Seriously, this again?
http://www.spokesman.com/blogs/outd...-reinstates-endangered-status-wyoming-wolves/
http://www.spokesman.com/blogs/outd...-reinstates-endangered-status-wyoming-wolves/
WY wolves protected again?
- Thread starter jlmatthew
- Start date
- Status
Elkmagnet
Well-known member
One step forward...
Sucks, for sure.
But, these screwball groups are running out of ammo. As big of a pain as it is to have courts involved, one of two things will happen. Either it will get appealed and overturned, or WY will make some changes to meet the one concern the judge found to exist and then the wingnuts will have one more empty cartridge.
Abuse of the process is out of hand. Yet, we know it is part of the landscape we operate under. In the long-term, these groups are doing no favors to the wolves or other wildlife, rather their own egos and check books.
I stand by my first impressions of this debate almost 20 years ago. This is not about a canine, rather about a bovine - Cash Cow.
Hopefully WY will be able to demonstrate to the court that wolves will not be in long-term peril and they can move forward. The states have proven they can manage wolves. They have proven wolves will not disappear from the landscape. Push it too far and these groups are going to have a political shit storm blow up in their faces. Though I doubt they care, so long as the donations are rolling in.
Will be interesting to read more legal analysis of the decision and possible legal strategy in the coming days.
But, these screwball groups are running out of ammo. As big of a pain as it is to have courts involved, one of two things will happen. Either it will get appealed and overturned, or WY will make some changes to meet the one concern the judge found to exist and then the wingnuts will have one more empty cartridge.
Abuse of the process is out of hand. Yet, we know it is part of the landscape we operate under. In the long-term, these groups are doing no favors to the wolves or other wildlife, rather their own egos and check books.
I stand by my first impressions of this debate almost 20 years ago. This is not about a canine, rather about a bovine - Cash Cow.
Hopefully WY will be able to demonstrate to the court that wolves will not be in long-term peril and they can move forward. The states have proven they can manage wolves. They have proven wolves will not disappear from the landscape. Push it too far and these groups are going to have a political shit storm blow up in their faces. Though I doubt they care, so long as the donations are rolling in.
Will be interesting to read more legal analysis of the decision and possible legal strategy in the coming days.
The biggest perpetrator of the litigation cycle is the WY stockgrowers and their forcing a political plan on Wyoming instead of allowing game & fish to manage as they saw fit. If anything, the entire litigation strategy was put in place in 2002 to draw this out. It was not done by the groups who litigated, it was done by Wyoming.
My rancher friend in eastern WY had a confirmed wolf kill within 1/2 of his ranch house. Personally...I have mixed feelings @ wolves. But my rancher friend said that most ranchers in his area interpret "a wolf on private grazing land as a threat to livestock, that can LEGALLY be removed."
BuzzH
Well-known member
It's all just a coincidence that wyoming, and it's wolf plan, are again on the wrong side of a court ruling. That's a first.
I hold little hope wyoming will ever get it right...it gets tiresome when the obvious is blatantly, and continually ignored.
On the plus side Montana and Idaho are not being impacted by Wyoming...
I hold little hope wyoming will ever get it right...it gets tiresome when the obvious is blatantly, and continually ignored.
On the plus side Montana and Idaho are not being impacted by Wyoming...
I highly doubt that. HSUS, etc. was in it from the beginning trying to stop it in all States.
And keeping livestock from being killed by wolves is not "political". It is a livelihood for ranchers.
http://www.mlive.com/lansing-news/index.ssf/2014/08/wolf_hunt_law_approved_over_pr.html
Last edited:
BuzzH
Well-known member
Then you haven't been paying attention. Idaho and Montana aren't finding themselves in court over their state plans...ever wonder why that's the case?
It's also odd that both idaho and Montana's plans are affording ranchers the right to protect their livelihoods..and staying out of court to boot. My, that's amazing...
shoots-straight
Well-known member
No, but the perception of it is.
This is why:
The Fish and Wildlife Service in recent years has turned over wolf management in Idaho and Montana to those states. Congress passed special language specifying that those state-management plans aren't subject to legal challenge.
http://trib.com/news/local/state-an...tml?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter
BuzzH
Well-known member
You're slowly getting there...why do you suppose Montana and Idaho's plans were part of that? Better question....why wasn't Wyomings plan included? All just a coincidence, I'm sure.
Are you saying Congress approved each States plan?
BuzzH
Well-known member
Wyomings plan was screwing montana and idaho out of state control. It was a political move for montana and idaho, only as a way to move forward with their state plans without being encumbered by Wyomings unacceptable, chit plan. Cindy Lummis tried to get wyoming on board at the 11th hour, but was too late. That train had left the station, and wyoming never had a ticket...by choice.
I don't know what the plan was back then, but they seem to have a healthy population now.
Can landowners in MT and ID kill wolves if they think they will harm their livestock?
My point is HSUS will sue in any State not protected by Congress. See Michigan.
BuzzH
Well-known member
Landowners have been able to protect their livestock since reintroduction under the 10(j) rule. The stockgrowers associations have produced more bullshit than their cattle ever could on this wolf issue. They've had lethal control options all along...it's in the eis.
shoots-straight
Well-known member
I've said this before and I'll say it again for another newbie.
If Wyoming had stuck to the original approved management plan, when the wolf populations satisfied the requirements for delisting, all three states would now be over the 5 year federal probation period that was part of that plan.
The ironic thing is Wyoming could have the same plan that they had today without fear from any court action.
Politics where played out in Wyoming, not sure what that says for those that where paying attention there and supported that plan.
Can't say I did not see this coming. Just took longer than I thought.
If Wyoming had stuck to the original approved management plan, when the wolf populations satisfied the requirements for delisting, all three states would now be over the 5 year federal probation period that was part of that plan.
The ironic thing is Wyoming could have the same plan that they had today without fear from any court action.
Politics where played out in Wyoming, not sure what that says for those that where paying attention there and supported that plan.
Can't say I did not see this coming. Just took longer than I thought.
As someone who was there and worked on the plan, I can tell you that several organizations and a few elected officials knew this would happen but the overwhelming and sometimes violent support that dual classification had, along with certain politicians needing to beat on the fed led, coupled with an almost comical bungling of the issue from the USFWS, led us to where we are. It was mob mentality politics at its worst.
Sounds like Wyoming didn't like the Feds telling them what to do. It's like the Feds withholding gas taxes from States who didn't have a seat belt law.
The Feds overreaching has led us into the climate we are in today.
How's that working out for them?
WY Stockgrowers often say they couldn't care if the wolf is listed or not. Their interests are looked out for.
They're screwing over hunters, and with a willing partner in SFW.
- Status
Similar threads
