choke the last bit of life out of them. Trying to kill the Simpson language, which this attorney seems to be advocating, and seems to be the position of SFW and BGF, is a bail out.

Why these supposed hunters want to kill the only bill that has a chance of passing, is beyond me. Why they want to give more air to the wolf nuts, is also beyond me.

Seems like the Wyoming attorney doesn't want the wolf issue to move forward with solutions. Seems like SFW and BGF don't want any progress. Seems like the wolf lovers don't want any progress. Strange mix of people all on the same side of wanting to kill the Simpson language.

From the outside looking in, all three of those groups seem to gain financial benefit from the wolf issue dragging on. Merely an observation easily drawn from the facts, and could be completely wrong.

The SFW bill, S.249 doesn't have a chance of passing, and everyone knows it. 61 co-sponsors, is not going to get it passed in Congress. The pro-wolf nuts are not afraid of the SFW bill. They are afraid of the Simpson language.

Keep trying to deny MT and ID our state rights, all you want. All indicators are that you are wasting your time.

Once this Simpson language passes, we will be able to exercise our state rights in MT and ID and manage wolves under our plans, and let WY move on with their states rights fight.

WY will be able to fight the Feds, USFWS, wolf nuts, and anyone they want, without any worry of causing any collateral damage to MT and ID. Isn't that the state rights fight that WY wants?

Personally, I will continue to do what I can to help WY as you try to exercise your state rights, even though so many want to keep MT and ID hunters connected to WY, causing MT and ID hunters to cover the checks WY is writing.

Good luck.

"Hunt when you can - You're gonna' run out of health before you run out of money!"
 
I see Harriet Hageman is NOT the attorney for the state of Wyoming.

Rather, she is the attorney for the Wyoming Wolf Coalition, which includes SFW, BGF, WY Stockgrowers, WY Woolgrowers, WY Outfitters and Guides Assoc.

I thought those folks all wanted states rights? Or do they only want states rights when it helps them, even if it puts MT and ID elk in shackles so the wolves can continue eating our elk.

So now we see once again SFW's name attached to efforts to kill the bill that will disconnect MT and ID from Wyoming. This is about as direct connection as has ever come out.

I previously thought this could all be rumor, that SFW would fight to kill bills that represent real progress and have the wolf nuts scared as hell.

Guess it is not rumor anymore, either that, or Ms. Hageman is misrepresenting SFW, the same as they did to NRA, SCI, CSF.

I see she even went after Boone and Crockett in her drivel, in addition to NRA, SCI, and CSF. Given I am a life member of NRA and B&C, I am glad to see those groups being called out by the legal counsel of SFW.

My days of keeping an opened mind on this one are quickly ending. The facts are more than apparent who is trying to kill wolf bills - SFW/BGF, and now we learn the same of WY Stockgrowers, WY Woolgrowers, WY Outfitters and Guides Assoc.

Imagine what the MT-SFW guys are going to think when they realize the money they have been raising from MT hunters in the name of getting MT control of our wolves has been used to kill bills that would give MT hunters the right to start smashing these wolves.

Thanks for posting that juliusvatalaro. It pretty much confirms the tactics that SFW is employing, both discretely in DC and outright via their legal counsel, to keep MT and ID connected to WY, and what their real position is on "states rights."

If it wasn't such a serious issue, I would say, "What a joke." It is not a joke.

"Hunt when you can - You're gonna' run out of health before you run out of money!"
 
The email (referred to in original post) that came to me was from Big Game forever. It eas signed at the end by Don Peay.

Bigfin, are you now telling me that SFW stands for.....

'Sportsmen For Wolves?'
 
> The email (referred to in
>original post) that came to
>me was from Big Game
>forever. It eas signed at
>the end by Don Peay.
>
>
>Bigfin, are you now telling me
>that SFW stands for.....
>
>'Sportsmen For Wolves?'

Hmmm, I never thought of that.

It appears that a case could be made for such, in light of the NRA revelation, and now this SFW attorney's email calling out every group that is supporting other wolf delisting bills.

Seems like a bad time to be pitching one's camp with the wolf nuts. But, we all make our own beds.

"Hunt when you can - You're gonna' run out of health before you run out of money!"
 
LAST EDITED ON Mar-20-11 AT 07:59PM (MST)[p]How anyone ever defended DP and SFW is a complete mystery to me.

How anyone could continue to defend them after this thread is absolutely unbelieveable....

What a joke.

I'm anxious to hear from Don why he and SFW feel the need to trash the NRA, SCI, and B&C through their attorney???
 
The passage of the Simpson bill will only allow the lawsuits to continue and not allow the states to manage wolves. With this bill even Idaho and Montana will still be at the mercy of the wolf lovers. They will still be at the mercy of the feds and how they want wolves managed. This bill is a sellout of sportsmen.

NRA, SCI and the others have been late in support of the currant wolf delisting efforts and with them excepting the simpson bill they are throwing the rest of the states under the bus. But then they do raise a lot of money in defending lawsuits. Its crazy how they have a chance to put an end to them all by supporting S. 249 and HR 509. but are only doing so half-assed. There are 61 senators and congressmen signed on in support but these groups put more effort into a bill with 3 names on it, and only turns the clock back 2 years so the lawsuits can continue.
This fight is only going to get bloodier.
 
Mr. Hettick,

Why does Don have to answer to anything. SCI, NRA, and Boone & Crocket are trying to settle the ESA/Wolf problem by putting a bandaid over the States that are already ruined. Utah, Colorado, Washington, Oregon, Wisconsin, Michigan and many other states are now starting to be affected because the Fed wants to manage wildlife from Washington DC. The problem can only be fixed if the ESA and Wolf Management gets turned over to all States. We have been fighting this issue for 10 years now and we don't have 10 more years to try to go State by State to fix the problem. Take your attacks on SFW and Big Game Forever and keep focusing on those that are fighting for you. How does that make sense?
 
LAST EDITED ON Mar-21-11 AT 08:54AM (MST)[p]Today we get the Big Game Forever version of events in their press release. Link attached.

http://www.theoutdoorwire.com/story/1300697820a6c76kh830f

No denial that they were working behind the scenes to kill the Simpson language that has the wolf nuts on the run. Merely an explanation that this was not a public communication.

This part is almost comical.

"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."

Evidently it is OK to lay the pipe to hunters, so long as you are doing it privately.

No denial that they were lobbying to kill these bills and leave MT and ID connected to WY, just complaining that whatever third party they hire for such communications accidently distributed such.

How funny that the wolf nuts are scared of the Simpson langauge, enough so that they now want to present some lame negotiated settlement. Screw the settlement, go for the throat at this time.

And SFW/BGF is scared of the Simpson language, enough to fight against it in DC and to have their attorney go on the offensive and persuade people to go after SCI/NRA/CSF/B&C, and ask people to lobby Congress to kill the Simpson language.

Nice to hear their side of the story. This was their chance to deny the rumors they are fighting to kill these other bills. If there is a denial in that release, I did not gather such.

Guess we can now put this topic to bed. All sides have spoken. The facts do not seem to be in dispute by any side.

The good news is, we know who stands where.

And the better news is that we have the wolf nuts on their knees, begging for forgiveness. Now is not the time for leniancy or forgiveness.

"Hunt when you can - You're gonna' run out of health before you run out of money!"
 
LAST EDITED ON Mar-21-11 AT 10:01AM (MST)[p]BigFin---This is getting crazier by the day and ABE must be on their paid staff!!! I wonder who the "third party" is that he's referring to that issued the press release that the organizations jumped on. It doesn't show much for those two bunches and now they come out with what I would call more than a "lame azz" excuse for the whole deal!
 
>LAST EDITED ON Mar-21-11
>AT 10:01?AM (MST)
>
>BigFin---This is getting crazier by the
>day and ABE must be
>on their paid staff!!!
>I wonder who the "third
>party" is that he's referring
>to that issued the press
>release that the organizations jumped
>on. It doesn't show
>much for those two bunches
>and now they come out
>with what I would call
>more than a "lame azz"
>excuse for the whole deal!
>

TOPGUN - That is an interesting observation. Not sure if he is a paid staff member, or not. Guess it really doesn't matter, as the organization has given their side of events. No one is arguing that SFW/BGF is working to kill other wolf bills.

Would agree about the lameness factor you mention. If some third party caused me this much headache, I would be calling out that third party in my press release. I would fire them and tell the world why I fired them. And, if the damage was created by them, and not by my actions, I would sue the hell out of them.

Time to hang up on this one. The questions I had last month, and last week, have been answered. SFW and BGF are more than entitled to their opinions to solving the wolf fiasco.

As a MT hunter who is already been "Thrown under the bus," I am disturbed to see hunting groups wanting to kill bills that would allow MT and ID out from under the bus.

When SFW and their supporters talk about states getting "thrown under the bus," it rings pretty hollow here. If you want to know what the view is from "under the bus" just ask us. We have been drug along and been watching from "under the bus" for a few years now.

The view sucks. So, let us out from under the bus and let all three states get on with their own spats with USFWS. That is all we are asking. We will support WY in anything they want to do with their states rights.

Just hoping that hunters can see that for those of us already "under the bus," it is a hard pill to swallow when it becomes clear that hunting groups would rather see us and our elk stay "under the bus" while they make political and financial hay with the entire issue.

We expect such from the wolf wingnuts. We do not expect such from groups claiming to represent hunters, and seeking our donations.

Happy Hunting to all. May 2011 be your best hunting seasons ever. And may all of us shoot a wolf this year.

"Hunt when you can - You're gonna' run out of health before you run out of money!"
 
TOPGUN-For someone who doesn't really know that much about the issue(by your own admission earlier),you sure are quick to jump on the bandwagon.Just sayin..IMO,Wyoming has been on the right side of this issue all along.The fact that Mt and Id chose to bow down to the feds has absolutely nothing to do with what Wyoming chose to do.We didn't "throw anyone under the proverbial bus".BigFin-If you think for one second this issue will be dead if the Simpson ammendment passes with the budget bill;I can't wait to see your response when it doesn't produce the outcome you think it will.While you claim to have nothing against Wyoming,it is pretty evident(at least to me)that there is some lingering resentment on your part.The Simpson ammendment has polarized sportsmen even more than we were before.I am not a member of SFW,but I do belong to MDF.I have one question for you-Where was NRA,SCI,and the other groups before?Why did they wait so long to jump on the wolf issue?SFW has been on the wolf issue front lines since the beginning,while we sat around and bickered amongst ourselves.RMEF finally jumped on the bandwagon after sitting on the fence for years.I quit RMEF for that reason.I will rejoin them now,but am seriously considering not renewing my NRA membership-because of this.I guess you're satisfied that this issue is now dead and you have proven some kind of point(one that I personally do not see).We'll see.Oh,and TOPGUN-I know you will respond angrily,but I will not respond back to you.This is my one and only comment on this thread.NT.
 
There is so much political crap in all of this ....
So just tryin to keep up????? What is Wyomings plan of state management of the wolf population? That they would be considered predators like coyotes and could be shot on site except in nw trophy areas?
 
One only needs to look at the organizations represented in the initial law suits to see who is engaged. For the record, SCI has been there on all fronts - judicial, legislative and administrative. Working in the trenches is neither glamorous or always heralded. It is indeed unfortunate that this discussion has escalated to a public forum.
 
NT stated:

"The fact that Mt and Id chose to bow down to the feds has absolutely nothing to do with what Wyoming chose to do."

Since when is creating your own state plan that reflects the ideals and values of that state, "bowing down?" The MT plan was built by livestock producers and hunters, hardly the wolf loving crowd.

Just because it does not agree with the position WY took, does not mean MT "bowed down." Feel free to think that all you want.

It reflects poorly on your understanding of how this process has worked. And, seems to indicate what you think of MT exercising our states rights.

NT stated:

"We didn't "throw anyone under the proverbial bus."

I assume you mean Wyoming when you say "we." I don't know anyone who claimed WY threw MT under the bus. I sure haven't and I don't blame WY for MT being under the bus.

This is how the stupid process worked, and in effect, the Malloy decision threw us under the bus. Now that we have a chance to get out from "under the bus" a lot of people are whining.

Why do you not want us out from under the bus? Interested in learning your motivations for seeing MT and ID continue to be under the bus.

I might be wrong, but your comments make it seem like you would rather the Simpson bill not pass and MT and ID stay under the bus.

So much for our states rights. Maybe you support the Simpson bill and MT and ID getting disconnected from WY, but that is not what I gathered from your comments.

NT stated:

"BigFin-If you think for one second this issue will be dead if the Simpson ammendment passes with the budget bill."

I have no illusions that the wolf issue is going away. I want to see the Simpson bill pass, and every other bill pass, that puts an end to this screwed up process.

Even with the Simpson bill, these states will be faced with lawsuits from the same groups, rather than the USFWS being sued.

The Simpson bill gets us a hell of a lot further along than we are right now. Not sure why you and SFW and the WY Wolf Coalition have a problem with that.

NT stated:

"I can't wait to see your response when it doesn't produce the outcome you think it will."

See my comment above. I have been in this fray for 15 years, so I am not expecting miracles.

Do you really think S.249, which has about ZERO chance of final passage and being signed by the President, will produce the outcome you and SFW seem to think it will?

These groups are not going away, whether it is a head-fake settlement, the Simpson language, or S.249. The wolf is too much money to them. And, it appears to be a lot of money for those against the Smpson language.


NT stated:

"While you claim to have nothing against Wyoming,it is pretty evident(at least to me)that there is some lingering resentment on your part."

Think what you want. In every post I have ever made, I respect Wyoming's right to exercise their options. They should not do anything they feel is counter to the interest of their citizens. Where you draw this conclusion is a mystery to me.

All MT wants, is to be disconnected from the spat WY and the USFWS are having. Why do you not want us to be disconnected?

Is the state rights of WY more important to you than MT? Seems that some groups feel that way, and are fighting to see that MT and ID stay under the bus and that we don't get to exercise our state rights.

Again, you can think all you want about my feelings of WY. Even if the Simpsons bill passes, you can count on my support for anything that allows WY to exercise their state rights. Can I count on your support for MT getting to exercise our rights?

NT stated:

"The Simpson ammendment has polarized sportsmen even more than we were before."

Really? The Simpson bill seems to have most the MT guys pretty well behind it, with the exception of a few SFW guys. Cannot speak for ID.

I only hear one group and one voice claiming the Simpson language is poalrizing. That voice is all coming from one mouth. The mouth being fed by SFW. And the WY Wolf Coalition. Are you part of that coalition, also?

Seems like most of Congress is behind it. It is going to pass, and is why the wolf nuts are running scared.

The wolf nuts are not behind it, but neither is SFW, so it probably represents progress.

I guess we get to disagree on that one.

NT stated:

"I have one question for you-Where was NRA,SCI,and the
other groups before? Why did they wait so long to jump on the wolf issue?"

You would have to ask them, but I suspect it is because they were waiting to see if the process would work itself out according to the reintroduction documents that three states signed onto.

With the Malloy decision, it has become obvious that this is a fiasco, and they have jumped in to support anything that represents progress, including the Simpson bill. I suspect they support S.249 also, just as I do.

NT stated:

"SFW has been on the wolf issue front lines since the beginning,while we sat around and bickered amongst ourselves."

Let me see if I can stop laughing long enough to reply.

SFW has been in this since the beginning - Really? Are you serious in that statement?

When was the beginning? Since the beginning of the time that wolves became a profit center, about two years ago? Hate to burst the bubble here, but the wolf deal started long before that.

Maybe they were involved in WY wolf issues for a while, but they have not been involved in it from MT until showing up with their donation cup a few years ago. A cup that was filled, and now apparently used to fund efforts to kill bills that would help MT hunters.

If you can show me where SFW was involved in it since the beginning, which is 1995, I will admit that I am wrong. And you just saying so isn't gonna cut it.

When was SFW formed? Were they even formed when this all started in 1995? When you say "from the beginning," that is 1995, to most guys who have been in this "from the beginning."

Tell you what NT, you and your groups support MT and ID getting out from under the bus, and I will support whatever WY wants to do with their spat with USFWS. Deal?

Really no skin off my nose in that deal, as I have supported WY all along, and will continue to support them.

Can the same be said about how you view MT and ID?

"Hunt when you can - You're gonna' run out of health before you run out of money!"
 
You guys are way over your heads on this one! Here is an official statement from Big Game Forever;

Montana/Molloy wolf settlement announcement. What does it mean?
Important Big Game Forever updates from last week!
Policy vs. Politics: Getting Past the Rhetoric and False Promises of Wolf Delisting
As many of you are already aware, there were some major developments on the wolf delisting front last week. The government dropped it's appeal of Judge Johnson?s ruling in favor of Wyoming?s wolf plan. 9 of 13 environmental plaintiff?s settled out of the Molloy decision which could mean a wolf hunt for Idaho and Montana next season (if accepted by the Judge).

What does it all mean? Are we on the right track?

What this all shows is that the effort of Big Game Forever, sportsmen from across the country, and other partner organizations is making a huge difference. Leaders in Congress have wolf delisting high on their priority lists. Press releases directed to settlement proposals announced last week all included references to increasing pressure in Congress. Your efforts are making the key difference.

This article spells out why some proposed wolf-delisting bills are very good and some are very bad. There are efforts to use our urgency to get wolves delisted to pass some bills that will be bad for the future of hunting. We explain simple tests to understand the difference between a short-term promise and a long-term solution. We also explain how business as usual will not fix the wolf problem. Finally, the article talks about the type of effort required to overcome years of ambivalence about the future of wolves and wildlife in America.

Why did we go to Congress?
I believe all sportsmen support the notion of having a wolf hunt to potentially allow for recovery of some elk, moose and deer herds. However, a wolf hunt isn't enough to provide meaningful recovery of wildlife herds. Nor can the root failures of the wolf experiment be fixed simply by a wolf hunt. To begin restoring balance of wildlife populations in the West and Upper Midwest, state wildlife managers need to be able to do their job. How does that happen?

Short Term Promises vs. Long Term Solutions
Over the last several months, we have seen multiple bills, settlement proposals etc. that have been heralded as ?wolf-delisting.? If you see a promise of wolf delisting, be warned. A lot of these promises are what Representative Cynthia Lummis (R), Wyoming has described as a ?wolf in sheep?s clothing.? Some, if not most of these bills, fall short of providing the long-term solutions needed to fix this mess.

Here is a test to determine whether the proposed ?wolf delisting? is a short-term promise or a long term solution: Does the provision (a) return primacy of state wildlife decision making authority; or does it (b) leave wolf management subject to federal statute and ongoing federal oversight? If wolves remain subject to federal statute, all of the same structural flaws that have led to years of frustration and delays remain firmly in place. This means the government is saying once again, to rely on trust instead of legal protections for the future of proper wolf management. This model has not worked for 20 years. It will not work now.

Here is why State Management vs Federal Control is so Important
State Wildlife Management
States are the only political unit with full jurisdiction to manage ALL wildlife. This applies to game as well as hundreds, and perhaps thousands, of non-game species. The Federal Government doesn't really manage wildlife on its own, but is rather is given limited authority over distinct wildlife issues such as endangered species and migratory waterfowl. State wildlife management provides protection for wildlife while also providing important management flexibility. This flexibility allows states to adjust appropriately to changing circumstances to ensure the health of big game and non-game species.

Federal Control
Federal wildlife statutes by contrast are directed to a limited range of wildlife issues. Most ?federal management activities? are typically fulfilled by state wildlife managers as the ?designated agent.? In most circumstances, when wildlife issues are under federal protections such as the Endangered Species Act, needed flexibility is replaced with restrictions. More importantly, federal statutes provide a powerful tool chest of one-sided litigation provisions for private plaintiffs. Most of these provisions remove flexibility in management decisions by states or the federal government. These restriction and litigation provisions were originally developed for unsuccessful species that do not compete well in their natural environment and tend to have little direct impact on other wildlife populations. More importantly, it was assumed that such provisions would be utilized by private plaintiffs with common sense. This clearly has not been the case with wolves and wolf litigation.

Wolf Hunt vs Restoring Balance
For months we have been talking about Congressional action to ?delist wolves from the Endangered Species act.? What we are really talking about is returning flexibility in management decisions to state wildlife managers. Many feel a federally supervised wolf hunt is a step in the right direction. But much more important than just a wolf hunt is the importance of removing wolves from the difficult and one-sided litigation provisions of federal statute that have led to an endless cycle of litigation. This litigation will continue to prevent state wildlife managers from doing their job. In other words, if we hope to restore balance to game herds, primacy of state wildlife decision-making must also be restored when it comes to wolves. From a practical standpoint, this will not happen as long as: (a) the federal government remains in an oversight role; and (b) the one-sided litigation provisions can be abused by environmental and animal rights litigants. Removing these litigation provisions is a simple as removing wolves from the federal statutes. All state wildlife protections will remain in place for wolves under this scenario.

Understanding the Tester/Baucus/Simpson Bills and Molloy Settlement
Here is a quick application of the litmus test to the ?other? bills. There are three other ?bills? which are often discussed: (1) the Tester/Baucus bill; (2) the Simpson language in the Continuing Resolution (much the same as the Tester/Baucus bill); (3) the Molloy settlement provisions. These bills and almost every other wolf bill we have seen fail to pass the test. In other words, under all of these provisions, wolves remain subject to federal oversight; federal statutes and related litigation provisions. As a result, these bills fail to remove the litany of impediments which have: (1) prevented effective wolf management; and (2) prevented recovery of elk, moose and deer herds. It is important that we do not fall for these promises as ?wolf delisting.? Most of these bills simply mean the state will be managing according to federal approved guidelines. Once again, this does not provide the flexibility state?s need to do their job.

Well intentioned or not, we are once again being asked to ignore the failures of federal statutes. We know federal statutes do not work when it comes to dealing with a capable, resilient and often destructive predator like the wolf. More significantly, many of these bills have underlying ?poison pill? provisions that really are the equivalent of a ?wolf in sheep?s clothing.? For example, the Tester/Baucus/Simpson provisions create the potential for an indefinite wolf listing and remove key safeguards that allow states to challenge such provisions. Additionally, the provision would have the effect of reversing Judge Johnson?s ruling in favor of: (a) state wildlife management supremacy over federal micromanagement; and (b) Wyoming?s wolf management plan. As another example, the Molloy settlement would allow the federal government to undo longstanding agreements related to wolf minimum numbers and also includes other ?poison pills.? All of these provisions ignore the need for Midwestern delisting and protecting other states from a future of wolf problems.

Hatch/Rehberg Bills S. 249 and H.R. 509
The American Big Game and Livestock Protection Act is the only bill, settlement, or compromise that actually passes the test. Under its provisions wolf populations are removed from federal statutes and returned to state wildlife protections. H.R. 509 and S. 249 will allow states to manage wolf populations along with other wildlife in balance and with much needed flexibility. Wolf populations are highly resilient and will do fine under state wildlife management. If numbers fall too low, Congress can once again relist the species. States and Sportsmen will not let that happen. No one wants to go through this mess again.

Allowing Congress to implement a one-time emergency provision for wolves is good public policy. Most experts agree that the wolf is one ?endangered species? that does not fit the policy rationales underlying the Endangered Species Act. Some in Congress are using the rhetoric that ?we are trying to gut the ESA.? The purpose of the ESA is to recover endangered species. While wolves have never been globally endangered, even local recovery goals were accomplished years and years ago.

Congressional wolf delisting in fact protects the ESA. First, it protects the ESA by fulfilling the promises that delisting will follow recovery. Second, congressional delisting protects the ESA from abuses of the environmental groups. These groups are now using the ESA for personal gain rather than for its intended purposes. The resultant delays in delisting are actually harming wildlife. Talk about turning things upside down. These abuses are the real challenge to credibility of the Endangered Species Act in the eyes of the public and elected officials.

Business as usual
The leaders of Big Game Forever have been through many political battles that others have said could not be won. We know that business as usual will not work when it comes to wolves. The anti-hunting groups and some key officials in the Obama administration do not want decision making and flexibility over wolf management returned to the states. They do not want us to work together. They know that if we do work together we are difficult, if not impossible, to beat. Business as usual is how we have gotten into the mess in the first place. We cannot and we do not intend to win this important political battle on our own. Nor can we afford divisiveness or poor legislative strategy by groups within our own industry. Working together as a nation of United Sportsmen we can provide the necessary support in Congress to get this done. Sportsmen, conservation groups and shooting non-profit organizations raise tens of millions of dollars annually to protect the future of shooting and hunting in this country. It is time for the leaders in wildlife to ?put their money where their mouth is.? There are also tens of millions of dedicated sportsmen in America. If we work together, we have the resources to get wolf delisting done right.

This is a fight for fundamental freedoms. We call on all shooting, livestock and hunting non-profit organizations to stick together and finish the job we started. United we stand. Divided we fall. We call on every sportsmen and every American to get in the fight to protect our hunting heritage and America?s Wildlife. We are much more powerful that many recognize. It is time to flex our collective muscles to protect America?s Big Game and Wildlife Resources.


Now is a great time to send another message to your elected officials. Use our automated system at http://biggameforever.org/takeaction to send a message to your elected officials in support of H.R. 509 and S. 249 to return flexibility and state management authority over America?s wolf populations. Or simply join the effort by signing the petition at http://biggameforever.org/ in support of wolf delisting.


Ryan Benson
http://biggameforever.org/
[email protected]
 
What ABE said....LOL.That was some sarcasm directed at toolek.BigFin-Don't put your own spin on what I said,and don't analyze it too deeply.I never said I wasn't in favor of Mt(or Id)having their own say so in their own states.Far from it.Wyoming's plan left the ball in the fed's court,so to speak.They have to pay for all the wolf problems here.Not us(obviously,"we" or"us" means the state of Wyoming).I know I said I wasn't going to chime back in on this,but I must have lied.I,like you,am in favor of whatever needs to be done to get these wolves in check.The fact that we disagree on how that should be done is our individual opinion.My opinion is that the Simpson ammendment is a compromise that could possibly backfire on us down the road.10 years ago I was a member of SFW(Sweetwater chapter,Wy).They were involved back then-big time.For you to not know that shows an obvious "lack of knowledge" on this subject.Laugh all you want.I quit SFW for my own personal reasons,but have always supported them as far as the wolf issue.You can twist words any way you want-you seem to be pretty good at that(better than me)-all you have proven to me is that you hate SFW and Don Peay.Your research on Harriet Hageman should have shown you that she has been involved with the Wyoming Wolf Coalition for a lot longer than "a couple years".And no,I am not a member of that coalition.Why does every dissenting view from yours have to have an alterior motive?Can't a regular guy just have an opinion??Seriously-I'm out on this now.If I am proven wrong 10 years from now,so be it.I've been wrong before.
 
Nontypical - thanks for the nod and the laugh!

Please don't go as this dialog is important. I think we are all "regular guys" with a passion for wildlife and hunting. Hard to know at this point of where this will lead but it does appear that "we" are finally getting ahead. In reviewing this forum, I think you and BigFin are on the same page. I also do not know the tenure of SFW in Wyoming but they are relatively new on the scene here in Montana. I suspect you could care less on credit, let's just work together to put this back in the states' management.
 
Chime back in and answer the question why would the Simpson amendment bother WY? Why should MT and ID not be able to hunt wolves and control the wildlife within their borders and WY continue to have the Federal Government pay for that management?

What is compromised by the Simpson Amendment?

Sportsman for the Wealthy and Don Peay are not friend of average MT hunters. Perhaps they are in WY. or perhaps you are not average but north of you they do not represent MT Residents best interest.

I don't hate Don Peay I just do not trust any of his motives, which generally involved profit to himself. He is typical of alot of guys in this racket, he came to do good but ended up doing well.

Nemont
 
NT - All good points and some good humor from you.

No spin from me, just wanting to understand why some are so against the Simpson language and letting MT and ID move on with our issues. So far no one has provided such. And, I suspect no one will answer such.

I may be wrong, but some seem to be so attached to MT and ID because of fear that if they let us go on with our plans, that weakens the WY position. That's what I gather from the long-winded speil ABE just posted by Ryan Benson, and exactly what I get when I read the Hageman email. Maybe my reading comprehension sucks or my logic is flawed, but that is what it looks like from the north.

Maybe others draw different conclusions, but from here under the bus, it appears that a lot of folks want to step on MT and ID while they climb in to the drive the bus. We just want to move on.

Too bad if keeping MT and ID on the chess board is critical to the strategy SFW and the WY Wolf Coalition have put together. That is not my problem. MT didn't ask to become a critical part of the strategy taken by WY, or those claiming to represent WY.

Those claiming to carry water for WY took that risk. They took the risk that no one would learn what was being done to keep the Simpson langauge from seeing the light of day.

Well, it was a bad bet to make. MT and ID want out of this mess that connects us to WY. Do you blame us?

You guys in WY have your spat with the USFWS. Solve it among yourselves. We support you in that.

Like I said, I may be wrong about how long SFW was involved in the wolf deal in WY or elsewhere. As some have pointed out above, they are Johnny Come Lately here in MT.

Never said Harriest Hageman was a recent arrivel to the WY Wolf Coalition. If it is pointed out to me that I said that, I will retract it. Research shows otherwise.

As far as hate. Nope, no hate for SFW or Don Peay. Just distaste for efforts that attempt to keep MT under the thumb and not let us exercise our state rights. Hopefully being from WY, you can understand how the MT and ID guys feel about the states rights issue.

For reasons I cannot explain, some are working against us here in MT. I think it is worthwhile to have that discussion. But, no hate. Like I said, if SFW/BGF can get S.249 passed, I will help them do so and give them full credit.

Just would ask the same for their help with the Simpson language, but am no holding my breath.

"Hunt when you can - You're gonna' run out of health before you run out of money!"
 
BigFin, I posted a message from Ryan Benson that explains this Simpson/Tester/Baucus Bill pretty well. The thing that I don't like about it is the bill may have a negative impact on other states trying to manage the gray wolf once delisted. I am all for MT and ID to do what is good for them but not at the expense of the other states. Read Benson's letter I feel he hit the nail on the head. Keep the Feds out of State Managed Wildlife.

Julius
 
nontypical---I'll make this short and sweet. I probably know a lot more on these issues than you suspect and I'm not going to get into all this "he said she said" BS. I'm in favor of each state being able to manage the wildlife within it's borders and feel the USFWS should stay with the original numbers and hopefully fairly close to the original recovery boundaries as agreed on when the introduction started. I really don't give a damn if some virgins have to be sacrificed to accomplish that goal. Let's just get it done and with the wolves way over goal in the Wyoming part of the recovery boundaries IMHO there is no reason not to allow the animals outside that area to be shot on sight.
 
>BigFin, I posted a message from
>Ryan Benson that explains this
>Simpson/Tester/Baucus Bill pretty well. The
>thing that I don't like
>about it is the bill
>may have a negative impact
>on other states trying to
>manage the gray wolf once
>delisted. I am all for
>MT and ID to do
>what is good for them
>but not at the expense
>of the other states. Read
>Benson's letter I feel he
>hit the nail on the
>head. Keep the Feds out
>of State Managed Wildlife.
>
>Julius

I read it. You are welcome to believe his version.

Permit me the benefit of doing my own research and not relying on a group that has been called out by the hunting powers in DC for blatant misrepresentation; has failed to deny their efforts to kill other wolf bills besides their own; and in this ramble by Mr. Benson, has pretty much confirmed their strategy that they denied until finally being called out on such last week.

Sorry, but that is not the quality of track record I put much faith in. Others make their own decisions.

If I may quote you and use your translation of what Ryan is saying to the guys of MT and ID. I think you use one sentence to say what has taken him five paragraphs.

This part of your quote mirrors what I gather when I read Benson's dissertation.

"I am all for MT and ID to do what is good for them but not at the expense of the other states."

So, let me get this right.

You, and I seemingly SFW/BGF, want to keep MT and ID from their ability to implement their wolf plans if that means WY will have a weaker position to get out of the hard spot their advisors have gotten them into.

We never wanted to be part of the WY mess. We are not the ones who developed the money raising scheme that has become the WY defense strategy.

But, we are expected to be kept on the sidelines while SFW and BGF execute a flawed strategy. To take one for the team? What team?

I guess being from MT, I will strongly disagree with you. I hope you can see how offensive it is that guys want to continue using MT and ID as pawns in this money raising scheme.

To your credit, you have put your thoughts in clear words, which I respect, even if I disagree.

As far as Benson's case against the Simpson language, I completely disagree.

His case is built on the premise that S.249 has a chance of passing, which it does not. Do you really think California Senator Barbara Boxer is going to let the bill come out of her Senate Environment and Public Works committee?

I don't. If SFW/BGF does, I guess we have a difference of opinion on one more item.

Who cares if it has 61 co-sponsors. These 61 people are not the ones who are going to kill it in Congress. Hell, I could get 61 co-sponsors for a bill to fund something as obscure as the Left-Handed Club-Footed Pygmy Society. To all the Pygmies, I 'polagize.

It also makes it sound like the Simpson language is the end of the discussion. It is not. Once it passes, we go forward on all fronts, and if we can get S.249 passed, we do.

But, seems SFW/BGF wants to play poker and gamble that they can somehow get S.249 passed. The chips they are using for their bet are the elk and hunting opportunity in MT and ID.

Not sure I can state it any more plain than that. Would you give me your money, to sit at the Vegas blackjack table all day long, if I got all the winnings and you took all the losses? Kinda thought so.

If guys are so convinced that SFW, BGF, Don and Ryan can get this through a Democratic Senate and a Democratic President, then go for it. Just play that poker game with your own chips. Every person with even a slight amount of political understanding knows that bill is dead on arrival.

If guys want to believe them, after all they have done to defeat all the other bills, be my guest. I see Ryan's ramblings as them now starting the defensive plan to keep their house of cards from crumbling.

Until then, why don't we get the Simpson language inserted so MT and ID can start down the long process ahead that will eventually get us the chance to manage our wolves? Could it be due to the fact that the WY strategy is flawed and its only savior is to keep MT and ID in play?

Given so many are "all for MT and ID to do what is good for them but not at the expense of the other states......." I suspect the odds of convincing any of them to see the hypocrisy of their position is very unlikely.

And folks wonder why MT and ID guys laugh when they hear SFW/BGF talk about states rights. For them to even use the term is laughable.

Happy Hunting. I welcome you to come to MT and hunt, but if SFW/BGF have their way, the colonial lands of MT and ID will have nothing left to hunt by the time you get here.

"Hunt when you can - You're gonna' run out of health before you run out of money!"
 
Ok BigFin everyone has heard you sell your case and try to spin 2 States over 50 States. Who knows if wolves will be in Louisiana and Florida but if the antis have their way BigFin will be their spokesman and Louisiana & Florida will be the last states where Wolves land before all of the Deer, Elk, Antelope and Sheep are gone. It isn't just an Idaho and Montana problem it is a Federal Government taking and keeping control of wildlife that should be managed by the States.

BigFin has now proven that he is only interested in protecting the Super Powers in DC rather than fixing the problem in DC. Why the hell should be be depending on the DC Super Powers when they have screwed the whole thing up from the begining when they should have been fixing the problem. SCI, NRA, Boone & Crocket and the other group raise tens of millions and have only spent a small fraction on habitat and this wolf war. SFW and Big Game Forever have raised less than 2 Million and spent at least that much on habitat and this Wolf War.

BigFin keeps saying Don Peay and SFW are money raising groups taking people's money. He has been listening to the guy who drew a resident tag and only shot a 380 Bull Elk when the Governor's Tag shot the new World Record. "That damn SFW only benefits the rich guys!" Benefiting a few rich guys while benefiting tens of thousands might be a good idea. Last I checked hunting Africa might be a rich man's sport.

BigFin can post all the SCI propaganda he wants but I can't support them until they focus on fixing the Wolf Problem where it is and where it is heading instead of where it has already wiped everything out.
 
Big Fin,

The anti wolf crowd in Montana and Idaho has long been envious of Wyoming's resolve. I wish Robert Fanning and some of the guys fighting this battle for years would weigh in on the Tester Bill. These guys were in the fight from the start, and predicted this would happen years ago. Really dealing with the USFWS is a self fulfilling prophecy.
We've had a federal judge say that Wyoming's plan passes muster and were still being treated like it hasn't. If Judge Johnson had said Wyoming "fix your law" I would have been first in line to call the new Governor and urge him to support further compromise, but we all know that's not how the judge ruled.
The Tester bill guts the BGF legislation and screws the rest of the states involved. This bill is a divide and conquer tactic from three senators that have never supported true states rights, and march to the drum of the Environmental groups in Bozeman.
This Tester bill has no teeth and is not a true solution to keeping wolves from destroying big game populations across the west. If the Tester bill is passed in ten years moose will be gone and the USFWS, and environmentalists will be blaming the good people of Montana, and Idaho. In Wyoming the blood will be on their hands, at least until we decide to support weak legislation in the name of ?delisting?.
 
Wow, that is some really good stuff there, ABE. Not sure what to make of any of that. You gettin' paid OT for posting after hours? Must have hit a nerve.

Funny reply you have given to the topics at hand. But, certainly not unexpected. As is expected, not one question gets answered, not one fact provided.

The point has been made. People will form their own opinions from their own research. More than comfortable with that. They are smart guys. They will sort it out and decide what is best.

Now that the intellects are out in force, reciting the company line, the level of discourse, facts, and knowledge is increasing at sub-light speed.

Hunters are smart. They realize the Kool-aid crowd couldn't care less about states rights. They can see who wants to use MT and ID as primer for the money pump of their wolf issues. Keep making the case. You are doing a great job of proving the point.

Guess in time we will see how far it gets everyone.

That "rich guy" stuff is funny. Really, it is funny. Keep it coming. The hole is getting deeper with each word you type.

Good thing you, SFW, and BGF have all the answers, as none of us would have a clue without you. Especially B&C, NRA, SCI, CSF, who are such babes in the woods when it comes to the topics of hunting and conservation.

Thank you again. Those of us in your colonial empires of MT and ID are grateful for all you, and your enlightened despots, have done to save us from ourselves.

P.S. I hope S.249 passes. I really do. Wanna bet on it passing?

"Hunt when you can - You're gonna' run out of health before you run out of money!"
 
Some really good stuff on this tread for sure. Funny thing,I noticed is SFW,BGF, are just as scared that the Tester/Simpson/Baucus Bill will pass, as the Defenders groups. Inquiring minds would ask the question, WHY? What would all these groups stand to loose, if such legislation passed? Cash cow, maybe? It's going to be a brave new world me thinks. Then how we will ever spend our nights? I too, hope that all the anti wolf bills pass. I wish Wyoming the best,in their battle for state management of the wolf. Cool minds will prevail in the conclusion of this mess. I think that's' what's been missing the whole time.





I wanted to take a scalp,but the kill was not mine.
 
OK i'll admit it I am afraid of the Simposon/tester bills passing. Now i'll tell ya why. Lawsuits more wolves and federal government control. The anti's are caving for these bills because they don't change anything in the long run. The only bill proposed right now written by sportsmen to deal with the wolves is S.249 and HR509. Where was SCI and NRA when these were written and put on the floor last year? Waiting on the sidelines to see how bad Biggameforever and SFW would fail but they didn't they gained traction and came close to passing last fall untill Tester/Baucus got in the way with their bill then SCI,Nra and the other so called power groups got involved. Ya they were on the lawsuit from the beginning but so was SFW they had Mike Lee representing who is now a US senator who supports s249 and hr509 because it ends the lawsuits for all states. puts states in control of their own wildlife and livestock. What does the Simpson bill change? Does it allow 2 states to go to the agreed upon 150 wolves in there states? no. Will it stop the anti's from filing lawsuits to stop the slaughter of wolves if Idaho decides they only should have x number? no Does it give Montana the power to manage all of their wildlife including wolves as they see fit? no. It just goes back to what the Feds allowed in 2009. Idaho and Montana will still have to get permission from big brother to harvest any wolves. while Wyoming, the upper midwest and the Southwest are hung out to dry. Not to mention Colorado, have you seen the map of the radio collared wolf? she spent a lot of time in Co. it was to bad she died. This bill would never have been proposed or gotten where it is without SFW and BiggameForever pushing S249 and hr 509. SCI and the NRA surely did not take the lead in triing to solve the wolf issue legislatively. But they seem content to take credit for the scraps.
But then if we just settle for something less, that seems to be the American way anymore when it comes to politics, whatever is easier and helps me to hell with my neighbors.
 
Here is the language from Simpson in the CR:


Sec. 1713. Before the end of the 60-day period beginning on the date of enactment of this division, the Secretary of the Interior shall reissue the final rule published on April 2, 2009 (74 Fed. Reg. 15123 et seq.) without regard to any other provision of statute or regulation that applies to issuance of such rule. Such reissuance (including this section) shall not be subject to judicial review.



Pay attention to the last line and resist the Kool aid!
 
30 plus,
Thanks for your insight. You are correct. We need to fix the problem for all states. We need to get the wolf management out of the hands of the feds and stop the law suits from the antis that surly will continue without the bill that Big Game Forever and many states are pushing.
 

Click-a-Pic ... Details & Bigger Photos

Member Gallery Photos and Videos!

e3.png
754C0D35-6DDF-46F4-89FE-EB2F35EF0571.jpeg
BE81F38D-DD3F-4258-A42C-3BBEA92A29E3.jpeg
IMG_4335.JPG
0D08ACC5-62FC-4C4E-8BBB-6FA00525F275.png
1680006839432.jpeg
CF0D739B-79CB-4055-B99C-D88B36D59A11.jpeg
IMG_9379.jpeg
Screenshot_20210926-003401_Gallery.jpg
A2744487-3C2F-45AC-A5CB-58ECE8DCCA1E.jpeg
31F08659-DC34-4966-BAC4-E5C8D8576C9A.jpeg
IMG_20200918_130454_511.jpg
Back
Top Bottom