Judge Molloy to retire from active service in 2011

[montanadogs]

About time. Hopefully we will get someone that has a better that has a better understanding about the issues and will not be pushed by the environmentalists.


U.S. District Judge Donald Molloy says he plans to retire from active service next year.

The 64-year-old Missoula judge announced Wednesday that he would take senior status in August, meaning he will continue to hear cases.

Molloy has written some of the more controversial court rulings in the state during his 14 years on the bench, most recently placing wolves in Montana and Idaho back on the endangered species list.

Molloy has also blocked Montana and other states from opting out of federal gun laws, halted logging sales and declared a U.S. Forest Service plan for dropping retardant on fires illegal

The Billings Gazette reports that U.S. Sen. Max Baucus has named a committee to search for Molloy’s replacement.

 

[Ben Lamb]

He's still going to be on the bench, just not as active. So we get another judge appointed by the Big O, and recommended by Baucus.

I like where this is headed.

 

[nidahunter]

This is awesome news, now maybe our elk herds can get a little help. Hopefully the new one will interpret the laws a little better...

 

[Sytes]

Curious - what exactly did Molloy do that was against federal law? Federal law - the one he is obliged to follow...
Endangered Species Act is where the question is present... Not a Judge supporting the laws of our land.
Ya - It is not a "person" to vent against... though - lets be real about this. After all - if Molloy was this "wolf in disguise" / in bed with the cuddly wolf lovers - he would NEVER have authorized the wolf hunt we did have...
By allowing such - he effectively gave Montana and Idaho corroborating evidence the state effectively managed wolf populations... If he was this wolf in disguise - he would have simply stuck to ESA and told us to pound sand...
If anything to be peeved at - the wording of the Endangered Species Act. It needs to be modified... to account for incidents such as our three states... Wyoming would be second on my list of frustration...

Though for a Federal Judge who sidelined the ESA in hopes the states would collectively show / present effective wolf management... I wish him the best and support a judge who has dealt with the difficult tasks he has been faced with.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Well said Sytes.

 

[tjones]

Not so much,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

 

[mtmiller]

Well said Sytes.

Agreed. Molly may be a dildo, but this is an ESA issue and not a "liberal" judge issue.

 

[tjones]

Coaching from the sidelines is not part of his job.

 

[Terry aka Coydog]

Right on have a happy retirement there man. Maybe it will be better for all

 

[mixedbag]

Good news!!!I don't agree with the thoughts about wy. though.Wy. did have a plan in place.It was to manage the wolves in the Yellowstone area only.I think Wy. had it right in not wanting the spread of wolves throughout their state,and to manage the wolves in the reintroduction area only.I think the other states bent over backwards to the antis when they should have taken sides with Wy.Thats just my opinion,and I don't want to argue right and wrong with anyone.Hopefully, we'll see a season for them again this year and allow the states to manage them as they see fit

 

[Big Fin]

Good news!!!I don't agree with the thoughts about wy. though.Wy. did have a plan in place.It was to manage the wolves in the Yellowstone area only.I think Wy. had it right in not wanting the spread of wolves throughout their state,and to manage the wolves in the reintroduction area only.I think the other states bent over backwards to the antis when they should have taken sides with Wy.Thats just my opinion,and I don't want to argue right and wrong with anyone.Hopefully, we'll see a season for them again this year and allow the states to manage them as they see fit

Mixedbag, as you stated, that is your opinion. And, thankfully we live in a country where you are entitled to it.

Some facts that you may or may not have considered in forming your opinion that Montana and Idaho caved in to some group you identify as the antis.

> Montana and Idaho formed citizen committees that spent thousands of hours developing these plans, taking public comments, working with biologists and legislators.

> These committees were stacked with hunters and ag producers. There was a token enviro on the Montana committee, but that was for nothing but lip service. This committee was going to kick out a pretty damn good plan, just based on who was on the committee.

> The plans in these states reflect the wishes and desires of the citizens of the states.

> The Montana plan reflects the conservation history and wildlife heritage of our state and I suspect the same of the Idaho plan.

> The Montana plan was accepted overwhelmingly at the public comment hearings.


Let me ask this.

Given all of that, are you saying we should have bagged our Montana plan and all the public comment and work that went into it, so we could stand in line with Wyoming and in effect, have Wyoming write the plan for all three states?


Here is my opinion. And I am sure not all, if any, will agree with it.

People who think MT and ID caved in, or think the other states bent over backwards to the antis, are ignorant of the larger argument of the wolf issue, the agreement the states signed up for in the re-introduction documents, and how the MT and ID plans were formulated.

It is my opinion that people who hold the belief that MT and ID should junk their wolf plans and stand in line with Wyoming have not done the necessary research and study to learn how the process worked, what went into it, and what that would represent to the other two states.

It is also my opinion that Wyoming should do as they damn well please. If that plan reflects the wishes and values of their citizens, then that is the plan Wyoming should stick with and try to defend. Wyoming hunters can opine whether or not that plan reflects the wishes of Wyoming hunters.

And my final opinion is that there will never be another re-introduction of a species in the west, ever again. The states have been burned. By tying all three states together, as is supposedly the requirement under the ESA (according to Malloy), the ability for a state to manage these re-introduced species according to the wishes of their citizens is completely gone.

Again, all just my opinions ........ formed over fifteen years of being involved in the issue, attending committee meetings, and watching the wolves expand beyond what is tolerable and reasonable.

I agree with your statement - "Hopefully, we'll see a season for them again this year and allow the states to manage them as they see fit."

 

[mixedbag]

Since you put it that way, I should have just stuck to my last statement only.I'm not a resident of Montana so I don't know everything that went into their management plan.Just hear alot of bashing of Wy. which DID actually have a plan.I guess I form my opinion as a hunter that see no need for wolves outside their reintroduction area.This is my opinion only,didn't mean to hit a nerve
I guess as hunters, we can all agree that its nice to see Malloy go and hopefully a management plan put to use in all 3 states

 

[Big Fin]

Mixedbag - No nerve hit and no need for a long debate. Just adding some perspective about the side of things from a Montana guy who wants so badly to hunt wolves and who finds it interesting to see people forming the opinion that Montana is pandering to the opposition.

Hopefully we can get to a point where we will all have a chance to hunt these wolves. And hopefully, sooner, rather than later.

 

[BuzzH]

Mixedbag,

BigFin has it right in most all of what was stated. All three states had ample opportunity to comment before reintroduction and they also had the ability to come up with their own State wolf managment plans. All 3 states did come up with plans...some were acceptable, some not so much.

I dont care if you dont like Wyoming being bashed, I get the feeling on a local level talking with hunters here that they just want a plan put in place that would allow wolves to be hunted/managed. Its also my contention that the ranchers and livestock interests "handled" the unacceptable wolf plan at the expense of the hunting public in Wyoming. The hunters in Wyoming have been "handled" by the livestock interests for a very long time, and this wolf issue is no different. The Marlboro man has stacked the deck from the start and Wyoming hunters did, and continue to, sit back and watch it happen.

What really bothers me is that hunters are so willing to be run over by the livestock industry...and even more troubling is some "pro-hunting" groups like SFW, actually expect hunters to defend the poor decisions and the destructive influence that the livestock industry has on public wildlife and public lands. Its a joke.

Fin, the one thing I disagree with you on in your reply is this:

"And my final opinion is that there will never be another re-introduction of a species in the west, ever again. The states have been burned. By tying all three states together, as is supposedly the requirement under the ESA (according to Malloy), the ability for a state to manage these re-introduced species according to the wishes of their citizens is completely gone"

I dont think the states have been burned, I just think the States, the public, biologists, etc. etc. were unaware of some of the implications involved. It was a never a secret that the reintroduced wolves were to be managed as a single population and that all 3 states had to have accepted plans in place.

I also dont think anyone that was actively involved believed a reintroduction of this magnitude would not be without problems, lawsuits, and a pretty steep learning curve.

I also dont agree that no other reintroductions will happen in the West, I'm sure they will happen. I will say that the States will likely learn alot about what happened with the wolf reintroduction, and I would bet there is a lot more details pounded out in any reintroduction agreements when it happens again. Thats a good thing, we were all largely in uncharted waters and learning as it happened...and continuing to learn even now.

 

[69chevey]

Me myself I never seen any positive outcome of reintroducing any predators anywhere!!Oh wait just gives us more to hunt!!Its almost like reintroducing small pox!!

 

[nidahunter]

What we need to realize is that all of this time and effort has been put into scientifically and biologically sound plans for management in the states. Unfortunately, none of this matters because the antis will just continue to sue until they get what they want. This and any future reintroductions (and there will be more, dont fool yourself) will never again be based on science. It will be decided in the courts of public opinion, and unfortunately the opinion of the people that live, hunt, and try to make a living here will not matter.

 

[BuzzH]

nidahunter,

Cant agree...Molloy ruled that the plans of MT and ID were not going to have any negative impact on the wolf population. He saw that the plans were based on science and biology and allowed the hunts to happen in those states, largely, or most entirely, based on the testimony of the science/biology.

What you cant ask ANY judge to do is not follow the law, which Molloy did in his second ruling.

Local opinion does matter...just doesnt trump the opinion of the rest of the United States Citizens who are also rightfully allowed theirs in regard to federal issues such as wolf reintroduction. In particular local opinion is ALL that matters in the drafting of STATE management plans.

 

[nidahunter]

"In particular local opinion is ALL that matters in the drafting of STATE management plans."

I couldnt agree more, however this is not a state issue, as we have seen. Common sense and science doesnt matter. There is alot of interpretation involved in the ESA, and Molloy was pretty liberal in that interpretation. As others have stated, why do political boundaries exist when it comes to the states and the wolf population, however the political boundary between the US and Canada(where the wolves came from ) is ignored? It is the same wolf no matter where it came from......and it is not endangered,

 

[BuzzH]

He wasnt ruling on just the ESA, also the EIS...the one that all citizens and the respective states agreed upon. There was a violation of the EIS. The agreement was for all three to have an acceptable plan before wolves could be delisted, Wyoming didnt...and still doesnt.

It is BOTH a state and federal issue. Once the wolves are delisted, state management plans move forward on a 3-year "probation" period. If at the end of 3 years, if the minimum wolf numbers are being upheld via state management plans, full control is given to the States.

You're also wrong about it being the "same wolf no matter where it came from"...the reintroduced wolves were classified under the EIS as a "non-essential" portion of the population. There were already wolves living in NW Montana and the non-essential status did 2 things:

1. It provided complete protection under the ESA to the wolves that already existed in NW Montana.

2. It allowed for increased...and lethal...control of the reintroduced wolves without being in violation of the ESA. Lethal wolf control happened almost immediately upon their release.

Molloy agreed they werent endangered in his first ruling, and thats why he allowed the hunts. But, he also couldnt ignore the law and the agreements within the EIS. Has nothing to do with "liberal"...it has to do with the law. If Wyoming would have had an accepted plan, the hunts would have happened at least 2-4 years before they did, the probation period would be over, and the States would have full control.

I do wish that MT and ID could have kept their hunts and management plans in place...while Wyoming flapped in the wind by themselves. Unfortunately, that wasnt agreed upon in the beginning.

 

[mtmiller]

Common sense and science doesnt matter. There is alot of interpretation involved in the ESA, and Molloy was pretty liberal in that interpretation.

USFWS is specific to the Distinct Population Segments in the United States. Molloy didn't "interpret" those boundaries. Utilizing state boundaries would be against USFWS's own policy.