Wolve are protected again

[Drake4]

I've heard a lot of people saying they are pissed off a Molloy...why? He followed the law, and he didn't have a choice. Even I know you can't delist a species in one state and not another.

People need to wake up. The wolves are here to stay. They aren't going to stay in the Park, and you can't force them to stay in the Park. If MT and ID side with WY, we will never see another wolf hunting season again. I agree with Buzz..WY has had all the time in the world to come up with an acceptable plan. It's time to use some common sense if we ever want to control these wolves and see another hunting season. WY needs to quit trying to play cowboy and grow up.

 

[montanadogs]

Does not surprise me. I'm not sure we'll ever see legal hunting now that this has been done.

We will see one eventually. Molloy warned us that if WY didn't come up a plan then he would shut it down until they did. All three states need to get together and come up with a plan as a group not as individual states. From what I gather in the articles Molloy really didn't side with the tree hugging wolf lovers, they just claim he did.

 

[TOM IN TENNESSEE]

Okay, let's say we get the idiots in WY on board who have been fugging this up for 10 or 12 years....wolves are now expanding into Colorado and Washington.....so greenies can sue, and apparently win again?!?!?!? Can't isolate those poor "isolated" from their breathern.....
Back to SSS !
Go to Alberta or AK and kill one or more for Molloy!!

 

[fowladdict]

I've heard a lot of people saying they are pissed off a Molloy...why? He followed the law, and he didn't have a choice. Even I know you can't delist a species in one state and not another.

Why was he able to do it last year then?? I'm sure there is a simple explanation, but I would like to know what it is.

 

[----]

I GOT ME A SHOVEL!!!!
LETS GO GIT SOME WOOFS!!!!

 

[fowladdict]

Looks like a hippie stole montanadogs shovel.

 

[JoseCuervo]

Why was he able to do it last year then?? I'm sure there is a simple explanation, but I would like to know what it is.

There wan't any action in court for him to rule on, accourding to his schedule. I am not going to spend much time constructing a timeline, but, if memory serves me, the first suits blocking the hunting seasons were just after the seasons were set.

So, he allowed the Montana and Idaho ones to proceed while he held hearings, as he should have. He also provided the Welfare Ranchers in Wyoming plenty of time to see what is acceptable and what is not.

This one is purely the problem of the Welfare Ranchers in Wyoming. Don't blame the Judge for following the law, unless, of course, you are advocating Judges should start legislating from the bench.

 

[Baerman]

Here's a good reason why Molloy was contradictory in his own statements. The fact is that wolves are not endagered.

August 6, 2010

RMEF Calls on Congress to Reform Endangered Species Act

MISSOULA, Mont.—The Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation is calling for immediate Congressional review and reform of the Endangered Species Act following a judge’s decision yesterday to reinstate full federal protection for gray wolves.

The Aug. 5 ruling means state wildlife agencies no longer have authority to manage skyrocketing wolf populations—even in areas where wolf predation is driving cow elk, moose and elk calf survival rates below thresholds needed to sustain herds for the future.

RMEF says the judge has opened a door for perhaps the greatest wildlife management disaster in America since the wanton destruction of bison herds over a century ago.

“When federal statutes and judges actually endorse the annihilation of big game herds, livestock, rural and sporting lifestyles—and possibly even compromise human safety—then clearly the Endangered Species Act as currently written has major flaws,” said David Allen, RMEF president and CEO. “We have already begun contacting the Congressional delegations of Idaho, Montana and Wyoming to ask for an immediate review of this travesty—and reform of the legislation that enabled it.”

Allen pointed out an irony, if not an outright error, in the decision issued by U.S. District Judge Donald Molloy.

“Judge Molloy said wolves in the northern Rockies are a single population that cannot be segmented based on political boundaries. But he essentially did that very thing himself, because he considered only the wolf population within the U.S. There are 75,000-plus gray wolves across Canada, yet Judge Molloy stopped at the border and did not consider the entire Rocky Mountain population. The gray wolf is simply not an endangered species,” said Allen.

Animal rights groups who continue to litigate over wolves are “gaming the system for their own financial benefit,” he added, saying, “There are no elk in Iowa, but we are not suing folks to reintroduce them. This is simply a financial scam for the animal rights groups, and it’s all being paid for by the American taxpayer.”

Additionally, Allen urged the governors in Idaho, Montana and Wyoming to begin the process of formally implementing “the 10(j) rule” as provided within federal law. For all species reintroductions classified as a “nonessential, experimental population,” as is the case with gray wolves under the Endangered Species Act, the 10(j) rule allows states more flexibility to mitigate for unacceptable impacts on big game populations, livestock and domestic animals.

 

[JoseCuervo]

LMAO at Baerman and his "facts" as provided by RMEF. What a joke the RMEF has became....

Here's a good reason why Molloy was contradictory in his own statements. The fact is that wolves are not endagered.



_____________________
August 6, 2010

RMEF Calls on Congress to Reform Endangered Species Act



skyrocketing wolf populations—

greatest wildlife management disaster in America

judges actually endorse the annihilation of big game herds, livestock, rural and sporting lifestyles—and possibly even compromise human safety—

immediate review of this travesty



This is simply a financial scam for the animal rights groups, a

.

Anybody who thinks the RMEF deals in "facts" obviously can't read......

 

[Ben Lamb]

Why was he able to do it last year then?? I'm sure there is a simple explanation, but I would like to know what it is.

The reason we were able to hunt last year was because the litigants (Defenders, et al) filed for a preliminary injunction to stop the hunts. Molloy ruled that the hunts would in no way negatively impact wolf populations, so he let them go forward while he considered the case. That was when we had the clue that he was going to relist.

Molloy essentially said that the merits of the case were strong, and that MT, ID and USFWS needed to step up and knock it out of the park in order for him to not relist. He also mentioned at the time that WY's plan was not adequate. So, I guess this is no real surprise, but it does suck. Hard.

Great site,

Ben

 

[fowladdict]

LMAO at Baerman and his "facts" as provided by RMEF.

Endangered means on the brink of extintction...does it not?? Do you think wolves on the brink of extinction??

 

[----]

Endangered means on the brink of extintction...does it not?? Do you think wolves on the brink of extinction??

You could also define is as being on the endangered species list...
It sucks, but as the WMP was written (and agreed upon), the wolves aren't eligible to be de-listed.

The fact that Wyoming has known what they need to do for almost fifteen years now, and haven't done so, is baffling.

 

[JoseCuervo]

Endangered means on the brink of extintction...does it not?? Do you think wolves on the brink of extinction??

Certainly not based upon the "facts" the RMEF cites.....

When we have "barstool scientists" using terms like "skyrocketing", "anhilation of rural.. and sporting lifestyles", and "compromise human safety" I don't think the words "RMEF" and "facts" belong in any sort of proximity.....

 

[fowladdict]

You could also define is as being on the endangered species list...
It sucks, but as the WMP was written (and agreed upon), the wolves aren't eligible to be de-listed.

Right I get that. They are endangered because the judge says so...I took the RMEF letter as a defense that they are not endangered numerically speaking.

The fact that Wyoming has known what they need to do for almost fifteen years now, and haven't done so, is baffling.[/QUOTE]

I've read this 1,500 times now since yesterday. Why don't we all just screw wyoming over and boycott hunting there this year.

 

[fowladdict]

Certainly not based upon the "facts" the RMEF cites.....

When we have "barstool scientists" using terms like "skyrocketing", "anhilation of rural.. and sporting lifestyles", and "compromise human safety" I don't think the words "RMEF" and "facts" belong in any sort of proximity.....

Where do you get your facts? Ask.com or PETA.com?....just playing.

Yes some of the things RMEF publishes are difficult to read, but I can understand their frustrations.

 

[JoseCuervo]

Yes some of the things RMEF publishes are difficult to read, but I can understand their frustrations.

The easy way to understand RMEF is to view their own comments as "This is simply a financial scam for the .....RMEF"......

 

[Baerman]

"This is simply a financial scam for the .....RMEF"......[/SIZE][/I][/B]

I think it's the otherway around. I recall when RMEF initially kept quiet about Defenders of Wildlife continuously raising the bar. First they were happy with 250 wolves, then it was 500 then 1000 then 1500 now 2500 or whatever they are claiming to date and it will rise again. It wasn't until about the third time that Defenders of Wildlife raised the bar that RMEF really started to protest.

So, i disagree that it's a financial scam for RMEF. I would venture to say that Defenders of Wildlife are making more money by protesting to protect wolves than RMEF is making protesting to save the elk herds. It's in DW best interest to keep protesting so they can bring in more money to operate.

Back to the "facts", if wolves are endagered should they then be protected in Alaska and Canada? No, because Canada is not apart of our federal system and becaue they are not endangered. Just because Wyoming can't come up with a plan to manage the wolves should not mean Idaho and Montana can't join up with Alaska in hunting wolves. I'm all for wolves being here but they should allow to be managed.

Now that sportsman cannot legally manage the wolves, the game and fish departements/government will manage them as needed to protect other big game herds. So what's the difference if the government controls wolf population or if hunters/sportsman control wolf population??? The difference is that now more money will be spent by the government. HMMMM, government spending.....sounds like a great solution to me.

 

[sweetnectar]

RMEF is under the partners tab for this website. I like OYOA and RMEF. I also like the picture of the dude with the shovel.

 

[TOM IN TENNESSEE]

So I guess Fouladdict is saying, unless we have a breeding population of Cougar again in TN, we cant hunt them in NV....yep, makes perfect sense to me!
So when do we get a breeding pop of wolves in
Central Park or Watts?

 

[Ben Lamb]

I think it's the otherway around. I recall when RMEF initially kept quiet about Defenders of Wildlife continuously raising the bar. First they were happy with 250 wolves, then it was 500 then 1000 then 1500 now 2500 or whatever they are claiming to date and it will rise again. It wasn't until about the third time that Defenders of Wildlife raised the bar that RMEF really started to protest.

So, i disagree that it's a financial scam for RMEF. I would venture to say that Defenders of Wildlife are making more money by protesting to protect wolves than RMEF is making protesting to save the elk herds. It's in DW best interest to keep protesting so they can bring in more money to operate.

Back to the "facts", if wolves are endagered should they then be protected in Alaska and Canada? No, because Canada is not apart of our federal system and becaue they are not endangered. Just because Wyoming can't come up with a plan to manage the wolves should not mean Idaho and Montana can't join up with Alaska in hunting wolves. I'm all for wolves being here but they should allow to be managed.

Now that sportsman cannot legally manage the wolves, the game and fish departements/government will manage them as needed to protect other big game herds. So what's the difference if the government controls wolf population or if hunters/sportsman control wolf population??? The difference is that now more money will be spent by the government. HMMMM, government spending.....sounds like a great solution to me.

Baerman,

The reason that we're in this position is because MT, ID and WY are tied together under the Distinct Population Segment. That was the crux of Molloy's ruling: You can't delist one portion of the DPS without delisting the other, and since Wyoming doesn't meet the criteria for "adequate regulatory mechanism" in their structure, ID and MT were relisted.

Under this listing (experimental, nonessential) we'd have to have a modified 10j rule to manage wolves for ungulate health, and I doubt that, given precedent in other ESA cases, we would get that, or that it would survive even more legal challenges from Defenders, et al.