Wolf Twist #3

[Big Fin]

Cut and pasted this from a post over on MM.

Some guy posted this long winded letter from the Harriet Hageman, the attorney defending Wyoming Wolf Coalition, as a defense of why the Simpson language should be killed. Seems rather self-serving, but maybe I am wrong. Regardless, sure has a lot of other people trying to stop the momentum of the Simpson language.

Could this just be a public plea from an attorney making a lot of money by defending the Wyoming Wolf Coalition, asking that we do not bring an end to this ordeal, as this person has a lot at stake, professionally and financially?

I would hope not, but I find it funny that these three groups are all fighting to kill the Simpson language.

1. This WY attorney, who represents the state of WY, so I guess we can say the state of WY.
   
2. SFW
   
3. The wolf lovers who are running for the doors.

Make no mistake, the wolf lovers are not running because they are afraid of this attorney or because they fear the bill that SFW and BGF seem to be peddling. They are running scared because they know the Simpson language is going to pass, and that puts them in a bad way. Exactly where we want them.

Now, we have some hunting groups crying to kill the Simpson bill, we have an attorney who is billing some good hours on the wolf issue asking that the Simpson bill be killed, and we have the wolf lovers running for cover because of the Simpson bill.

Am I the only one who sees humor in that, and hypocrisy in the two UT hunting groups and the WY attorney asking that we kill a bill that separates MT and ID from WY, giving us the states rights that we all want?

Let me know if I am wrong on this one.

(Exceeds the 10,000 character limit for a post, so I will cut the long diatribe into two posts.)

Note: the following is excerpted from a March 17, 2011, letter written to members of the Wyoming Wolf Coalition by their able attorney, Harriet Hageman. The full text is .

Alert! High Priority! Call to Action!

Please ask Congress to stop throwing Wyoming to the wolves

by Harriet M. Hageman

Executive Summary

We reported to you earlier this week that the Federal Defendants in the above-referenced actions have voluntarily withdrawn their appeal to the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals. We were a bit surprised by the agencies’ move in that regard, but now believe that we have uncovered the reasoning behind it.

* Judge Johnson’s decision has now “gone final” in favor of Wyoming’s Wolf Management Plan, and has the full force and effect of law.

* There are troubling efforts afoot in Congress that are designed to reverse this important victory for Wyoming, to “undo” Judge Johnson’s decision, and to nullify the rights of all States to manage their wildlife resources.

The purpose of this letter is to describe those activities, and to issue a call to action for all of you who have fought this battle over the last several decades.

Ruling in Favor of Wyoming’s Wolf Management Plan Becomes Law of the Land

On November 18, 2010, the Honorable Alan B. Johnson, the Federal District Court Judge for the District of Wyoming, issued his “Order Setting Aside Agency Decision in Part and Remanding Agency Decision in Part,” finding that the Defendants (the Department of Interior (DOI), the Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), Ken Salazar, Rowan Gould, and Stephen Guertin) had acted “arbitrarily and capriciously” in rejecting the Wyoming Wolf Management Plan . More specifically, Judge Johnson concluded (among other things) that the Defendants violated the Endangered Species Act (ESA) when they rejected Wyoming’s proposal to designate wolves as trophy game animals in certain areas, and predators in others. …

Key testimony provided by the top federal wolf biologist (Ed Bangs) concluded that the “2007 Wyoming wolf plan is a solid science-based conservation plan that will adequately conserve Wyoming’s share of the GYA wolf population so that the NRM wolf population will never be threatened again.” Id. at 032183. As you know, Wyoming has since adopted even more safeguards that what existed in the 2007 Plan.

The Defendants initially appealed Judge Johnson’s decision to the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals. On Monday of this week, however, they voluntarily dismissed that appeal. Such action resulted in Judge Johnson’s decision “going final,” thereby ensuring that it is not subject to collateral attack. In other words, Judge Johnson’s decision is now “the law of the land” and cannot be attacked by either the federal agencies or any environmental groups. We are pleased that this common-sense result affirms the science-based reality that Wyoming’s Plan provides adequate protections to Wyoming’s wolf population.

Judge Johnson’s decision was a great victory for all of the citizens of the State of Wyoming, including our livestock producers, our sportsmen groups, and our outfitters. It was a great victory for those cities and counties in Wyoming that have suffered the economic impacts of an ever-expanding wolf population. Judge Johnson’s decision, and the dismissal of the 10th Circuit Appeal, will also allow Wyoming to protect its historically-abundant wildlife species, including those elk and moose populations that have suffered so tremendously as the result of the federal agencies’ intransigence associated with the “wolf experiment.” …

 

[Big Fin]

continued from previous post:

TROUBLING EFFORTS BREWING IN CONGRESS AS IT SEEKS TO REVERSE WYOMING’S VICTORY

I am now writing to you with great disappointment, as I fear that our victory in the wolf saga is now at risk. Once again it appears that politics may prevail over science and good public policy. Wyoming’s Wolf Management Plan and our victory before Judge Johnson are now at risk as the direct result of an amendment that has been introduced by Representative Mike Simpson, a Republican from Idaho, and Senators John Tester and Max Baucus, Democrats from Montana. The amendment would either be added to the “continuing resolutions” that have been in the news lately (to keep the federal government running as the House and Senate seek to hammer out the 2011 budget), or to the budget bill itself.

The purpose of the Simpson/Tester/Baucus amendment is as simple as it is troubling. It is designed to delist the wolf populations in Idaho and Montana, as well as parts of Oregon, Utah and Washington, while the remainder of the States –- including Wyoming -– are left to fend for themselves. Most importantly, however, the very wording of the proposed amendment appears to be designed to nullify Judge Johnson’s decision in its entirety.

Mr. Simpson’s amendment works by reinstating the USFWS’s 2009 Final Rule (the one rejected by Judge Molloy in Montana). There are two sections of the 2009 Rule that are important here, both of which would become law if the Simpson/Tester/Baucus amendment passes. As you remember, the first portion of that Rule approved the then-existing Montana and Idaho Wolf Management Plans, both of which allowed the States to assume management authority over their wolves (although with federal permission and involvement). The second part of the 2009 Final Rule rejected Wyoming’s Wolf Management Plan, stating that “the Wyoming portion of the range represents a significant portion of range where the species remains in danger of extinction because of inadequate regulatory mechanisms.” 74 Fed.Reg. 15123.

Considering the language of the 2009 Rule, if Congressman Simpson and Senators Tester and Baucus were to be successful in including their proposed language as part of either a short-term “continuing resolution,” or the 2011 budget, and such bill passes both the U.S. House and the Senate, we can fully expect that the federal agencies and the environmental groups will argue that Judge Johnson’s decision has been congressionally nullified. Even more troubling is the fact that their amendment includes language that is intended to then block Wyoming from challenging the statute: “Such reissuance shall not be subject to judicial review.” HR 1, Sec. 1713. To state that this is a real and immediate threat to Wyoming’s ability to assume management of the wolf population is an understatement.

You may ask: “why would Simpson, Tester and Baucus seek to impose a rule from 2009 when, from the States’ rights standpoint, and from the standpoint of wolf management, Judge Johnson’s decision is much more favorable to every State in the Union?” I have asked the same question, and none of the answers are favorable.

The actions of Representative Simpson and Senators Tester and Baucus are beyond troubling, and should be cause for concern for anyone who seeks to protect our wildlife populations, our livestock producers, and our States’ rights. Perhaps as significantly (and of grave concern), there are four groups that have endorsed Congressman Simpson’s efforts, and appear to be willing to sacrifice Wyoming’ interests:

* National Rifle Association (NRA)
* Safari Club International (SCI)
* Congressional Sportsmen Foundation (CSF)
* Boone and Crockett

By supporting only limited delisting in just a few of the affected States, these four so-called sportsmen groups have essentially sold out everyone else that has been affected by this issue. While these groups also support all of the wolf delisting bills, including some very good legislation (discussed below), their actions in supporting HR 1 (with Congressman Simpson’s amendment) has allowed the Representatives and Senators to “race for the bottom” in order to take the weakest stand possible on the issue.

While these groups publicly claim that they support delisting in all western States, as well as in Wisconsin, Michigan and Minnesota, their actions are counterproductive. Their support of the amendment described above will likely undermine other pending wolf litigation that will protect all States. Their actions will also have a more dire outcome: the important victory that is represented by Judge Johnson’s decision, and that resulted from years of hard-fought battles and the investment of tens of thousands of dollars, could be lost. This does not hurt only Wyoming, but will hurt every State in the nation that seeks to manage its own wildlife without the federal agencies’ unlawful (and often-times destructive) micro-management out of Washington, D.C.

There are two other bills currently pending in Congress - HR509 and S249, both of which would return management of wolves to all of the affected States. The Simpson/Tester/Baucus approach not only undermines our ability to get either one of these bills passed, but will likely make it more difficult to obtain any additional Congressional action into the foreseeable future. In other words, the actions of Simpson/Tester/Baucus, along with the NRA, SCI, CFS, and Boone and Crocket, have enabled those who seek to prevent the passage of any other bill that would actually provide for legitimate and effective delisting of the wolves.

Passage of the Simpson/Tester/Baucus amendment is not an incremental victory as some would claim. This is not an incremental victory for ensuring that States have the right to manage their own wildlife populations, or an incremental victory under the ESA. Judge Johnson’s decision was a victory. The Simpson/Tester/Baucus effort is designed to take that victory away.

By supporting a weak piece of legislation, these groups have allowed several of the Congressional Representatives and Senators to play both sides of the aisle -– to argue that they support delisting when such claims suit their political aspirations, and to argue that they fought against delisting when such a position will garner them votes from the so-called “environmental” groups. In other words, this amounts to nothing more than obtaining only the slightest and short-term moral victory for a limited number of people, and at the same time ensuring a very troubling defeat for the citizens of Wyoming and for the States’ right to manage wildlife. While we recognize that political compromises are sometimes necessary, I cannot support legislation that is specifically designed to undo Judge Johnson’s finding that the Wyoming Wolf Management Plan is biologically and scientifically sound. This is simply not good science, good public policy or even good politics. …

We fully and whole-heartedly support delisting in Idaho and Montana (and all of the States where wolves exist). Such delisting, however, cannot be done so that Wyoming is sacrificed at the alter of environmental extremism.

Judge Johnson’s decision must stand. We must fight against this effort to use the promise of delisting in Idaho and Montana (and portions of Oregon, Utah, and Washington) as a ruse to nullify the most important decision that the States have obtained in the last seventeen (17)+ years of wolf battles, as well as the rights of States to control their own destiny in terms of wildlife management.

Please contact the offices of Congressman Simpson, and Senators Tester and Baucus and ask them to support only HR 509 and S249. Please request that they not re-introduce the Wyoming-busting amendment described above.

Please contact Representative Lummis’ office and thank her for her strength and continued efforts to fight this battle on your behalf. Please call the offices of Senators Enzi and Barrasso and thank them for their hard work in supporting the right bills on this issue, while fighting against the bad ones. Our Congressional Delegation has stood strong on this issue, and we need to commend them for their efforts on our behalf.

Please contact the NRA, SCI, CFS and Boone and Crocket and ask them to stop their support of an amendment that is specifically designed to undo our important and hard-fought victories. Ask them to instead focus their efforts on passing a solution that protects all of the States that have been plagued by this predator. Ask them to stop throwing Wyoming to the wolves.

Please distribute this letter to anyone you believe could help us to expose what is going on in Congress.

Sincerely,

Harriet M. Hageman

 

[Big Fin]

Gotta really love this part. Calling out those groups as "so-called" sportsmens groups. Wonder how much SFW and BGF paid her for that section?

The actions of Representative Simpson and Senators Tester and Baucus are beyond troubling, and should be cause for concern for anyone who seeks to protect our wildlife populations, our livestock producers, and our States’ rights. Perhaps as significantly (and of grave concern), there are four groups that have endorsed Congressman Simpson’s efforts, and appear to be willing to sacrifice Wyoming’ interests:

* National Rifle Association (NRA)
* Safari Club International (SCI)
* Congressional Sportsmen Foundation (CSF)
* Boone and Crockett

By supporting only limited delisting in just a few of the affected States, these four so-called sportsmen groups have essentially sold out everyone else that has been affected by this issue.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Harriet Hageman is the lawyer for the Wyoming Wolf Coalition, which includes SFW, WY Stockgrowers, WY Woolgrowers, WY Outfitters and Guides.

She's already on the payroll.

 

[Big Fin]

Harriet Hageman is the lawyer for the Wyoming Wolf Coalition, which includes SFW, WY Stockgrowers, WY Woolgrowers, WY Outfitters and Guides.

She's already on the payroll.

That is good info, Ben. Confirms that SFW is not only trying to kill wolf bills behind the scenes in DC, but is now opening working to kill them via their legal counsel.

Pretty much sews up where they stand on states rights. Same for those other groups who this attorney represents.

 

[onpoint]

Geez, the MT legislative crap keeps me busy enough.....you guys also out on the federal battle lines must spend more time in the "weight room". Fortunately, the actual MT session stuff will end soon fro a bit(unless a special session)....not so much for the never ending national crap.

 

[elk_hunter]

I was thinking this was unbelievable, but actually, not really! Believable and sad. You're totally right about the hypocrisy, Fin.

 

[onpoint]

I was thinking this was unbelievable, but actually, not really! Believable and sad. You're totally right about the hypocrisy, Fin.

I agree. Some of the association/break with association, bedfellows/not bedfellows, allied with/not allied with stuff is almost surreal. As far as "sportsmans" groups and their affiliations go, the future seems a bit muddy...hmmm.

 

[tjones]

Fin not only schooled them over there he OWNS them. Great work Randy and when such an ass whipping takes place like you just gave them it makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Well, I guess MWF is now in good company, what with the NRA, SCI, CSF and B&C all being wolf loving eco-freaks too.

 

[idnative1948]

Mr brother and I just emailed Idaho Congressman Mike Simpson. He has always been very timely in getting back to us, of course we all grew up together in SE Idaho (Blackfoot). Will post his response to our questions and comments.

http://simpson.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=229982

 

[schmalts]

It is amazing how supporters of a certain so called hunting ORG are blind followers. Still the same reason I will never set foot in the Hunting expo in SLC

 

[BuzzH]

Everything I always thought about SFW is true...and the livestock industry and outfitters are no better.

I really cant believe it...SFW is really painting themselves into a corner calling out the groups they have.

I mean really? The B&C club? Most pro-hunting group I belong to.

 

[Big Fin]

Just got a debriefing of what went on at the American Wildlife Conservation Partners' (AWCP http://www.wildlifepartners.org/files/partners.cfm ) annual summit that was held in Kansas City this weekend. Sounds like the wolf issue was a pretty big part of the discussion.

The beat down issued by NRA/SCI/CSF/B&C was issued to everyone at the conference. As was the proposed settlement from the wolf profiteers.

Some may wonder why many are pissed about this fiasco with SFW/BGF. Here is why.

When a group comes around preying on the frustrations of hunters, asks for their money, then goes and does things with that money that is counter to the cause of the hunters, they need to be exposed.

Such actions not only betray trust of those who donate, but they make it harder to work toward solutions that will actually work. Hunters and legislators have no idea who to trust and who to believe, so little gets done.

If they really are not fighting to kill these bills that would put MT and ID in control of our wolves, then SFW/BGF should come out and provide the evidence to the contrary. Instead, they send their attorney, a hired gun, to issue a long spiel of drivel, lashing out at the groups who are doing something positive.

When you ask for money and tell people it will be for a certain cause, you better expect some dust ups when you do exactly the opposite of what you said you would.

As someone who has been in this since 1995, here is what it looks like from my perspective. And, I know my perspective might no be shared by others. I will use a football analogy.

Hunters, livestock producers, and state agencies have formed a team in MT and ID. We have been fighting this battle before SFW even came into existence. SFW now comes to the bench asks the coach to put them in the game, at running back, and call their number.

When the game started in 1995, we received the ball at our own 20 yard line. It has taken 15 years of blocking and tackling, dirty grinding, and many years of "3 yards and a cloud of dust" to get us here. In spite of some penalties, bad officiating, and some bad plays on our part, we now have victory in hand.

We have moved the ball down to the six-inch line. It is first and goal. The new player, SFW is begging to be put in the game so they can score the touchdown and claim all the glory for the hard work and sacrifice of this team.

Now that the coach won't put them in, they are doing all they can to disrupt the team. Even joining with the opposition, if that helps prevent a touchdown where they are not the guy carrying the ball over the goal line.​

Again, might be completely wrong, but that is how it smells from here.

 

[Topgun 30-06]

BigFin---You lost me in your opening post when you stated the stuff you C/Pd was by Harriet Hageman, an attorney defending the State of Wyoming. Isn't she working for the Wyoming Wolf Coalition, which has nothing to do with the State of Wyoming itself? I would think that the Wyoming Attorney General would do all the legal "speaking" for the state itself. Maybe this has been covered already in this thread because I don't have enough time to read it all tonight as it's my bedtime back here in Michigan! I'll catch up on the entire thread tomorrow morning! PS: Great site you have here!!!

 

[BuzzH]

No other way to put it...thats exactly what SFW is doing and has done.

The WY stockgrowers and WY outfitters would be smart to jump ship on SFW too...if they ever want to have any credibility again.

This may be the straw that breaks SFW.

 

[drahthaar]

This is crazy!

I am speechless at the many Montanans pissing and moaning at this scenario of actually getting state control of our wolves, getting a real flipping wolf tag in our pockets once again. They are angry that we are going to accept this and hunt wolves without WY, without "going for the glory" and gutting the ESA(whatever the chances of that are), that MT and ID are "rolling over" again. WTF?? How is this rolling over? Its what we wanted.

I don't give a rat's ass about WY, or UT, or OR, I want MT to have control of our wolves, and I don't care how it comes about. I don't see this as throwing WY under the bus, they are the ones bogging this crap down for YEARS.

And I am sickened by the jackwagons trying to ruin this because it isn't happening the way they(he) envisioned.

 

[Big Fin]

BigFin---You lost me in your opening post when you stated Harriet Hageman is an attorney dedending the State of Wyoming. Isn't she strictly working for the Wyoming Wolf Coalition, which has nothing to do with the State of Wyoming itself? I would think that the Wyoming Attorney General would do all the legal "speaking" for the state itself.

You are 100% correct. Ben Lamb corrected me in Post #4, or I would have corrected myself. Sorry about that. I have corrected that in my original post.

Yes, the AG would do the talking for the state of WY.

Hageman is working for the coalition you mention, that is pro-wolf for MT/ID. Supposedly they are anti-wolf in WY.

 

[Oak]

This may be the straw that breaks SFW.

You are giving the SFW supporters way, way too much credit.

 

[BuzzH]

Oak,

I agree with you...but man, how much more proof does one need?

I dont see how Don can spin his way out of it.