Intervenor status denied in latest wolf lawsuit

[Ben Lamb]

It is obvious that you are close to Tester and also to Baucus. Maybe you should ask Baucus if at any time did a campaign contribution for him get someone membership in the DOW. If it didn't, there are lots of online sources that have posted this fact inaccurately. Perhaps, Baucus and the CEO of DOW have no working relationship of any kind.

Someone got something wrong on the internet? Honestly, that question is something that any one of Baucus' opponents would have raised. MT politics is no-holds-barred. If it was true, it would have been an issue, and Baucus would no longer be the Senior Senator.

I have lived in NW Wyoming for the last 11 years. Prior to that, I lived in Idaho for 27 years. I am not an insider and do not share the same opinion of either Montana Senator that you do. I am also not a huge fan of Representative Rehberg. I believe that Tester had to do something on the wolf issue or be seen as another Democrat walking in lockstep with the current administration. Whether that was political or not will be a decision that others will have to make. If he was so involved in the wolf delisting process, why did he jump in so late?

He was as involved as he should have been. When the delisting options had all been exhausted, he acted swiftly, and definitively. What more can you ask for? Most of the rhetoric and grandstanding on the wolf issue has been about power and making it look like you're doing something. I've worked on this issue for 8 years now, and honestly, there are few folks who really want this issue resolved. Those of us in the middle that have been working towards resolution through the ESA finally got tired enough of the BS from groups like CBD and Alliance, that there was enough of a target to get something done. Politics, after all, is the art of the possible. Elected officials throwing their weight around on wildlife issues is exactly what we should we getting away from. It reduces the legitimacy of wildlife management, and only opens the door for further politicization of our issues.

You have a lot of faith in Federal District Judge Donald Molloy. You claim that he should not be vilified for the decision he made that relisted the wolf and stopped the wolf hunts. You obviously think he made the right decision on the relisting under the ESA. Challenging a judge's opinion and viIifying him are two different things. To suggest that he could only have decided one way, is contrary to any legal process and reasoning that I am familiar with. Federal District Judges are appointed for life. It is a partisan process when they are confirmed. Max Baucus recommendeded Molloy and Clinton appointed him.

I never said that he made the right decision (in that I was happy he made that decision), I said he made the decision based on the law as it was written, and I believe that it was the decision that he had to make. Speaking to legal counsel and others deeper in to it than I, they mostly agreed that this decision would not have been overturned by the 9th.

Molloy laid the groundwork for Simpson-Tester by saying that this was a pragmatic solution (delisting based on Geographic boundaries) but not a legal one, and if people wanted this solution, then they would have to take it to congress. I'm fine if people want to challenge Molloy's ruling, and use the processes we've set up to do so. I heartily embrace the legal system as a tool to remedy wrongs. Molloy, by the way, received a lot of endorsements from folks on the conservative side. I would also note that Molloy recently ruled in favor of WR Grace in the Libby Mesothelioma case. How is that the bidding of left?

As for my opinions of Baucus and Tester, I simply formed those by working with them on conservation and sporting issues. You bet I'm a paid hack. I do this job because I care about the future of hunting and fishing. I do this because I thoroughly believe that TR was right when he said that conservation was the most democratic undertaking that Americans could be a part of. That Conservation of this nation is one of our greatest challenges, and of great importance.

Consequently, I have a very high opinion of Senator Mike Enzi and Senator John Barasso (with some major differences of opinion related to public lands). Senator Barasso was a solid sportsmen's vote in the WY legislature when I worked there. He would be a harsh task master, but he was thoughtful and while I didn't always agree with him, I certainly understood where he was coming from, and could respect him easily.

By the way, Federal District Judge Johnson from Wyoming found against the federal government in his recent ruling concerning wolf predator zones and trophy zones under the ESA.

I don't know much about Judge Johnson, but I agree with his ruling. As I read it, the ruling said that WY's plan might well be inadequate, but the USFWS was arbitrary and capricious in not fully considering the redraft from 2009. Johnsons' ruling further does nothing to clarify the legitimacy of the WY plan, other than say that it could possibly work with some tweaks. I worked on the WY wolf management plan for 5 years and am very familiar with it. I tend to agree with Judge Johnson I suppose.

There is way too much litigation going on with the ESA. The court system is bogged down with environmental lawsuits. They take forever to be finally resolved. When you couple this with all the money being raised by both eco-elite groups and by sportsman's groups you have a recipe for political partisanship that corrupts the whole process. Hopefully, you and I can at least agree on that point.
I have faith in or political system. But that does not make me believe that everyone involved in the process has the best of intentions.

I am 110% with you on this statement. I would also note that it is industry and trade groups that are the largest litigator when it comes to NEPA, ESA and other lawsuits. However, the abuse of the legal system, and the possible abuse of EAJA demand some attention. What is needed is moderate reform to get to the heart of the problem. Interestingly enough, as you noted, the partisan divisions that we are seeing are a direct result of everyone not willing to sit down, talk and find out what the real issues are.

If only everyone were as thoughtful as you and I! Mighty, I doubt we are far apart on many issues. Our differences probably stem from which avenue to take to get us to where we want to go. We are both looking for the same outcome: wolves under state control, sensible reforms to abused programs, and a conservation legacy that continues to be a blessing rather than a curse to westerners.

 

[idnative1948]

Wow! Two guys disagreeing with points the other may have brought up and able to do it without being classless buffoons.
Thanks for your insite, gents. This keeps me coming back.

 

[theat]

This is the kind of information that i can take seriously (without all the name calling and grandstanding). Very interesting stuff. I sure hope Ben is right and Molloy shows some commonsence rules against the extemists.

Heres a link to an interesting article about the Center for Biological Diversity in the current Missoula Independent. It is a left slanting paper but the article makes some good points on how they are abusing the legal system for profit and doing harm to conservation efforts.
http://missoulanews.bigskypress.com/missoula/extreme-green/Content?oid=1467403

 

[mightyhunter]

theat,
Great link and I thank you for it.
Ben Lamb,
Thanks for your last post. I agree that we may both be fairly close in our opinions. I would acknowledge that I may be a little jaded about politicians and judges. However, I still think the United States has the greatest system of government on earth despite some of the flaws.
My biggest concern about all this is the damage done on ungulate populations where I live in NW Wyoming. The uncontrolled expansion of predators (wolf,grizzly bear) has caused a serious problem. I am concerned that the damage is irreparable. I hope it is not. When I am not on the computer, I am out hiking, fishing, rafting and hunting all over NW Wyoming. I have witnessed the elk and moose populations plummet in this area. I have been chased by a grizzly and did not enjoy the experience. I know people who were mauled in recent years. This year I have especially noticed a drop in the number of elk calves in my favorite areas. I was in the Sunlight Basin cutting firewood on Saturday. I saw over 100 healthy cow elk and just 3 calf elk. Maybe the birthing is late, but that may be wishful thinking on my part. In Wyoming Unit 54, the cow/calf ratio seems to be a little better. But it is still not where it needs to be. Where I used to see 30-40 moose a season just a few years ago, I now see maybe 2-3 a year. I have a moose tag in Unit 10 (Hoback) in Wyoming south of Jackson for 2011. There are at least a few moose still surviving in those areas. I would rather hunt them in the Beartooths, but they are essentially gone now.
I want to see the states manage the wolf ASAP. It can't happen soon enough for me. I also want the grizzly bear delisted. Their numbers, which vary from 350-1,200 (depending on who you talk to), have recovered and state management is needed. Moving problem bears around and around within the recovery zone is just not a long term solution.
If I read or hear anything more on the "wolf rider" I will post it.
Being a slacker, I will be rafting the Clarks Fork of the Yellowstone on Thursday and hiking on the N. Fork of the Shoshone on Friday.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Mighty,
100% agreed. Cheers, and say hi to moose that hang out at Elephant Head for me. We've met a few times.

 

[mightyhunter]

I am likely just kicking a dead horse here, but I wanted to clarify some of my previous posts on this subject. After spending most of the day screwing off, I had some time this evening to do a little more internet research. I discovered a couple of things I wasn't aware of. There is a Defenders of Wildlife 501 (c) (3) group and also a Defenders of Wildlife Action Fund 501 (c) (4). The former is a charitable organization and the latter is not. They are different organizations with much of the same leaders, members and contributors. The Defenders of Wildlife Action Fund allows them to lobby and engage in unlimited work to influence legislative action. If you donate $ 10 or more to the Defenders of Wildlife Action Fund those funds can be used for political purposes such as supporting or opposing political candidates. In the interest of resolving some of my negative comments about Max Baucus and Jon Tester, it would be interesting to know how much they each received in campaign contributions from the Defenders of Wildlife Action Fund for the Baucus 2008 re-election campaign, and for Tester in his 2006 election campaign and for his 2012 re-election bid. I do not know where to go to find this information and I don't know if it is public record. I also discovered that the Defenders of Wildife have an annual Conservation Report Card which rates House and Senate members on how often they vote the positions of the Defenders of Wildlife on a piece of legislation. I would post a link but my computer skills are lacking. Overall, I would say that Democratic House and Senate members have the highest ratings on the DOW report card. For their vote on the "wolf rider", Tester and Baucus may have a reduced rating for 2011 with DOW. If the "wolf rider" is dumped by Judge Molloy, the reduced rating may not be the biggest problem that Senator Tester faces in his 2012 re-election campaign. Although I have stated that I don't think much of Dennis Rehberg, I would guess his DOW rating is around 0%.
Ben Lamb,
I will not make it as far up as Elephant Head in the morning, Most of the moose have disappeared in the North Fork drainage so I may not be able to say hello. I think I saw 1 in 2009 and 2 in 2010. That is just sad. I am looking forward to exploring another trail on the North Fork of the Shoshone. I am crossing my fingers for no new snow, sliding mud or any unfriendly grizzly bears in my path.

 

[Big Fin]

Here is the link to everything reported to/by the Federal Election Commission. Haven't looked at Defenders, but glanced at the three Montana delegates. Saw nothing from Defenders in any of the three, but did not look real close.

http://www.fec.gov/disclosure.shtml

 

[sweetnectar]

I was playing around on the site Big Fin posted up. So I wanted to see individuals that donated to Defenders of Wildlife's Action Fund and only found one from Montana, zero from Wyoming, and zero from Idaho out of 228 donars. I'm not sure as to what time period they were and exactly how it all works. I need to spend some more time figuring out how it all works but have to get to work...bills, family...weekend, etc.

Also, at first glance I didn't see a committee donation to Baucus from Defenders. I wish someone who knows what they are doing would review things and summarize what they find. Where's TJones? He seems to have lots of time to dig through things like this and I'd think he has enough brass to set aside his party affiliation for some good digging.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Looking around I didn't see a donation from the PAC to Baucus either. Without knowing the names of the fundraisers or bundlers for DOW, it would be difficult to see how much money they did raise for him, if they did.

Interestingly, the NRA seems to have a lot of love for Max. Quite a few bucks flowing from them to the Friends of Baucus campaign. Same goes for the insurance industry, and the Fraternity and Sorority Assn.

Max likes keggers, who knew?

 

[mightyhunter]

I received a forwarded press release from BGF. Most of what that release contained involved information posted previously in this thread. It did state that BGF, MDF and the SWF had also been denied intervenor status in the recent lawsuit challenging the "wolf rider" to the 2011 budget. Every sportsman's group that sought intervention and also the State of Idaho have now each been denied involvement in the "wolf rider" lawsuit. It is my understanding that the denial is now being appealed. I don't believe those appeals will have much chance for success. Judge Molloy's reasoning apparently involved scheduling and time constraints. Obviously the more participants in a lawsuit, the greater potential for delays in the adjudication of the issues. That scheduling issue and other pretrial orders would suggest that Judge Molloy is really trying to speed the process up so he can issue a quick ruling. This could be to end the eco-elite lawsuit quickly with a ruling for the Defendants. It also could mean that Judge Molloy wants to give the Defendants enought time to appeal (before the wolf hunts were to begin) an adverse ruling. ShouId Judge Molloy support the postion of the Defendants in a ruling, the appeal by the groups seeking intervention would become pointless. If he rules for the Plaintiffs, and drop kicks the "wolf rider" for being unconstitutional, his actions in denying intervenor status to the various sportman's groups and the State of Idaho won't sit very well. The whole thing is a mystery to me. However, I would expect a ruling on the constitutionality of the "wolf rider" before the end of summer.

 

[mightyhunter]

Various sportsman's groups asked Judge Molloy to reconsider his decision denying intervenor status to those groups in the "wolf rider" lawsuit. Those motions were denied again on July 1st. Although most everyone has been denied intervenor status, it is my understanding that Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming have been allowed to file amicus briefs. This allows them to submit briefs in support of the consitutionality of the "wolf rider" but does not allow them to actually participate in the lawsuit. A speedy ruling seems to be the ultimate goal of this judge.

All parties to the lawsuit have filed motions for summary judgement concerning the constitutionality of the "wolf rider" to the 2011 budget bill. A hearing on the motions and cross motions has been set for July 26, 2011 in front of Judge Molloy. That means that Judge Molloy can issue his ruling on the "wolf rider" at some time after that date. He could rule from the bench on July 26th, 2011, but I would suggest that such a bench ruling would be highly unlikely. I am not very good at reading "judicial tea leaves" but I would expect a written opinion from Judge Molloy before the end of summer and before the wolf hunts begin in Montana, Idaho and perhaps Wyoming. Because this issue is purely one of "law" and not fact, my guess is Judge Molloy already knows how he is going to rule.

 

[mightyhunter]

Again, I hate to beat this "wolf rider" to death. I did find an interesting quote while perusing some of the rulings from Judge Molloy in this case. This was contained in the order (June 1, 2011) denying intervenor status that was filed by numerous sportsman's groups. The order states the following:

"The issue before the court is narrow and the court set a shortened briefing schedule in order to promptly resolve this case"

Now the only questions are:
How fast he will rule after July 26th, 2011? and;
How will he rule?

 

[mightyhunter]

A two hour hearing was held in this dispute on July 26th, 2011. Each party had filed a motion for summary judgement trying to resolve this dispute without the need for a trial. I have heard from people who were present at the hearing or had representatives in attendance at the hearing. I have also read some of the second hand reporting by various newspapers and some of the "pro wolf" blogs. Much of the talk was about the specific questions that Judge Malloy directed to the attorney for the federal government. I think sportsmen are a little pessimistic about the outcome. Based on what has happened in the past, I can understand that some would be a little nervous. I am not very good at reading tea leaves in judicial decision making. Juries are a whole lot easier to read. I do believe that a decision and opinion will be available within the next weeks if not days. Remember, Judge Malloy is going on senior status (partial retirement) in August. If the judge rules against the "wolf rider", it is my belief that little would be gained by an appeal of that decision. That would take years. Time would be better spent with new stand alone legislation and perhaps actual amendment of the ESA. That could be a real challenge given the approaching election cycle. I do believe that if Judge Malloy finds the "wolf rider" unconstitutional that all hell will break loose with most hunters and sportsman.

On a side note, my hunting partner was cutting firewood last week in the Sunlight Basin (Beem Gulch). He ran into a USFWS "wolf guy" who was checking on some wolf tracks in the area. The USFWS guy expressed his opinion that the gray wolf would never be delisted. That would certainly be some job security. Oh well, only time will tell. Regardless of the outcome of the current lawsuit, tag or no tag, I wouldn't want to be a wolf come this hunting season.

 

[shoots-straight]

Mighty, the days of the wolf being listed are almost over. It's inevitable that sooner or later that with legislation or with Wyoming getting their crap together, it will happen.