Press Release from Wyoming's Representative Lummis

[SMOKESTICK]

There has been so much said on MM vilifying and personally attacking two people that have been working non-stop to accomplish the impossible.

I have already posted this on another thread but Everyone needs to read this.

Wyoming may only have 1 member of Congress but I wouldn't trade for a dozen others. She can speak for herself. Notice who she doesn't mention.

WASHINGTON, D.C. ? U.S. Representative Cynthia Lummis released the following statement regarding the inclusion of new language to uphold Judge Alan Johnson?s November 2010 ruling in the budget agreement to be voted on later this week:

?Upholding Judge Johnson?s ruling is crucial to advancing negotiations on a common sense wolf management plan. This language removes obstacles that would have otherwise hindered discussions on the status of the fully recovered gray wolf in Wyoming.

Returning management of the gray wolf to the State of Wyoming is the ultimate goal. Much work remains, but with this provision intact, I am confident we are closer than ever to realizing a full delisting. I look forward to that happy day.?

National Director of Big Game Forever, Ryan Benson, spoke on Lummis? efforts: ?Representative Lummis has been one of the most effective leaders to restore state?s rights to manage its wildlife, including balanced levels of wolves. She has strongly represented the people of the state of Wyoming throughout this Herculean effort. By ensuring that the wolf delisting language in CR did not reverse Judge Johnson?s ruling in favor of Wyoming?s wolf management plan, Rep. Lummis dramatically improved Wyoming?s ability to obtain approval of a common sense wolf management plan.?

Background: In a November 2010 ruling, Wyoming Federal District Court Judge Alan Johnson ruled that the USFWS had acted ?arbitrarily and capriciously? in rejecting Wyoming?s wolf management plan.

The FY2011 Continuing Resolution included language authored by Representative Mike Simpson (R-ID) and Senator Jon Tester (D-MT) that overturned the August 2010 district court decision in Montana to put wolves in Idaho, Montana, Oregon, Washington, and Utah back on the endangered species list.

In effect, the provision delists wolves in Idaho and Montana but threatened to supersede Judge Johnson?s November 2010 ruling. Repudiation of the ruling would jeopardize the progress of wolf management negotiations in Wyoming. The language Lummis successfully inserted allows for negotiation to continue without the language of the 2009 delisting rule hindering Judge Johnson?s ruling.

Congress is expected to approve the overall legislation later this week.

Washington, D.C. ? U.S. Senators Mike Enzi and John Barrasso, made the following comments after wolf language in a budget bill was released. The new bill would not delist wolves in Wyoming, but makes clear a court ruling last fall that U.S. Fish and Wildlife was wrong to reject Wyo-ming?s wolf management plan, would not be effected by the new bill.

?Ideally Wyoming wolves should be removed from the Endangered Species list along with Montana and Idaho. But short of a regional delisting the next best scenario is ensuring that Wyoming is not disadvantaged in the future and that the favorable court decision is intact,? said Enzi.

?I will work to ensure that this issue is resolved and management of the wolves is returned to Wyoming. While the language does not go far enough in terms of delisting the wolves in Wyoming, it is another important step to protect our rights to have a plan that works for our state.? said Barrasso.

The Wyoming delegation worked with other members from the region to ensure that the language did not nullify District Judge Alan Johnson?s ruling that it was wrong for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife (FWS) service to reject Wyoming?s wolf plan which includes appropriate protections for wolves throughout the state. The wolf provision is part of an appropriations bill to fund the government through September and is expected to be brought up for a vote in the Senate this week.

The delegation will continue to support Governor Mead?s efforts to work with the FWS to delist Wyoming?s wolves.




Enjoy, but notice who stepped in to ensure that Wyoming was not harmed buy the actions of a few Washington, D.C. insiders that have NEVER engaged in the Wyoming process since I have been involved (2003)

 

[muleycrazytwo]

A big THANK YOU to Ryan, Don, Mrs. Lummis and all others involved!

 

[MNHunter]

>A big THANK YOU to Ryan,
>Don, Mrs. Lummis and all
>others involved!

Yes, thank you Don and Ryan for not being sucessfull in your efforts to torpedo the Simpson/Tester language!

"Whatever you are, be a good one."
- Abraham Lincoln

 

[Utah400Elk]

Lummis is a great asset to Wyoming.

You said
"Wyoming may only have 1 member of Congress but I wouldn't trade for a dozen others.?

Could not agree with you more with you on what type of person is Lummis.

Then you say

"Notice who she doesn't mention"

Don Peay and SFW were never mentioned by Lummis. According to your post, there is an insert from BGF's Ryan Benson about what Lummis had done but Lummis never mentions SFW, Don Peay, BGF or Ryan Benson. Thanks for pointing that out. I am a little slow, but I did not read that Lummis was recognizing the two who have been vilified and personally attacked on MM.

What I did read was a Wyoming Senator stating this was an important step in the right direction.

Smokestick, if this was an important step why did BGF and SFW try and stop it?

 

[WapitiBob]

LAST EDITED ON Apr-15-11 AT 11:24AM (MST)[p]let's look at that press release.

Notice: " National Director of Big Game Forever, Ryan Benson, spoke on Lummis? efforts: "

You may also notice BGF/SFW is never mentioned. Just BGF, again, trying to get their name associated with the passage of this Bill.

I can respect an Org that sticks to it's beliefs. But to work against the Bill then fire off press releases inferring they were working for it's passage says a whole lot about BGF/SFW and the guys behind it.

 

[NeMont]

Wyoming will be much happier having two senators like every other state than their lone representative. BGF/SWF speak with a forked tongue regardless of what anyone says. Actions speak louder than words.

Judge Johnson's ruling doesn't resolve anything other than that the Wyoming plan will reviewed but can still be rejected. I hope Wyoming does get to manage wolves with a plan that is acceptable but in the mean time MT and ID will be allowed to attempt to control wolves inside of their state boundaries. BGF/SWF opposed that idea because they wanted to have the rest of country held hostage by Wyoming.

So good luck having you lone Rep. carry much heavy water. Just like Montana a single vote in the House is worth a warm bucket of spit.

Nemont

 

[SMOKESTICK]

If she didn't agree with those quotes do you think she would have included their statements if they were untrue and had not been working with her.

That was my statement not hers. I am sure she is far too busy working to protect Wyoming's interest to be surfing MM.

Now that Wyoming has the language to protect our gains it is an important first step but only if there are second and third steps to follow.

Did you read the 12 page letter from Harriet Hageman? She articulated the reasons why the Tester/Baucus/Simpson amendment was not a good fix. Representative Lummis has been working tirelessly, to ensure that Wyoming was not harmed by wolf delisting at all costs, and for some states. We would have much rather preferred total removal of wolves from ESA protection; S.249 & H.R.509 as it completely fixes the problem listing a species which is neither threatened nor endangered.

Do you understand that some states continue wanted to punish Wyoming? For what? For fighting to obtain a wolf plan that was written by the USFWS, approved by the USFWS and they failed to defend it.

Check out this link to the BBC News entitled "Congress strips grey wolf endangered species protection and see who they quote: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-13086459

Thanks for asking why there was an attempt made to stop it. I simply tried to understand whether or not the NRA or any of the other groups which publicly supported any and all delisting efforts had done their due diligence to ensure that their actions were not going to harm Wyoming or cause us to forfeit our gains in the legal system. As far as I can tell, no legal review or analysis was performed. At least our attorney wrote a 12 page response on her letter head and signed it stating clearly our concerns. The NRA told me they could not and would share their strategy outside their circle. So I asked them to allow a National Board Member whom I know and trust to read and confirm their legal analysis. Their response was that they couldn't do that either. When I repeated what he said he denied having said that so I asked once again if eh could allow someone to confirm a legal review had been done. What I learned is that no legal review had been done. Fortunately, Wyoming was able to find another solution. Representative Lummis was able to get it done. No harm, no foul. That is all I wanted was to ensure that Wyoming was not harmed by others actions.

 

[mightyhunter]

NeMont,
I think you may be wrong about the Johnson ruling. As an attorney, it was my understanding that Judge Johnson ruled against the USFWS blanket decision to reject any notion of the creation of a "predator zone" within the state. It was my understanding, that this action by the USFWS was determined to be arbitrary and capricious. I have heard that the current negotiations between Wyoming (Gov. Mead) and the Dept. of Interior involve taking certain areas in the Wyoming Range out of the "predator zone" and leaving the rest of the original plan with its designated "predator zones" intact. However, I could be wrong.
The rest of this release is interesting when you see who is not mentioned and who has inserted themselves out front.

 

[TOPGUN]

LAST EDITED ON Apr-15-11 AT 01:02PM (MST)[p]You have my head swimming with your last post in this thread! In your opening post on this thread you put up in quotes (") a statement that was attributed to Congresswoman Lummis. Then you put up a paragraph with statements attributed to Ryan Benson of the Big Game Forever organization making it look like they were deeply involved in getting that Rider attachment in the Budget Bill. Nowhere within those quotes did Ms. Lummis say anything about SWF or BGF being in the forefront, tail-end, or anywhere else in getting that Rider placed in the Budget Bill. Your posts appear to me to be as blatantly contrary to fact as is about everything else that these two organizations seem to be spewing out. I also noticed your use of the word "we" in your post and I assume that means you are speaking of one or both of the organizations that were trying to scuttle this Rider. I'm very happy to see that Wyoming now has a fighting chance to get their plan in place and start controlling the wolves within it's boundaries, but I have to say that I'm more than a little miffed if you're trying to give undue credit to these two groups that were actually trying to scuttle the Rider!!!

 

[SMOKESTICK]

LAST EDITED ON Apr-15-11 AT 01:35PM (MST)[p]The first three paragraph's (everything above Washington, D.C.) is from me. From Washington, D.C. to the bottom (except the last paragraph) was contained in Representative Lummis' press release. She is the one which obtained the quotes from Ryan Benson because that is whom she has been working with, among others. Why would she use his quote and not someone else's?

Why would the BBC article quote Don Peay and Byron Bateman? Not to be mean, but are these guys that widely known?

 

[TOPGUN]

LAST EDITED ON Apr-15-11 AT 02:08PM (MST)[p]Here is the Lummis press release with her one paragraph statement in quotes (")taken right off the internet word for word regarding the Budget Bill and Rider(copied/pasted from top to bottom). The remaining paragraphs attributed to Benson and the one on the background appear to be afterthought inserts by whomever put the release out in the media and are positive comments about her Congressional record, rather than anything she stated from all appearances.

Here it is in it's entirety and people can decide on their own:

WASHINGTON, D.C., Apr 12 -

U.S. Representative Cynthia Lummis (R-Wyo.) released the following statement regarding the inclusion of new language to uphold Judge Alan Johnson?s November 2010 ruling in the budget agreement to be voted on later this week:

?Upholding Judge Johnson?s ruling is crucial to advancing negotiations on a common sense wolf management plan. This language removes obstacles that would have otherwise hindered discussions on the status of the fully recovered gray wolf in Wyoming. Returning management of the gray wolf to the State of Wyoming is the ultimate goal. Much work remains, but with this provision intact, I am confident we are closer than ever to realizing a full delisting. I look forward to that happy day.?

National Director of Big Game Forever, Ryan Benson, on Representative Lummis? efforts:

?Representative Lummis has been one of the most effective leaders to restore state?s rights to manage its wildlife, including balanced levels of wolves. She has strongly represented the people of the state of Wyoming throughout this Herculean effort. By ensuring that the wolf delisting language in CR did not reverse Judge Johnson?s ruling in favor of Wyoming?s wolf management plan, Rep. Lummis dramatically improved Wyoming?s ability to obtain approval of a common sense wolf management plan.?

Background:

In a November 2010 ruling, Wyoming Federal District Court Judge Alan Johnson ruled that the USFWS had acted ?arbitrarily and capriciously? in rejecting Wyoming?s wolf management plan.

The FY2011 Continuing Resolution included language authored by Representative Mike Simpson (R-ID) and Senator Jon Tester (D-MT) that overturned the August 2010 district court decision in Montana to put wolves in Idaho, Montana, Oregon, Washington, and Utah back on the endangered species list. In effect, the provision delists wolves in Idaho and Montana but threatened to supersede Judge Johnson?s November 2010 ruling. Repudiation of the ruling would jeopardize the progress of wolf management negotiations in Wyoming. The language Lummis successfully inserted allows for negotiation to continue without the language of the 2009 delisting rule hindering Judge Johnson?s ruling.

Congress is expected to approve the overall legislation later this week.

 

[BigFin]

Smokestick ? You asked, ?Did you read the 12 page letter from Harriet Hageman? She articulated the reasons why the Tester/Baucus/Simpson amendment was not a good fix.?

Yeah, I did. More political drivel and hypocrisy than I have read in a long time.

The Cliff Notes version of her ramble was this ? ?We have bet our entire Wyoming strategy the premise that Montana and Idaho will not get delisting. If Simpson-Tester passes, the strategy Wyoming was advised to employ was going down in flames. Call out the hounds to get Simpson-Tester killed.?

She could have just as well said, ?We need to keep MT and ID hostage, until the advisors to Wyoming get their way, even if that takes a century, do not let MT and ID out of bondage.?

Fine to have as the Wyoming strategy; just don't expect the MT and ID guys to buy into it.

If you find that Hageman ramble to be anything more than a ?CYA? effort and admission that the legal advisors has miscalculated the political landscape, then we have differing interpretations.

You stated, ?We would have much rather preferred total removal of wolves from ESA protection; S.249 & H.R.509 as it completely fixes the problem listing a species which is neither threatened nor endangered.?

Who is ?We?? Are you part of ?We?? ?We? is plural for ?I,? so why don't you tell us who you represent when you say ?We.?

Yeah, the entire world knows that, and knew that by the actions of ?We? as they tried to kill the Simpson-Tester bill. ?We? can ?much rather prefer? all ?We? wants. That doesn't cut it, when ?We? is pushing a dead idea and the only thing ?We? has to support it is, ?Because we said so? and ?Send money, lots of it, and send it soon.?

The one part ?We,? and the supporters of S.249 and HR 509, keep forgetting, is to fix something, ?We? needed to get a bill passed. And to get a bill passed, ?We? needed to have a plan. ?We? did not have a plan. ?We? still doesn't have a plan.

S.249 has the same odds of passing Congress and the White House, as the odds of me finding the fountain of youth.

How funny ?We? is going to fix something when ?We? doesn't have an idea of how to go about it. I am sure my grade-school nieces could craft legislation that has a better chance of passing than does S.2249.

Continue to hope and wish. Hoping and wishing gets you nowhere in the world of politics. It will get your ass handed to you.

You stated, ?Do you understand that some states continue wanted to punish Wyoming??

Really. Got any evidence of that? You don't have any evidence, because none exists. Does your friend ?We? have any evidence? Nope.

All Idaho and Montana wanted was to be allowed to go on about our business while Wyoming and the USFWS continue with their spat. Yet, the hypocrites who advised Wyoming thought MT and ID would never get this done, so now you see that as wanting to punish Wyoming.

Seems like the advisers to Wyoming wanted to punish MT and ID by fighting to kill a bill that would let those states out of the bondage created by Malloy when he said all three states were tied together. I doubt the Wyoming hunters wanted to punish MT and ID, but the Wyoming advisors sure seemed hell-bent on doing so.

You have a problem with Wyoming having to go it alone? I thought we all wanted state?s rights, which we would never get when we were joined at the hip by the Malloy decision. I have no problem with Montana going it alone. Why wasn?t Wyoming willing to go it alone?

Compelling proof of evidence as to who brought about change, when you provided this quote, ?Check out this link to the BBC News: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-13086459 ?

Since when is BBC and the UK journalist cadre considered knowledgeable about what went on in the wolf issues of DC? What link is coming next, the National Enquirer? Nancy Grace going to have these guys as her special guest tomorrow?

If this is how ?We? (whoever you refer to when you say ?We?) does your vetting and fact checking, it is no wonder ?We? can't get anything accomplished outside of the fiefdoms ?We? operates in.

You stated, ?Thanks for asking why there was an attempt made to stop it.?

I give you credit for not denying that you were working to stop it. Your fellow sophisticates a/k/a ?We,? still deny they were working to kill it, even though they were caught red-handed.

You close by saying, ?? all I wanted was to ensure that Wyoming was not harmed by others actions.?

Even if it meant joining the same position as the wolf lovers, and that your efforts to kill this kept Montana and Idaho from getting the delisting status they needed and deserved?

Hmmm. Thanks for nothing. Glad you were unsuccessful.

How ironic that the passage of Simpson-Tester probably does more to help Wyoming than if it had not passed. Yet, those who tried to kill it are now taking claim.

And today it is announced that the Great Lakes states are going to get their third delisting ruling much sooner than anyone expected. Though this ruling was already announced last fall, the language of the budget bill brought forward by the Simpson-Tester idea also changed how that gig needs to get going in the Great Lakes states, by changing the funding status for that fiasco. The USFWS is now being forced to act on that ruling and work with the states sooner than expected. See the link below.

http://www.startribune.com/sports/outdoors/119922759.html

Yet, I will not be surprised if ?We? takes credit for the Great Lakes progress that was going on way before they got on board, just like ?We? did for Simpson-Tester.

 

[TOPGUN]

LAST EDITED ON Apr-15-11 AT 02:31PM (MST)[p]BigFin---I'm glad that you mentioned the BBC article and UK reporter in your post since I failed to do so! If the OP has to resort to a foreign country wire story to try and defend himself and/or those two organizations it pretty well shows how they are reaching for anything they can to bail themselves out of the pit they jumped into!!! Anyway, the quotes from the two persons the OP mentioned were mere statements on what the wolves were doing to decimate the big game herds and nothing else, so it was a real stretch that the OP had to find that article with their names in it, LOL!!!

 

[SMOKESTICK]

I guess none of you have listened to the BBC? They are highly respected throughout the World. I was told the author of the article contacted Byron Bateman and Don Peay because "Defenders of Wildlife" said they were the "SOBs" who got this done. Thank you !

You don't believe me contact the BBC author and ask him yourself.

You can try and spin it anyway you want. I know that both Rep. Simpson and Sen. Tester have said they wanted to punish Wyoming for not conforming to the demands of the environmentalists.

BigFin, do you really think BGF/SFW would ever disclose their strategic plan to pass both S.249 & H.R.509 on a public web site that is so full of hate for these two organizations? Your posts make you appear much smarter than that, so I cannot see why you keep insisting that "we" disclose "our" plans to the likes of you and your ilk.

Wyoming has never harmed either Idaho or Montana. It was the environmentalists which sought and obtained the orders from Molloy. I do believe in states rights as it appears you do as well. Do you think Wyoming should have abandoned Judge Johnson's ruling or sat back idling, hoping that the CR amendment didn't cause it to be nullified?

As far as you comments about Harriet Hageman, I have much more confidence in her abilities than I do opinions expressed on the internet. Have you seen any evidence that a legal review had been done by any of the Washington, D.C. insiders to determine whether or not her comments were on point? If so, how about posting them up for us to read them. You have had a chance to see her comments. Nothing but dribble from those which supported any and all wolf delisting, no matter the cost or consequences.

I have more important things to do than waste my time posting on a blog. There remains a lot of heavy lifting, on several fronts.

The bottom line is that we may have secured a small victory today. Many different groups, supported by many diverse sportsmen, united for the purpose of seeing wolves removed from unwarranted protection under the ESA have prevailed against overwhelming odds.

Those that have said the ESA was a sacred cow can sit back and watch the BBQ or they can pull up a seat and eat.

Enjoy!

 

[Utah400Elk]

Smokestick:

Again, funny but the article you referred to has one quote from Don Peay. I didn't see anything about BGF or Ryan Benson. You really should read these press releases before you use them. Not sure that a BBC article proves that Ryan Benson or Don Peay are widely known in this debate! Another idea for the your group would be to get together and decided if BGF/SFW is responsible for getting the Simpson/Tester passed or if they are opposed to it. I get confused, Don says they never tried to kill the bill then you post a link by your attorney outlining why it is bad. So to make it clear?Is SFW/BGF responsible for wolf delisting or are they against it?

I will guess that it will depend on the day. One moment they are the reason the wolf legislation got anywhere (because they are so widely known within the circle of the BBC) then at the same moment they fought the Simpson/Tester amendment.

 

[TOPGUN]

LAST EDITED ON Apr-15-11 AT 03:09PM (MST)[p]Don't be asking for any replies from the smokeblower as he is too busy somewhere else spouting a bunch of BS and blowing smoke up people's backsides, LOL!!! His last post was just more of the "he said she said" crappola that keeps coming from "them" or as he says "we". What a farcical response to BigFin in regards to the plan they have. They wouldn't dare put it out on the MM website here because we are all against the poor babies. Well how about telling us where we can find the plan then, since it needs to be out in the open and seen by everyone in order for people to get behind it! Maybe it's like Pelosi and her stupid azz statement one day that Congress should just pass the friggin Health Care Bill and THEN everyone could read it and see what it proposed, LOL!!! What a joke these people are!

 

[NeMont]

Smokestick,

Remember what I said about who speaks with a forked tongue? You seem to have that down pat.

Now the strategy can't be revealed because somebody stepped on BGF/SWF skirt and they have their feelings hurt. Maybe they should stop trying to put the wood to average hunters in MT and ID and work toward what is possible rather than getting their feelings hurt so easily.

Has nothing to do with hate and everything to do with experience of dealing the likes of Don Peay and his ilk. When Don and SFW get involved it always ends badly for the average Joe and resident hunters of every state they touch. Including the wolf issue.

Nemont

 

[Bozeman]

Quick! Send money now we will explain and reveal later. That's the oldest scam in the book but one that still works unfortunately.

 

[PleaseDear]

For hell sake's-----

How stupid does SFW/BGF actually think we hunters are?

What a desperate thread to EVEN start.

Turn the lights out on SFW/BGF....

Robb

 

[TOPGUN]

I'll second that Robb, LOL!!!

 

[TOPGUN]

I don't know how they got me on their mailing list, but I just got this email from BGF. It looks like they even have Hatch snowed if he did make the statement contained in this Release!

Big Game Forever
Dedicated to common sense conservation
For Immediate Release: April 15, 2011



President Obama has just signed H.R. 1473 the Budget Resolution, continuing government operations until September 30. A provision within that act will have wide ranging effects on the control of the Grey Wolf populations within some western states. The act requires that in the states of Montana and Idaho the Wolf be removed from the Endanger Species Act (ESA) and returned to individual state management. Language was also included which allows Wyoming to move toward delisting.

Sen. Orrin Hatch expressed, ?I couldn't be more pleased with the inclusion of wolf-delisting language in the budget bill that passed this week. The return of wolf management in northern Utah to state wildlife managers is a very important step in the right direction. This wouldn't have happened without the resolute efforts of Big Game Forever and Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife. I remain committed to doing everything that I can to ensure that the states, not the federal government, have the responsibility for managing wolves. ?

The sportsmen of America are grateful for the leadership of Leader Reid, Senator Tester, Senator Baucus, Senator Hatch, Senator Barrasso, Senator Enzi, Senator Risch, Senator Crapo, Senator McCain and Senator Kyl, Congressman Rehberg, Congresswoman Lummis, Congressman Matheson, Congressman Bishop, Congressman Ross, Congressman Chaffetz, Congressman Simpson and the over 60 total cosponsors who played a role in building the consensus of a need for Congressional action to delist no longer endangered wolf populations.

?We are encouraged that Congress has acknowledged the need to delist no longer endangered wolf populations. It is unfortunate that multiple administrative delisting decisions and ultimately Congressional action were required to obtain a partial delisting of a species that has been recovered for years. We applaud the beginning of the return of management of wolves to state wildlife managers who manage and protect hundreds of game and nongame species so capably,? said Ryan Benson of Big Game Forever.

U.S. Representative Cynthia Lummis explained the importance of including language preserving Judge Alan Johnson?s November 2010 ruling. ?Upholding Judge Johnson?s ruling is crucial to advancing negotiations on a common sense wolf management plan. This language removes obstacles that would have otherwise hindered discussions on the status of the fully recovered gray wolf in Wyoming. Returning management of the gray wolf to the State of Wyoming is the ultimate goal. Much work remains, but with this provision intact, I am confident we are closer than ever to realizing a full delisting. I look forward to that happy day.?

Don Peay, founder of Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife, said, ?With the need to trim billions from the federal budgets, this was first step to return management of wolves to all states and end redundant federal expenditures for a job states can do better. More importantly, with high unemployment rates and losses of jobs, abundant big game herds are an American Treasure, a renewable resource, and with proper management can sustain tens of millions of dollars in annual economic activity, tens of thousands of jobs, and the opportunity for hundreds of thousands of Americans to put food on the table.?

Big Game Forever and Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife are grateful for the selfless and dedicated efforts of countless conservation minded sportsmen of America. The responsible livestock producer organizations, the conservation groups and many other organizations who have added their voice to this important effort have helped tremendously to educate for the need to protect healthy wildlife populations and America?s livestock industry.

 

[4100fps]

Doesn't that just make you want to spew?


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

 

[SMOKESTICK]

It looks and sounds like a lot of you are simply too consumed with hate to see what everyone else is saying.

Simply put - BGF/SFW was forced to support the Tester/Baucus/Simpson amendment by the political machine and Washington, D.C. insiders. Their only option was to make it palatable by getting language added to ensure Wyoming was not harmed in the process.

It is ironic that you would use Nancy Pelosi as the example. Was she not successful in getting Obamacare passed when she said you must pass it before you can see what is in it? I didn't like it either, when she said that but did she or did she not deliver her promise. All of the nay sayers can no more prove that S.249 and H.R.509 couldn't or wouldn't be passed. It is simply their opinion.

Press Releases from Senator Hatch, Representative Lummis, etc are assembled by them. The fact that they are quoting the very people some are attempting to excoriate proves they played a role. Washington, D.C. is a big place. While I am sure that many played several roles and on several levels it does come down to getting it done.

To all the nay sayers, now that you have accomplished delisting it two states, with the promise of delisting in three more (once plans are approved), what is your next step.

Lets see your plans laid out on a public forum for anyone and everyone with a computer to access and review.

Did anyone bother to fact check with the BBC reporter? Why would he quote people from Defenders of Wildlife and some from SFW? Why didn't he quote Washington, D.C. insiders?

 

[feduptwo]

Smokestick,

Your wasting your time. These people think this fight started with BGF. They don't know you've been at it for ten years now.
Your absolutly right had sportsmen not been splintered by the Tester legislation (which by the way was introduced after the BGF legislation) whos to say we could of made minor concessions and got it passed attached to another important piece of legislation. What would of happened if the Montana Senators would have just supported the BGF legislaton? No wolf or anti wolf legislation would have passed on a straight up or down vote.
This legislation wasn't what we wanted (unless you wanted a very partial solution) but its a start I'll be it a small one. Only time will tell.

 

[4100fps]

Lets not forget what the NRA said about SFW/BGF, and I quote:

"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. "




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

 

[NeMont]

"Simply put - BGF/SFW was forced to support the Tester/Baucus/Simpson amendment by the political machine and Washington, D.C. insiders. Their only option was to make it palatable by getting language added to ensure Wyoming was not harmed in the process".



Forced to? Only after trying to kill it, then making a huge blunder releasing a press release that was a fabrication, then saying they were the only ones to do any "analysis" of the issue.

You have been involved for 10 years? BFD, in Montana we have been involved since reintroduction.

I just pray that Don Peay, SWF and BGF will leave Montana alone. Nothing ever good comes for average hunters when the above get involved in wildlife politics. Unless one likes reduced hunting opportunities and giving control of licenses to an organization that operates as an ATM for the bigwigs.

Nemont

 

[TOPGUN]

I received a press release in email from the NRA last night and another this afternoon thanking a lot of different folks and organizations for helping get the Rider through and it's funny but SWF and BFG aren't mentioned anywhere! Go figure, LOL!!!

 

[BuzzH]

There are at least THREE people in the world that believe SFW and BGF were responsible for the current wolf delisting, Don Peay, Ryan Benson, and Bob Wharff.

Also interestingly enough...all SFW board members.

Congratulations?

 

[Triple_BB]

LAST EDITED ON Apr-18-11 AT 08:25PM (MST)[p]You're rhetoric about you guys winning the wolf fight sounds like Al Gore talking about how he invented the internet. As for Cynthia Lummis, she's a POS who sells her soul for the highest dollar. I'm embarrassed to say I voted for her. When they created the Wyoming Range Legacy Act which was initiated by our late representative Craig Thomas, she voted against it's passage because oil dollars lined her coffers. Ironic that SFW was one of the few groups out of many hunting/conservation groups who also didn't support the measure. Perhaps for the same reason. For you that weren't aware, a regional supervisor for the USFS recently issued a ruling to eliminate drilling in a 70 square mile of the Wyoming Range. Not long after, Ms.Dumbazz herself was able to convince some of her cohorts to sign on and they wrote to this same supervisor asking her to rescind the order. Cynthia Lummis doesn't give two schitz about hunters or sportsmen. She's fighting the wolf issue because she's been bought and paid for by the oil and agriculture industry. And for those of you hunt the Wyoming Range, you could do yourself a favor and write the Forest Service supporting their recent decision. Or maybe we can get the clowns at the SFW to write them for us. Hahahaaa...

Here's the link: http://billingsgazette.com/news/sta...cle_15c3cc20-6877-11e0-a9f6-001cc4c03286.html

 

[BuzzH]

Triple_BB,

Good post, and I agree.

I am not impressed at all with Lummis.

WYSFW is a joke. They also pushed trying to get transferable landowner tags as well as guaranteed outfitter tags in Wyoming.

Throw in what you just stated and trying to kill wolf delisting...I dont see a strong future for that group. Cant say thats a bad thing either.

 

[Triple_BB]

Yesterday the local paper had a lengthy editorial written by the Casper Star Tribune's editor bashing Cynthia Lummis for pandering to big oil. The jist of it was, leave the Wyoming Range alone. This is for the clowns at the SFW. While yer out fighting the wolf battle, why don't you expend some of your self proclaimed political capital and call Cynthia Dumbazz and tell her to back off...