9th Circuit Filings – Constitutional Challenge to Wolf Delisting Rider

^Update 10/18/11 – Posted: Alliance for the Wild Rockies et al’s Emergency Motion for Injunction Pending Appeal, Motion for Summary Judgement Response Briefs (Appellees US Fish and Wildlife Service; Intervenors RMEF, NRA, & Montana/Idaho Farm Bureaus; Montana Amicus Brief)

**Update 8/24/11 – Posted:  Alliance for the Wild Rockies’ et al’s (AWR) Reply to Defendants’ opposition to Motion for an Injunction and two additional AWR exhibits.

*Update 8/23/11: I have posted the Federal Defendants’ brief and the states’ amicus briefs in opposition to the AWR et al’s Motion for an Injunction pending appeal. ~ be

UPDATE 8/19/2011:  I’ve posted filings made by Alliance for the Wild Rockies et al asking the circuit court for an injunction pending a decision of the appeal. ~ be

UPDATE 8/14/2011 : This is the space where we will post legal filings in wolf advocates’ challenge at the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals seeking to overturn Judge Donald Molloy’s decision upholding the Wolf Delisting Rider. ~ be

Montana District Judge Molloy maintained that had it been his court’s decision, he would have ruled the Wolf Delisting Rider an unconstitutional violation of the separation of powers.  But he couldn’t – or wouldn’t – he was bound by 9th Circuit precedent.Now it’s up to the 9th Circuit to decide whether it intended Consejo de Desarrollo Economico de Mexicali v. U.S., 482 F.3d 1157, 1170 (9th Cir. 2007) to be so broadly construed as to allow delisting of the Northern Rocky Mountain Wolves by such “legislative prestidigitation” as Judge Molloy characterizes in his decision.

Alliance for the Wild Rockies et al (AWR)

^Update 10/18/11: Appellants’ Emergenct Motion Under Circuit Rule 27-3(a) for Injunction Pending Appeal

^Exhibit 1
Judge Molloy’s Aug. 3 Order
^Exhibit 2
Judgement in a Civil Case
^Exhibit 3
Idaho Fish & Game
Wolf Seasons 2011-2012
^Exhibit 4
Montana Wolf Hunting Guide
^Exhibit 5
Declaration of Michael Garrity 
^Exhibit 6
Rocky Mountain Wolf Recovery
2010 Interagency Annual Report
^Exhibit 7
The NRM Gray Wolf Is Not
Yet Recovered – BioScience
^Exhibit 8
Meta-Analysis of Relationships Between
Human Offtake, Total Mortality and
Population Dynamics of Gray Wolves – PLoS ONE

** Update 8/24/11: Reply to Defendants In Support of Emergency Motion for Injunction

Emergency Motion for Injunction Pending Appeal

Exhibit 1
Judge Molloy’s Order

Exhibit 2
Judgement in a Civil Case

Exhibit 3
Idaho Fish & Game
Wolf Seasons 2011-2012

Exhibit 4
Montana Wolf Hunting Guide

Exhibit 5
Wolf licenses go on sale;
Groups plan delisting appeal

Exhibit 6
Rocky Mountain Wolf Recovery
2010 Interagency Annual Report

**Exhibit 7
The NRM Gray Wolf Is Not
Yet Recovered – BioScience

**Exhibit 8
Meta-Analysis of Relationships Between
Human Offtake, Total Mortality and
Population Dynamics of Gray Wolves – PLoS ONE

Center for Biological Diversity et al

Notice of Appeal

Motion to Expedite

Exhibit 1
Judge Molloy’s Order

Exhibit 2
Idaho Fish & Game
Wolf Seasons 2011-2012

Exhibit 3
Wolf: Montana Hunting Regulations

Exhibit 4
Declaration of Michael Robinson

Exhibit 5
Declaration of Noah Greenwald

Exhibit 6
Declaration of David Mildrexler
Exhibit 7
Declaration of Josh Laughlin
Exhibit 8
Declaration of Kenneth Cole
Exhibit 9
Declaration of Jonathan Marvel
Exhibit 10
Declaration of Paul Edwards
Exhibit 11
District Court Order May 13, 2011
Exhibit 12
District Court Order May 24, 2011

 Defendants Salazar et al

^Update 10/18/11:

Appellees:

US Fish & Wildlife Motion for Summary Judgement (SJ) Response Brief

Intervenors:

Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation et al SJ Response Brief

Safari Club International/NRA SJ Response Brief

Montana/Idaho Farm Bureaus SJ Response Brief

Amicus:

State of Montana & Montana Dept. of Fish, Wildlife & Parks Amicus SJ Brief

*Update 8/23/11:

Defendants-Appellees’ Brief in Opposition to Motion for Injunction Pending Appeal

Idaho Amicus Brief in Opposition to Motion for Injunction Pending Appeal

Montana Amicus Brief in Opposion to Motion for Injunction Pending Appeal

Update 8/22/11:

Defendants’-Appellees’ Response to Appellants’ Motion to Expedite and Consolidate Proceedings

avatar
About The Author

Brian Ertz

66 Responses to Groups Appeal Molloy Wolf Decision to the 9th Circuit

  1. avatar WM says:

    Brian,

    http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/08/11/38932.htm

    Since it appears WWP is going forward as a party to the appeal, would you be willing to keep this thread alive as briefing before the 9th Circuit occurs, as you did in the proceedings before the trial court?

    • avatar WM says:

      Thanks Brian.

      And the many paths converge:

      > A WY/FWS negotiated wolf management plan + possible Congressional action a on “no litigation clause” for WY that D’s may be afraid to oppose. If challenged it would likely be in federal district court in WY, and that, if appealed, would ultimately go to 10th Circuit in Denver.

      http://www.wyomingnews.com/articles/2011/08/12/news/19local_08-12-11.txt

      >Molloy’s ruling on the ID, MT “no litigation clause” rider, separation of powers issue currently on appeal in the 9th Circuit.

      >Possibility of the Supreme Court visiting the “separation of powers” issue if 9th and 10th reach different legal conclusions (don’t count on this as being probable, but it is still possible).

      >The possibility the DPS issue might go away if ID, MT and WY all have “approved” wolf management plans in 2012, which could put the case back in Molloy’s trial court on the remaining as of yet unaddressed “science” claims by plaintiffs.

      >ID, and WY (and to some extent MT), taking scorched earth approach to trimming the wolf population back to federally agreed minimum numbers in the original reintroduction plan for a “non-essential experimental population” of NRM wolves, while all the legal and Congressional uncertainty is in limbo. They are silently thinking there will undoubtedly be another round or two of both legal and legislative maneuvering, so we gotta strike with force while the opportunity is there to decrease numbers, and maybe range.

  2. avatar Immer Treue says:

    Naive and idealist that I may be, why not just bring in Mech, Creel, and others, sit down with other stake holders, pro and anti-wolf, and just get his taken care of, and do it correctly.

    The wolves were on the endangered list, experimental or not, and they need to come off the list, but by sound management, not scorched earth, which will only open the door to more hand wringing, animosity, and vitriole.

    There are folks out there, who wanted the wolves managed that have to be thinking OMG, if slaughter occurs in Idaho and Wyoming, it won’t be long before they are listed again, and might never come off the list. Just as there were those of us who gulped when Malloy canceled last year’s season.

    Also, from reading Malloy’s comment, he appears to sat that though what congress did was wrong, in the true spirit of the law, it was not unconstitutional, a rather sh!tty way to do business.

    • avatar timz says:

      Ya, I can just see Fanning,Bridges,Gillette, Otter, in a room talking wolf ethology with Mech and other wolf scientists

      • avatar Immer Treue says:

        Then again, Mr. Fanning purports to have conversed with Mech in the past.

        • avatar jon says:

          I remember a few weeks ago, Bob posted on here saying he had a chat with Dave Mech and that Mech told him something, but I forgot what it was.

          • avatar timz says:

            Fanning claimed Mech told him wolves could be hunted all year with no ill effects

          • avatar jon says:

            thanks tim

          • avatar willam huard says:

            Are you sure it wasn’t one of Fanning’s active hallucinations? His notable work with the Friends of the Northern Yellowstone Elk herd and his crazy wolf bio terror rhetoric is so over the top

    • avatar nabeki says:

      David Mech is a conundrum. He’s a wolf biologist who’s contributed a tremendous body of work on wolves but agrees with hunting and trapping them, seemingly with no regard for the effect on pack structure…sort of a wolf is a wolf mentality. I was very shocked by this when I read a few of his quotes.

      He also tends 200 mink traps in the winter. Not sure how I can rectify wildlife study and protection with trapping.

      And he doesn’t like dogs…which seems strange since wolves are so dog like.

      Here’s the entire article:

      The Far Reach of David Mech
      http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/volunteer/janfeb04/mech.html

      • avatar ma'iingan says:

        I would submit that Dave Mech’s perspective is very typical, and indeed required of professional biologists. Wildlife are managed at the species level, not at the individual level. Wildlife managers have to be pragmatists, regardless of their personal perspective. Karlyn Berg’s casual dismissal of science is quite telling, and all too common among wolf advocates and wolf opponents alike – “…science is great and everything, but there’s got to be a reason to it, there’s got to be heart to it.” No – science is science – when you overrule it with “heart” you achieve the polarization that defines our current wolf management mess.

        • avatar jon says:

          That is the problem with “wildlife management”, we look at the species and not the individuals. Wolves are individuals.

          • avatar Bob says:

            jon
            Really that’s the best you got, sure it’s not your heart talking. What about those plants are they individuals or my car man I love that thing. How about those cockroaches definite individuals. You missed the point.

          • avatar WM says:

            ++…Wolves are individuals…++

            Oh dear, here we go again.

            Is there any wonder for the reasons this reintroduction and management is fraught with divisiveness? With our conversation partners jon, Nabeki and HowlColroado and like minded folks at HSUS and other regional groups with this attitude they will keep the litigation mill churning for the next decade, any way they can.

            For them it has nothing whatsoever to do with sustainable numbers of endangered species in suitable habitat, which is the mandate of the ESA. The law says nothing about “individuals.” Thus, there arguably is no need to protect individuals of a species under the law.

            Therein lies the source of one problem that will never reach resolution for the animal rights folks.

          • avatar jb says:

            I think there are ways of dealing with the welfare of individual animals without dichotomizing management philosophy into a individual first vs. Populations first approaches. It is perfectly resonable to advocate for policies that attempt to prevent animal suffering while preserving the ability to lethaly manage wildlife to meet population objectives (e.g. 24 hour trap checks).

          • avatar ConnieJ says:

            I totally agree!

          • avatar ConnieJ says:

            My “I totally agree” comment was supposed to appear here. Wolves are individuals, and what’s wrong with having a little heart?

          • avatar jon says:

            I see nothing wrong with some humans having compassion for animals. It’s a shame that some don’t.

          • avatar Craig says:

            So are Elk and Deer they make up family groups, travel to summer winter ranges together. Should we name them all and make them pets? You are lost in your obsession with Wolves and have lost reality! It’s apparent and sad!!!!!!!!!!

      • avatar jon says:

        http://www.newwest.net/topic/article/state_management_of_wolves_recipe_for_conflict/C38/L38/

        I believe that hunters and fish and game agencies could careless about pack structure. All they seem to care about is getting the wolf population down to whatever low number they can and to provide more deer and elk for hunters. Earlier this year, hunters in Montana wanted a spring hunt on wolves where pregnant females would be killed. If they don’t care about killing pregnant females, you can bet your bottom dollar they wouldn’t care about pack structure of wolf packs.

          • avatar Connie says:

            Interesting article, Jon. “It is individuals who personally feel pain and suffer, not species.”

          • avatar jon says:

            This is why non-hunters and hunters will never agree on anything. I’m sorry if I’m a human that has compassion for every single individual animal. I’d rather be this than a heartless person.

          • avatar WM says:

            jon,

            You probably have not done yourself much of a favor by taking on this passionate crusade for wolves, because it was always contemplated by your duly elected government in the reintroduction of the NRM wolves that their numbers be lethally controlled in some fashion.

            It is sort of like banging your head against the wall numerous times then asking yourself why it hurts, while others watch you do it.

            While this does not reflect my views, for you personally it might have been better off had the reintroduction not been done, then you would not have to agonize over it, as it continues.

            By the way jon, do you feel the same about the elk or deer the wolves eat, or is that some kind of rationalized exclusion for this statement:

            ++I’m sorry if I’m a human that has compassion for EVERY single individual animal. I’d rather be this than a heartless person.++

        • avatar Mark Gamblin (IDFG) says:

          jon,
          The “pack disruption” argument – that killing wolves will result in more wolf-human conflicts – is frequently invoked in these threads as if it has been substantiated. It may be at some point in the future, but for now there is no empirical data to support the theory that I’m aware of. The 2009-2010 Idaho wolf hunting season provides a small sample size of one year of observation – but real data – that hunting wolves DID NOT increase wolf depredations. Reports of wolf depredation of livestock in Idaho declined the year following the 2009-2010 wolf hunt by approximately 50%. It will require more than one year of experience with wolf hunting, but at this early stage of wolf population control in Idaho, on-the-ground experience strongly suggests that hunting wolves will not increase wolf depredation conflicts but to the contrary be an effective means of reducing those conflicts.

          • avatar jon says:

            Mark, will hunters be able to buy 2 wolf tags at a time or are they only allowed 1 at a time and they can buy a 2nd one if they succeed in bagging a wolf? How does it work when it comes to wolf tags? Can you buy 2 tags at once?

          • avatar jon says:

            Mark, how effective is trapping/hunting going to be? Is there any possibility what so ever that hunters/trappers can bring Idaho’s wolf population down to near 150 animals? Will this no quota hunt be used for years to come or only this season?

          • avatar Mark Gamblin (IDFG) says:

            jon,
            I responded to your question in an earlier post, with a correction. Here is a description of hunting/trapping opportunity provided by the 2011-2012 Idaho wolf hunting/trapping season:

            “……. The Fish and Game Commission approved the purchase and use of two wolf tags per hunter per calendar year and three wolf tags per trapper per calendar year. Because the wolf hunting and trapping season spans two calendar years, a hunter could conceivably take two wolves this fall, in 2011 and two more wolves after January 1, 2012 – during the concurrent wolf hunting/trapping season and likewise for wolf trappers. However, recognize that if a hunter or trapper takes his/her season limit of wolves during the January – March (or June) portion of a given wolf hunting/trapping season that hunter/trapper may not hunt or trap wolves for the remainder of that calendar year – i.e the next hunting/trapping season beginning August of the same year. The bottom line is that hunters are allowed only two wolves per calendar year and trappers are allowed only three wolves per calendar year. There is no nefarious, hidden agenda in this season structure. it is simply the result of a wolf hunting/trapping season continuing concurrently through the new year, just as the 2010 wolf hunting season did.”

          • avatar jon says:

            Mark, I know hunters can buy 2 wolf tags this year and next, but my question was can a hunter have 2 wolf tags in their hand at one time? I read on the Idaho fish and game website that a hunter can have only one wolf tag in their possession. So, does that mean you can only get a 2nd tag after you bag your first wolf?

          • avatar Mark Gamblin (IDFG) says:

            jon, I can’t tell you how effective hunting and trapping will be this coming season, but if the last 50 years of wolf hunting/trapping experience in Canada, Alaska, Idaho and Montana is a reliable predictor, we should expect at best, modest success by Idaho wolf hunters and trappers. Recall that less than 1% of the Idaho hunters who bought wolf tags in 2009 and 2010 were successful. We should not expect higher success rates this coming season than the previous. This will be the first Idaho wolf trapping season and we have no contemporary public trapping experience to be guided by and I won’t speculate. We will know more this time next year.
            I didn’t fully answer your tag question jon. A hunter may purchase two wolf tags at once for that calendar year if he/she so desires. A hunter may may also legally take two wolves in one day is he/she chooses.

          • avatar Mark Gamblin (IDFG) says:

            jon,

            “I read on the Idaho fish and game website that a hunter can have only one wolf tag in their possession. ”

            I certainly could be mistaken. I will reveiw the rules and let you know for certain what is allowed.

          • avatar jon says:

            Thank you Mark. Get back to me when you can.

          • avatar jon says:

            nevermind Mark, I found what I was looking for. No person may take more than one wolf per legal tag, so only one wolf per legal tag.

          • avatar jon says:

            Recall that less than 1% of the Idaho hunters who bought wolf tags in 2009 and 2010 were successful.

            I believe that is because there was a quota of only 220 wolves. The majority of the 220 quota was filled mark. If you have 30,000 people purchase wolf tags and there is only a quota of 220 wolves mark, one can expect that the majority of those people who bought wolf tags will be unsuccessful.

          • avatar Mark Gamblin (IDFG) says:

            jon,
            The quota had nothing to do with hunter success rates during the 2009-2010 hunt or any other time. Hunter success is determined by weather, prey vulnerability, hunting equipment, hunter skill levels and other factors but a regulatory quota on the number of wolves are allowed to take in a given season is not one of them. A quota will affect the number of wolves harvested/killed/taken only if the efficiency and success of hunters is great enough to take more wolves than a quota allows.

  3. avatar Immer Treue says:

    I believe I saw a Mech quote that wolves might be able to “sustain” year round hunting/ trapping in MN, yet, from what I gather from his quotes, that he favors a season, and that season begins after wolves depart rendezvous sites and ends prior to the time females are gravid.

  4. avatar nabeki says:

    Since the gloves are now off, it is very apparent wolves cannot survive, let alone thrive without the protection of the ESA. 100 to 150 wolves per state is not and never was science based. It was a concession to the hunting and ranching lobbies. This outdated, mockery of a “management plan” was allowed to stand untouched for 15 years. The only change made was in 2008 when they ratcheted up the 10j.

    The pups are just about four to five months old right now. Soon hell will be unleashed on them and their families.

    Will an injunction be requested of the Ninth Circuit while they are deciding this case? If not there may not be any wolves to save when this “hunting” season is over, which of course is what the states are shooting for…pun intended.

    • avatar Immer Treue says:

      Nabeki,

      I always thought the 100-150 wps was an arbitrary number that would indicate the reintroduction was a success. A concession that had to be made to ranchers and hunters. I have always been curious how/what would have played out if “natural recolonization” were to allowed to have happened.

      As I have written before though, I believe the SSS was practiced in the NRM states, and viable populations never would have been able to establish themselves.

      • avatar WM says:

        Immer,

        Or a “bait and switch” lie to get states, hunters and livestock interests to seek acceptance of the program, for the reintroduction to occur. I have been a member of RMEF since near its inception. They took a very neutral approach, for a very long time because many hunters wanted to see wolves on the landscape, and with the expectation, and justifiable reliance there would not be as many as there are now.

        Things have certainly changed, and many are calling it a federal government lie, with good reason.

        By the way, the original 1987 recovery plan called for “natural recolonization” everywhere EXCEPT Yellowstone, which was to get its own translocated Canadian wolves. The change to include Central ID with its own translocated wolves was a tweak of the Plan reviewed in the 1994 EIS. Of course, the analysis was based on 100 wolves per state, with no discussion whatsoever on where the population numbers would go over time, and the need for “maanagement” other than to say flexibility would be allowed the states when it came time, such as unacceptable impacts to ungulates (the state’s call), or to livestock.

        Bait and switch, under-estimation of impacts of a federal action, and burying the actual analysis in Appendix 9, where the numbers for sustainablity are briefly discussed. Some would say it was a poorly done EIS, for so many reasons. I fall in that camp.

        • avatar Immer Treue says:

          Call it a deal to good to be true. There is no such thing. Would the NRM states have agreed to 1500 wolves at that time. I doubt it. Would the wolves have been allowed to recolonize on their own. I also doubt that would have come to fruition without the place under the feds microscope.

          Yet, Jim McClure was the first to blink, and opened the doors for this little deal, as he knew wolves were on the way.

          WM, I’m with you. As per the individual wolf, I was glad there was no season on wolves last year, yet for the overall wolf population, I feared, it was a horrible blow. as things have played out thus far. If there again had been an idaho and Montana season, might the pressure valve have been released, and more pressure then put on Wyoming to comply to a rational plan rather than a system of eradication?

          That said, as I have written elsewhere, I am sure there are those hunters who look at the state plans and fear what will happen if wolf populations are knocked back too far. And the never ending saga will continue.

        • avatar CodyCoyote says:

          Wolves outside Yellowstone in Wyoming ” naturally colonized ‘ from the reintroduced Park wolves. They largely followed the migratory Yellowstone elk outwards. And found more elk and good habitat. Today as I write this Wildlife Services is trying to nail a couple of wolves over in the Big Horns about 125 miles east of Yellowstone across the semi-arid Big Horn Basin badlands. Wolves being wolves.

          I have to ask you, WM—did the 1987 plan say anything about extirpating any and all wolves that left Yellowstone for whatever reason , as being ‘unnatural’ ? Or was that considered ” ‘natural colonization’ a/k/a plain old dispersion of an expanding species.

          It seems to me the difference is semantic/legalese. Just as ” predator” means one thing to a biologist and another thing to a rancher and his lawyer.

          We all knew wolves reintroduced into Yellowstone would follow migratory elk. But wolves coming all the way to Yellowstone from Canada on their own , however farfetched, and the ” ghost populations” of native GYE wolves that may or may not have existed but certainly were not showing pack behavior, seem to fall under a different set of rules and management guidelines. But that was before 1995.

          Today it’s just wolves being wolves with no thought about whence their great great grandma came from and why.

          I think you assertion that the 1987 plan was bait and switch is actually a short narrow view . There are at least two different ways to look at it.

          Regardless, that water went under the bridge a long time ago. Congress has shown it cares little for existing laws they themselves wrote and even more careless about judicial review of same. A Wolf Rider on a budget amendment that overrules the Court in an ongoing Court case ?

          Wolves are wolves. Congress is [ fill in the blank ].

          • avatar WM says:

            Cody,

            ++I have to ask you, WM—did the 1987 plan say anything about extirpating any and all wolves that left Yellowstone for whatever reason , as being ‘unnatural’ ? Or was that considered ” ‘natural colonization’ a/k/a plain old dispersion of an expanding species++

            That is not a question to ask me. That is a question that should have been addressed in the 1994 EIS. This is not rocket science. Wolves follow their easiest – least risk of injury – food sources, and they procreate until they reach some kind of plateau equilibrium of sorts. Pretty basic yet complex stuff. Don’t think it was addressed.

    • avatar Cobra says:

      Nabeki,
      I would be willing to bet that we’ll never see wolf populations in Idaho below 500 at best. Terrain is just to rugged and thick to allow easy harvest of wolves. I’ve yet to go out this year and not see wolf sign. I can assure you that the wolves in North Idaho are and will be fine. Some individual wolves will be killed with hunting and trapping but the population as a whole will keep doing well.

  5. avatar Immer Treue says:

    Jon,

    Yes, I have seen that article before. Wisconsin is in the same place, philosophically, that the Western states reside. Studies have shown that depredations are confine to small areas by few packs. Deer populations are down in some areas, but as I have repeatedly pointed out, that lower deer numbers are not necessarily bad.

    But they come up with the arbitrary number of 350 wolves. Attrition is not management. Management is increased pressure on wolves where they are defined as a problem. And less pressure on wolves in areas where wolves are of little concern. Get yor numbers, see how it affects “stuff” the following year, and make adjustments. No rocket science.

    In addition, in terms of increasing knowledge of wolf pack behavior/dynamics, will hunting that splinter packs have an effect on wolf behavior in terms of increased depredations,’ie younger wolves not as accomplished hunters as their parents.

    So my take is no. one cannot manage wolves like the livestock that deer and elk have become. Wolves are dynamic, their prey rather static.

    All that babble behind me, I am in favor of a wolf season, though I would never(big word) hunt wolves. That said, I am not in the favor of trapping, too indiscriminate, and if traps not checked daily plain cruel. Seasons would not begin until coinciding with rendezvous sites abandoned, pelts at their prime, and ends when females become gravid. See how that works. More education needs take place in helping those hunters to differentiate between younger and older wolves, and avoiding shooting collared wolves.

    Poaching occurs for all game, but a new mentality needs be established, that poachers will be turned in deer, elk, wolves makes no difference and the penalties become severe, jail, loss of weapons, hunting privileges, etc.

    • avatar JB says:

      Immer:

      Your comments are spot on. It’s great to have another “moderate” participate on this web blog.

    • avatar Harley says:

      If one does not keep up on this blog on a daily basis, one will have the tendency to get a tad bit lost and buried under all that is here and all that was missed! I’m still around, just had to pick up a second job so, not around as much as I would like.

  6. avatar Savebears says:

    All I can say is wow, so much misinformation floating around!

    • avatar Craig says:

      You said it Savebears! Funny that the unlimited Elk and Deer seasons have never wiped out either species over numerous years!

    • avatar Woody says:

      SB
      Usually you are more specific and direct in your comments. Could you say of which misinformation you are speaking? Or am I blind to the obvious?

      I have always appreciated your dialog in the past and have missed your input recently.

  7. avatar Red Riding Hood says:

    Nabeki….
    The earth is not flat, the sky is not falling and hunters are NOT going to kill all the wolves….I appreciate your love for the animal…but your emotion is clouding your ability to be rational..

  8. avatar RRH says:

    Yes Connie..
    They are ahead of there time….just as Ron Gillette is ahead if his time….because at present time the extremes on both sides are
    spinning there wheels and energy on impossible extremist solutions….

  9. avatar WM says:

    RE: Alliance for Wild Rockies – Ex 7 for the injunctive relief (“The NRM Gray Wolf is Not Recovered….”)

    This is a very interesting utilization of the 2009 editorial piece by Bergstrom. et al. To my knowledge there is not a serious wolf or ungulate biologist among them, but a bunch of general biologists with a political agenda, taking shots at Obama, using a bully pulpit journal to make their point. I actually think this was even in an opinion section of the journal if memory serves. Also bear in mind this piece was done before release of the 2010 Bridget vonHoldt et al study, that refuted the earlier no genetic connectivity bullshit in the NRM from the first lawsuit before Molloy. In short, this 2009 writing is not timely in the evolving history of wolf recovery in the NRM as well as the Western Great Lakes.

    I think it is a really cheap shot, but may be an effective legal maneuver since defendants and intervenors won’t likely have a timely opportunity to respond before a ruling on the request for injunctive relief.

    And then, there is that troubling – ID didn’t set a quota for the hunt.

    Will the emergency injunction be granted in the next seven days?

    • avatar Immer Treue says:

      Wonder if Idaho has some sort of contingency/fall back to plan if temporary injunction invoked. In the whole pro vs anti thing, the Idaho plan,as written, is as evil to the pro folks, me included, as Malloy’s ruling was last year to the anti’s.

      Cheap shot? Perhaps. But no cheaper than the budget rider.

    • avatar JB says:

      The Bergstrom paper makes a few points with which I disagree; the biggest disagreement being their assertion about returning the “role of science” to species listing decisions. The notion that science can form the basis of a decision is perhaps the most common fallacy–one that we have discussed at length here on this board.

      However, I think Bergstrom and colleagues recognized that politics in large part, had shaped Interior’s view of what constitutes recovery. They (as the title makes explicit) simply provide an alternative view of what constitutes recovery for wolves under the ESA.

      Their piece (as you allude to) becomes more relevant given (a) Idaho’s failure to provide a quota, (b) Wyoming’s utter failure to protect wolves at all in 9/10s of the state, and (c) the likely outcomes in Idaho and Montana if Wyoming’s plan moves forward–i.e., designating wolves as “predators/nuisance/unprotected” species in parts of those states. The last two actions in particular will make the “inadequate mechanisms” argument easy for would-be plaintiffs, and raise the spectre of the SPR issue as well.

    • avatar Immer Treue says:

      AS I have said before, I favor a controlled hunting season/management of wolves. Montana has a plan,but in my way of thinking is a bit over the top, Idaho’s plan is simply one of attrition, not management, and the Wyoming plan is that of a state gone mad, if implemented.

    • avatar WM says:

      Now here is a quotable quote, from the article:

      ++…….John Horning, executive director for WildEarth Guardians, one of the groups involved in the case, said, “We are discouraged we didn’t win a stay of execution for wolves, but we are cautiously optimistic that we will win our lawsuit to protect wolves from future persecution.”++

      Execution? Makes this sound like a criminal case, and the end game is no wolves are lethally managed EVER, notwithstanding that was the plan (including harvests) when the reintroduction in 1994 was set in motion. Let’s remember, this case is originally about whether the 2008 FWS delisting regulation, which was duly adopted as a regulation under federal law, but found deficient by a trial court judge because of a technical flaw of the Distinct Populuation Segment (DPS) concept application, leaving WY wolves in a protected status while allowing ID and MT to carry out their approved wolf management plans – plans that have been delayed while wolf populations well beyond agreed state-federal numbers continue to grow.

      Admittedly, ID has gone a bit bonkers on its control plan, but that is a different issue.

      Wild Earth Guardians, based on that statement, appears to be just another animal rights group, with a delay, delay, delay mentality, with no interest whatsoever in allowing states to carry out their plans in consert with other wildlife management objectives.

Calendar

October 2011
S M T W T F S
« Sep   Nov »
 1
2345678
9101112131415
16171819202122
23242526272829
3031  

Quote

‎"At some point we must draw a line across the ground of our home and our being, drive a spear into the land and say to the bulldozers, earthmovers, government and corporations, “thus far and no further.” If we do not, we shall later feel, instead of pride, the regret of Thoreau, that good but overly-bookish man, who wrote, near the end of his life, “If I repent of anything it is likely to be my good behaviour."

~ Edward Abbey

%d bloggers like this: