Today is the big day

[drahthaar]

Molloy is listening to arguements on the wolf hunt! I hope USFWS attorneys got a good nights rest and are sharp and ready today.

And hopfully the attorneys for defenders of wildlife got roaring drunk, and stayed up all night smoking dope with a few of the local hookers.

 

[BuzzH]

I think the case still has one huge problem and thats Wyomings lack of an accepted plan...

 

[Big Fin]

.............And hopfully the attorneys for defenders of wildlife got roaring drunk, and stayed up all night smoking dope with a few of the local hookers.

That would be ordinary and regular behavior for them, would it not?

 

[drahthaar]

I think the case still has one huge problem and thats Wyomings lack of an accepted plan...

Oh boy, I know, I am not going there today, positive thoughts.......for whatever that is worth.

 

[noharleyyet]

And hopfully the attorneys for defenders of wildlife got roaring drunk

Why not?...they are celebrating on a repeat customer's tab.

 

[drahthaar]

That would be ordinary and regular behavior for them, would it not?

Probably. Maybe we should have sent in some ringers.:hump:

 

[Sytes]

Good to see our governor on board - though would not expect less as a large land owner of Montana. He is one democrat I have been satisfied with - excluding a few issues.

HELENA - Gov. Brian Schweitzer said Tuesday he'll be disappointed if a federal judge stops Montana's first-ever wolf hunting season - and hinted the state may sue to keep the hunt on.

Hopefully this holds true this round as well...

 

[Sytes]

A recess has been called in the federal wolf de-listing trial after an attorney for one of the environmental groups fainted in the courtroom this morning.

Great... Guess their protesters did not show to the level they wanted... stall tactic anyone?

 

[shoots-straight]

Does sound fishy doesn't it. I figured they needed to regroup for some reason. Maybe they weren't ready for testimony from our side. Caught off guard.

Or just really hung over.

 

[drahthaar]

See, what did I say. Positive thoughts, they are dropping like flies.

 

[WV Hunter]

The weed and beer got to him. Passed out from the late night.

 

[----]

And hopfully the attorneys for defenders of wildlife got roaring drunk, and stayed up all night smoking dope with a few of the local hookers.

I guess when in Rome...

 

[Big Fin]

As of 20 minutes ago.

MISSOULA -The question of whether or not it's legal for the federal government to remove wolves in Montana and Idaho from the Endangered Species List, while still protesting Wyoming wolves, is being discussed in federal court.

That question is one of five Judge Donald Molloy is considering as Defenders of Wildlife and other groups try to block the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service from permanently taking the wolves off the endangered list.

The conservation groups are arguing that the feds are not only violating the ESA, but haven't used "best science" in making that decision.

But federal and state attorneys argue they have followed the law and Congressional intent, a point supported by the several dozen protesters who showed up outside the hearing. They want the wolf to stay off the list, and for the states to be able to continue hunts as a means of controlling wolf populations.

But the environmental groups say Fish and Wildlife has "run roughshod" over the Endangered Species Act and the states aren¹t capable of protesting (a U of M grad must be filiing this report) a viable wolf population.

Molloy isn't expected to make a decision Monday, and it will probably take a few weeks to review the extensive briefs and case law involved in the wolves' future.

The opening statements were delayed at mid-morning Monday when an attorney for one of the environmental groups fainted in the courtroom this morning. Paramedics were called to Molloy's courtroom and a recess was called so that the attorney could be tended to.

Also, in an unusual move, Molloy has banned media from bringing electronic devices, including laptops, into his courtroom today.

We'll be bringing you updates from today's hearing throughout the day.

information from Dennis Bragg, Angela Marshall, Mark Thorsell

 

[Big Fin]

Below is just one more article about the wolf issue, but if properly quoted, it includes the most asinine, stupid, ignorant, outrageous comments I have heard yet by any person supposedly on the side of hunters.

He really thinks this is part the fault of MT and ID, for actually trying to manage wolves in the same manner we manage everything else? What rock did this guy crawl out from under?

If Wharff is that stupid, the states and USFWS have no chance at all of winning. And somehow, his parent organization received intervener status on behalf of hunters. Give me a break.

Judge doubts wolf split - Molloy questions whether law allows Idaho, Montana hunts without Wyoming.

By Bailey Schreiber, Jackson Hole, Wyo., and The Associated Press
Date: June 16, 2010

A federal judge in Montana expressed skepticism Tuesday that the Endangered Species Act allows the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to remove federal protection of wolves in Montana and Idaho but not in Wyoming.

In a hearing for a suit brought by conservation groups against the federal wildlife agency, U.S. District Judge Donald Molloy told Justice Department attorney Mike Eitel he was having trouble accepting the government’s bifurcation of protection rules. Under federal actions, Wyoming wolves are separated from the rest of their “distinct population segment” in the northern Rockies, Molloy said in his Missoula courtroom.

“I understand the practical argument,” Molloy said. “I understand the political argument. Those two things are very, very clear. But what I don’t understand is the legal argument. That’s not very clear.”

Fish and Wildlife’s decision to remove federal protection from a portion of the northern Rocky Mountain gray wolf population violates the Endangered Species Act, conservation groups argued. Lawyers from Earthjustice said that delisting part of the population is grounds for putting all wolves in the northern Rockies back on the threatened and endangered species list. The Jackson Hole Conservation Alliance is among the groups represented by Earthjustice.

In 2009, Fish and Wildlife removed a portion of the Rocky Mountain gray wolf

Act protection in Montana and Idaho. However, because of inadequate state protections for wolves, the agency chose to continue federal protection for gray wolves in Wyoming.

If Molloy rules in favor of Fish and Wildlife’s decision to partially delist the gray wolf population, it could set a precedent for future delistings, allowing the federal government to arbitrarily pick and choose which animals are protected and where, Earthjustice attorney Doug Honnold said after the hearing.

“If the Fish and Wildlife Service can get away with this, the scope of the Endangered Species Act is radically restricted,” Honnold said.

A ruling in favor of conservation groups, however, might put additional pressure on Wyoming to come up with a wolf management plan that will pass muster with Fish and Wildlife. So far, Wyoming’s plans, which have sought to minimize the number of wolves with no protection at all in most of the state, have not met federal standards.

State management plans in Idaho and Montana also are problematic, conservation lawyers said. The plaintiffs fear that the wolf management plans in Montana and Idaho do not adequately protect the delisted wolves, though both states assured the judge that their states’ laws and regulations require them to manage viable wolf populations. Wolf hunts were held in both states last year. Seventy-three wolves were killed in Montana, and 185 were killed in Idaho.

The conservation groups also argued the size of the gray wolf population is not large enough to allow for sustainable population growth, claiming that in order for the species to maintain genetic diversity, the population must reach at least 2,000 animals. Federal guidelines require 15 breeding pairs and 150 wolves in each state.

There are about 1,700 gray wolves in the Rocky Mountain region, including at least 843 wolves in Idaho, 524 in Montana and 320 in Wyoming.

“By every biological measure, the region’s gray wolf population is fully recovered,” an April U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service report said. Conservation groups disagree.

“We hope the wolves in Idaho and Montana will be returned to the endangered species list, the recovery plan for the northern Rocky Mountain wolves is re-examined and a new recovery plan that ensures the recovery of wolves over the long term is created,” said Natural Resources Defense Council representative Matt Skoglund.

Federal lawyers argued that because a significant portion of the Rocky Mountain gray wolf population inhabits Wyoming, the partial delisting is justified. Without federal protection, the killing of gray wolves would be legal throughout most of the state.

The Wyoming wolf management plan designates nearly 90 percent of the state a “predator zone” in which gray wolves can be shot on sight without a license anytime of the year.

The population is one of the most well-studied and best-understood in the world, and the conclusion 15 years after reintroduction is that wolves will be continue to survive under state management, Eitel told Molloy.

Others, including Bob Wharff, executive director of the Wyoming chapter of Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife, argue that individual states should be given the responsibility of managing wildlife within their borders. Wharff, however, does not believe this will be the outcome of this lawsuit.

“It’s a tragedy that Idaho and Montana will lose the opportunity to manage the wildlife as they see fit,” he said. “But in part, it’s their fault for being so critical of Wyoming’s management plan. As a whole, we all lose when we have a species listed when that listing isn’t warranted."

A similar lawsuit is under way in Wyoming. Arguments were heard by U.S. District Judge Alan B. Johnson in federal court in Cheyenne on Jan. 29 to address the state of Wyoming’s request that Fish and Wildlife accept the state’s management plan. A decision from Johnson is pending.

 

[BuzzH]

BigFin,

I've went round and round with that idiot Bob Wharff. I exchanged some really heated emails with him regarding WYSFW's plan to get landowner sponsored (transferable) licenses as well as outfitter sponsored licenses in Wyoming as well.

True to form, WYSFW is pandering 100% to wealth tags...nothing new in that agenda. He also was not in favor of a stream access law and with the help of a State Rep. from Ft. Laramie, they killed proposed legislation that would have opened up stream access in Wyoming. At the same time there was a concurrent law regarding camping on State land, also opposed by Wharff and crew as it "infringed on lease holders rights".

It doesnt surprise me in the least that he's running his mouth like a complete idiot. Thanks to guys like him, I believe WY will be responsible for putting the screws to MT and ID on this issue. I've had that fear for a long, long time.

I recently asked the Wyoming delegation while I was in Washington D.C. how they were addressing the issue of wolves and Wyomings lack of a plan. The "answer" was that they intended to not interfere and let the State handle the situation. I also asked if they were aware that Wyomings resistance to an acceptable plan was hurting MT and ID. They again said it was an issue each state has to take care of on their own.

It flat floors me that so many people can be so nochalant about this issue. Its setting precedence for all kinds of future things, most importantly the delisting of a threated or endangered species, and reaffirming the states right to manage wildlife.

This pissing match that Wyoming has going over the dual classification of wolves is incredibly damaging to the ESA and the citizens of MT and ID.

 

[Sytes]

Bob Lane, chief legal counsel for Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks, flipped that argument on its head. He said the Endangered Species Act needs flexibility in order to work.

"Otherwise Wyoming, in effect, can maintain a kind of Senate filibuster if they maintain their position," Lane said. "The wolf status would never change. Do you then draw another line with only Montana and Idaho? What purpose is that?"

This was countering Earthjustice attorney Doug Honnold... who was forcing his position regarding WY's issue - basically if all three are not on board, it should not be open to any 1 or 2 of the three states.

Seems to me, Lane hit the nail on the head. This along with the Schweitzer's comments of State rights holds good ground IMO.

EDIT ADDED - another informative reporter's take of this proceeding:

Molloy hears arguments in wolf delisting case
by ROB CHANEY - of the Missoulian | Posted: Wednesday, June 16, 2010 12:00 am

Government wolf managers have either run roughshod over the Endangered Species Act or successfully returned a threatened animal to healthy numbers, lawyers told a federal judge on Tuesday.

Defenders of Wildlife vs. Salazar asks whether the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service acted legally in giving Montana and Idaho local control over wolves while keeping Wyoming wolves under federal Endangered Species Act protection.

A coalition of 14 conservation groups sued the government last year. U.S. District Judge Don Molloy held hearings last summer, and decided to let Montana and Idaho go ahead with their 2009 wolf hunts while he considered the case.

On Tuesday, he let both sides explain their arguments in person. His final decision is expected later this year.

"These are not normative questions about the goodness or badness of the decision-making," Molloy told the packed courtroom in Missoula's Russell Smith Courthouse. Instead, he asked the attorneys to explain how he was to know if the wolf was recovered.

Earthjustice attorney Doug Honnold spent much of his time arguing there was no good reason to cut Wyoming out of the herd. He represented the conservation groups who want the wolf returned to threatened status - and federal protection.

"If you have a three-state recovery effort and one refuses to play ball, the only answer is to perpetually keep them listed or go back to the drawing board," Honnold said. "All three states have been reluctant to take on their share of wolf recovery. We hope the Fish and Wildlife Service will go back to the drawing board and come up with something that would actually work."

Bob Lane, chief legal counsel for Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks, flipped that argument on its head. He said the Endangered Species Act needs flexibility in order to work.

"Otherwise Wyoming, in effect, can maintain a kind of Senate filibuster if they maintain their position," Lane said. "The wolf status would never change. Do you then draw another line with only Montana and Idaho? What purpose is that?"

The line in question is the "distinct population segment" boundary the federal government drew around northwest Montana, north and central Idaho and northwest Wyoming when it reintroduced wolves to the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem in 1994 and 1995.

At the end of 2009, Montana had at least 525 wolves, while Idaho had about 850 and Wyoming had 320. Those numbers could be low by 10 percent to 30 percent, Lane said. Montana and Idaho each offered wolf hunting seasons last year, and hunters were able to kill 73 and 185 wolves, respectively.

U.S. Department of Justice attorney Mike Eitel said Congress built flexibility into the recovery rules. In this case, he said, the biggest threat to wolves is Wyoming's management plan, which considers them pests in 88 percent of the state that can be killed any time.

"This wolf population is biologically recovered and will remain so under state management," Eitel said of Montana's and Idaho's local authority.

Molloy questioned whether the decision was a matter of when it is OK to delist a species - not where it is OK. In other words, shouldn't all the wolves in the three-state area be recovered before federal protection is removed?

Honnold said the two-state delisting broke a long-standing principle of endangered species protection.

"They contend their new reading of the Endangered Species Act is buried treasure, lost for 30 years until unearthed by a team of lawyers in the last (presidential) administration," he said. "But the Service can't delist part of a species below a designated population segment without violating the clear language of the Endangered Species Act."

Eitel noted that the wolf delisting decision was reviewed and approved by both the Bush administration in 2008 and the Obama administration in 2009.

Lane and Idaho state attorney Steven Strack stressed how gray wolves would be better off under state management.

"There's no harm to the species by leaving them listed in Wyoming, and there's benefit to delisting them in Montana and Idaho," Lane told Molloy. "It's like a relay race. The states are the stronger runners, and it's time for them to take the baton."

Strack added there were strong examples where the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service split animal recovery efforts along state lines. In particular, he said the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals approved separate management plans for Arizona and California in the case of an endangered horned lizard - which inhabits both states.

Both men also argued that by declaring the wolf a big-game animal, their respective states had legally bound themselves to keeping the wolf healthy and recovered. Montana has pledged to keep at least 15 breeding pairs and 150 wolves, with a more general target of about 450 wolves in the state. Idaho has a management objective of between 500 and 700 wolves, Strack said.

The hearing was briefly interrupted just before 10 a.m. when a Stanford Legal Clinic student, Molly Knobler, collapsed at the lectern while making part of the case for the Greater Yellowstone Coalition. A bailiff cleared the courtroom while paramedics examined her, but she recovered and stayed through the rest of the hearing.

Molloy did not allow any rebuttal arguments, and promised he'd have a ruling "as quickly as I can." Both Montana and Idaho wildlife officials are planning to go ahead with wolf hunts this fall.

Reporter Rob Chaney can be reached at 523-5382 or at [email protected].

 

[shoots-straight]

If we loose, and the state appeals, I wonder if the hunting season could continue? Thoughts anyone.

I don't feel good about this one captain.

 

[Big Fin]

If we loose, and the state appeals, I wonder if the hunting season could continue? Thoughts anyone.

I was thinking the same thing. MT should go forward with our season, regardless, under the premise of states having managemernt authority of wildlife.

If the Feds then take it to court to stop it, I guess we will find out if that state authority overrides some crazy language in the re-introduction agreement that binds all states at that hip.

That re-introduction agreement and de-listing criteria have in effect usurped state management authority. Somehow, that needs to be a way for each state to go their own way on this. Just wish I knew what that method was.

 

[Sytes]

I understand the MT FWP advisory board held a meeting in Kalispell on the potential outcome yesterday and the option to continue with the state management of the wolves if Molloy reverses the original decision.

Anyone with more details on this meeting and if this was mearly reviewing in general the options or if there was more steam behind this direction?