Anti-wolf group wants to sue the feds

Michaelr

New member
Joined
Apr 2, 2002
Messages
1,005
Location
idaho
Itachacas link---http://www.challismessenger.com/archives/731wolf.html

Anti-wolf group wants to sue the feds

by Anna Means


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Central Idaho Anti-Wolf Coalition is headed to court as soon as it raises enough money.

The coalition issued a press release this week stating their intention to sue the federal government for violating Idaho’s sovereignty when the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) brought Canadian gray wolves into Idaho.

Coalition Chairman Ron Gillett, an outspoken critic of the reintroduction program, predicts his group will raise $50,000 in their August fundraiser in Nampa. In the press release Gillett said, “Something must be done because the wolf population has exploded to the point of decimating Idaho’s big game herds. The wolves are ruining Idaho’s heritage, our economic base, our way of life and most importantly, the wolves are killing our native wildlife.”

Gillett told the Messenger the Canadian gray wolf is an exotic species to Idaho. He said FWS actually introduced the wolves rather than reintroduced them. The coalition wants to raise $100,000 then take a lawsuit against the federal government.

Gillett told the Messenger that the coalition has hired an environmental policy researcher, Helen Franklin out of North Bend, Oregon, who has been reviewing the FWS Environmental Impact Statement. He said she’s found several violations. He said, “There’s no doubt we have grounds for a lawsuit.”

The lawsuit, according to the press release, will claim Idaho’s wildlife is being decimated. Gillett said there’s no doubt they will be in court before the year is out. His long standing claim that wolves are destroying wildlife will be part of the argument. Gillett said they don’t have specific research data to support that claim, but said, “My eyes are just as good as Fish and Game.” Gillett lives in Stanley and said he goes out a few nights every week to look at the elk. Two nights ago he saw 45 cow elk and only two calves. Earlier in the month he saw 48 cows at Cape Horn and only four calves. This, he said, spells disaster for herds since it’s a commonly held notion that every 100 cows should have 25-30 offspring in tow to support a healthy herd.

Gillett said it’s not only him, but people across the state watching the herds who have seen carcasses and diminishing cow/calf ratios.

Gillett said he’s extremely unhappy with Fish and Game staff for saying it’s too soon to say how wolves are impacting herds.

He said he and others of the same mind live in wolf country, pay taxes and are trying to survive in “this rural economy.” He said wolf supporters live out of the area and can endorse wolves because it doesn’t affect them, but they have no idea how it is for people living around the critters. “If this was so good for us wouldn’t we be the first to say thank you?”

Butch Otter, representing Idaho’s first congressional district in Washington, D.C., is on the coalition’s side. In their press release, the coalition quoted Otter as saying, “In 1776, King George tried to impose his will on the 13 colonies by taxation without representation. Today, the federal government is acting like King George by forcing the citizens of Idaho to live with Canadian gray wolves without their consent. Make no mistake, Canadian gray wolves are a clear and present danger to the rural Idaho economy and the big game herds that Idahoans love.”

Mark Warbis with Otter’s office said the congressman probably made that statement in the Idaho Outdoor Life radio program aired by AM station KIOV. Warbis said Otter supports the principles behind the movement and if they’re successful, “More power to them.” Otherwise, Warbis said, Otter supports “at the very least” state management.

The coalition fundraiser is set for August 22 at the Nampa Civic Center. There will be dinner, speeches and an auction. Festivities begin at 6:00 p.m.
 
Beings that you made a point to post this article, I assume you agree with this position. If that is an incorrect assumption, please correct me. The reason I ask is that in the illegal logging post Illegal logging post you stated that you felt that these types of issues should have been delt with before the action was implemented. Do you only feel this way when it is in your favor or do you feel that is what is good for the goose is good for the gander?
confused.gif
 
Not the same at all.
one of the main points of the lawsuit will be that wolves are decimating deer, elk, ect.

They couldn't hardly have sued on that BEFORE the fact.
 
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> one of the main points of the lawsuit will be that wolves are decimating deer, elk, ect. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I disagree, given sufficient funding professional biologist are very adept at predicting outcomes. Did you volunteer any time, effort, or money to ensure that this knowledge could be obtained?

So do you stand by your statement that these things should be hashed out before the action is put in place?

Remember, that when the action was taken against something you supported that you supported that this be hashed out before hand. Make sure that you don't limit these types of statements to those things that YOU support.

<FONT COLOR="#800080" SIZE="1">[ 08-13-2003 07:55: Message edited by: 1_pointer ]</font>
 
Or, perhaps a better question, which many wolf-haters on this site, have so smartassedly stated; "what did they think the wolves were going to eat? Berries?"

I guess they were confused BEFORE the fact, but now its all clear?

Pointer it is the same thing, Michael knows it too...but as per usual, the rules change depending on the issue.

These guys had more than adequate opportunity to file before, they didnt, too bad. I feel the same way about the illegal logging...they had their chance.
 
Today's editorial: "Idaho´s anti-wolf lynch mob is at it again — and they´re more out- there than ever.
They want to raise $100,000 to hire a bounty hunter of a lawyer who can make the feds get rid of Idaho wolves, again......"

http://www.idahostatesman.com/Opinion/story.asp?ID=46571

The newspaper usually doesn't imply that groups are a bunch of wackos, but they did with this bunch!
biggrin.gif
biggrin.gif
 
Buzz stated <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Pointer it is the same thing, Michael knows it too...but as per usual, the rules change depending on the issue.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
That is exactly right on the money, and it does not make my a hypocrite. I would hope that we are all able to see issues as individual issues and judge them on their own merits.

You are all comparing apples to oranges, And as smart as you calim to be you should know it
hump.gif
 
I have never claimed to be smart, so please elaborate on how this is an apples to oranges comparison.
 
Pointer,
c-mon pointer wolves and trees, think about it
rolleyes.gif


I would guess there is a huge difference
confused.gif
 
Michael, I dont see any difference, who cares if its trees and wolves...the point of contention is the PROCESS.

That process was/is the same for both.

I dont think you're that stupid either, but then again, I may be wrong.
eek.gif
 
Michael, as Buzz stated, the NEPA process makes no differentiation between plants or animals. So if a wolf is involved it is okay to sue after the fact, but if trees are the issue you can't? Seems odd that you support after the fact lawsuits when it supports you ideals, but support the other position to also support your ideals. Any comments?

Yes, I did put the hypocrite comment up, but later deleted so as to not to fall into the trap of degredating a thread with name calling. I will not do that again. Can you do the same?
 
I'm curious what people's problems are with wolves. It seems to me that calls of "They will wipe out wildlife" are reminiscent of similar bold statements made by environmentalists that are criticized as being extremist. This is hypocritical. There is no documented fatal attack on a human in North America. Yes, wildlife is more skiddish and tougher to hunt, but so what? I guess I am all for returning ecosystems to their original state if it is possible.
 
Hangar,
You hit the issue on the head with the <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Yes, wildlife is more skiddish and tougher to hunt, but so what<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

As there is a group of people in Idaho who will always look for someone to blame for their Fat-Ass and their lack of a full tag. One of this group (Anti-Wolf Coalition) press release stated that there are between 700-1000 wolves in Idaho, not the 284 that was claimed by the Indian Tribe that monitors the population. So far in this debate in Idaho, facts have had little role in the process, and instead, we have people who had nightmares when their momma read them Little Red Riding Hood still being afraid of the wolf, and likely also afraid of the dark, judging by the big ol' spotlights they have on their rigs.

My guess is that if you go to the meeting they will be having in Nampa, you will not find a High School graduate among the whole bunch. Maybe not even a full set of teeth...
biggrin.gif
 
Michael,

The missing qualifer is that there has not been an attack of a "Wild" or "free ranging" Wolf.

There was the Canada attack in the enclosure, and we always are reading about the Wolf Hybrids that eat kids in backyards of Subdivisions.
 
Look at the quotes from the CIAnti-Wolf Coalition...
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Ron Gillett, Chairman of the Central Idaho Anti-Wolf Coalition Inc., who owns and operates an outfitting and guide service in Stanley ID, says the numbers don't add up, because there are many wolves without radio tracking devices, leaving USFWS officials no way of accounting for wolves. "It is impossible to know the true wolf count in Idaho because of the dense terrain and the topography of this state”. Gillett, contends Idaho wolf populations are almost double what USFWS, is releasing. “Wolves are multiplying like rabbits in Australia, wolves are land piranhas, annihilating everything in their path”. “Our wildlife is being wiped out” Gillett said <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Montana state moose biologist Kurt Alt tells us the moose are all but wiped out. Wildlife in Idaho, Montana and Wyoming have been decimated and predation on domesticated livestock industry which relies on wildlife as a buffer between predators is 500 to 700 percent higher than the USF&WS will acknowledge. Without immediate wolf control the ranchers will be forced out of business due to wolf predation. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Warren Ballard, now a professor of wildlife biology in Texas, has conducted scientific research concerning wolves extensively in Alaska. Ballard, a former wolf biologist for the Alaska Department of Fish and Game, says without drastic wolf control methods by 2010, elk, moose, deer, sheep, goats will be gone, smaller animals such as ground-nesting birds, rabbits, gophers and anything else edible will be wiped out, ranchers will be bankrupt, horseback riders will won’t be safe outside highly-guarded enclaves, hiking will be very dangerous, and living in the Tri-States will be very different. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
 
Use Promo Code Randy for 20% off OutdoorClass

Forum statistics

Threads
113,580
Messages
2,025,785
Members
36,237
Latest member
SCOOTER848
Back
Top