The Root Of The Worry

Nope - (0.00 / 0)

The Governor isn't wrong on this issue.

I'm critical of Governor Schweitzer for his increasing the size of the State Government, but he has a lot of correct ideas in other areas.

I just decided I want to go work for FWP - it'd be fun to get to go out and remove wolf packs, and get paid for it.

I don't know what Schweitzers political plans are after 2012, but if he keeps bucking the administration he can say goodbye to any nice appointments -  

---

by: Eric Coobs @ Mon Feb 28, 2011 at 21:16:06 PM UTC

~sigh~ (0.00 / 0)

"Fun" isn't exactly what I would call shooting puppies, Eric. That you do says volumes of bad about your character.  

---

by: Rob Kailey @ Mon Feb 28, 2011 at 21:39:44 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

shooting wolves (0.00 / 0)

Coobs:
a) Actually, FWP staff does not generally do the wolf-killing--they authorize USDA wildlife service agents to do the dirty work, and,
b) with your cavalier attitude towards killing wildlife, you'd be as much a disgrace to FWP as would you be to sportsmen generally. You'd probably fit right in over at DOL, however.  

---

by: Derek @ Mon Feb 28, 2011 at 21:59:56 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

They're not your typical puppies Rob - (0.00 / 0)

We're talking about packs of wolves, not German Shepherds.

Maybe we shouldn't shoot coyotes on sight, and we should leave prairie dogs alone too? Too avoid having a bad character?  

---

by: Eric Coobs @ Mon Feb 28, 2011 at 21:48:05 PM UTC

I'm not someone who wants to kill wolves (3.00 / 1)

But I have to admire the Governor for forcing the hands of the players in this situation to get their acts together and get us a wolf management policy.

---

by: Kyle42 @ Mon Feb 28, 2011 at 23:00:32 PM UTC

I agree n/t (0.00 / 0)

---

by: Rob Kailey @ Mon Feb 28, 2011 at 23:49:57 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I also agree (0.00 / 0)

And also with this post.

---

by: Kevin @ Tue Mar 01, 2011 at 00:19:31 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Not the same wolf (0.00 / 0)

  The Gray Wolf used to replace the wolf formerly running in the greater Northwest is NOT the same species of Wolf. The Wolf the Govment wants to saddle us with is a Foot Longer and much Bigger - it has a much more voracious appetite.
  This Wolf Species will never fit. Essentially it's an INVASIVE animal like the Domestic Cat especially Feral and Strays.
   It's sad that the Govment wants to force this Gray Wolf on us. Get a smaller variety. Once a Predator makes an easy calf kill it's coming back with the pack. That is the nature of the beast.
   Well why can't the govment just pay the rancher/farmer for each unfortunate kill...because the FW&P will not authorize it - they'll say it was coyotes... and the rancher will be out the remuneration.  

---

by: Darwin26 @ Tue Mar 01, 2011 at 18:17:07 PM UTC

BS (0.00 / 0)

Check your facts. Its the same wolf. Ask any biologist. This myth has been voiced repeatedly and refuted by facts, genetics every time.  

---

by: Derek @ Tue Mar 01, 2011 at 18:33:40 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

You're building a strawman here (0.00 / 0)

Notice in the EarthJustice letter it says:

"In your February 16, 2011 letter to the Secretary of the Interior, and in numerous follow-up interviews with local and national media outlets,"

Notice what I have bolded. The EarthJustice letter was in response to Schweitzer's written words and his interviews with the media.

So when you try and contrast his written words in his letter only with EJ's letter, your being disingenuous because the reaction to Schweitzer is more about his spoken words, and his office's comments than his written words.

I'll fill you in on some of the things Schweitzer said that are troubling and that triggered the EJ letter:

Bozeman Chronicle, 2-18-11:

"Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks spokesman Ron Aasheim said Friday the agency is awaiting a response from federal officials on a petition to shoot packs blamed for hurting elk herds in the Bitterroot Valley.

Schweitzer declared in a Wednesday interview that the state would not wait and instead would "take action" on its own. Federal officials have said an initial decision could be made within six weeks."

Reuters, 2-16-11:

"If there is a dang wolf in your corral attacking your pregnant cow, shoot that wolf. And if its pals are in the corral, shoot them, too," Schweitzer told Reuters in a telephone interview...

The governor said he would allow ranchers themselves to kill any wolves that attack their livestock, and to do so without the need for an investigation by wildlife officials.

HelenaIR, 2-19-11:

The governor's natural resources adviser, Mike Volesky, effectively backed off Schweitzer's earlier comments in the press and his letter to Salazar. Volesky wrote in an e-mail that wildlife agents had "discretion to use whole-pack removal" - not a mandate to do so.

"The letter probably dealt with the issue inartfully," Volesky wrote. "It's usually better to leave some discretion to the experts on the ground, who can then react to specific circumstances."

MIssoulian, 2-17-11:

"We will take action in Montana on our own," he said. "We've had it with Washington, D.C., with Congress just yipping about it, with (the Department of) Interior just vacillating about it...

But critics of federal wolf policies appeared emboldened by the governor's Wednesday statements.

Robert Fanning, who heads a group that advocates protecting elk herds around Yellowstone National Park from wolves, sent out an e-mail urging Montana residents to "lock and load and saddle up while there is still snow on the ground."

In the Bitterroot Valley south of Missoula, Schweitzer directed Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks to begin removing wolf packs blamed for driving down elk populations.

The state has a pending petition before the Fish and Wildlife Service to remove a dozen wolves in the Bitterroot. A decision on that petition is pending, according to federal officials.

But Schweitzer indicated Wednesday he was not going to wait, and would leave it to state wildlife agents to decide when to kill the wolves."

So, we have another case of Schweitzer teeing off verbally, and then backtracking. So what do you expect EJ to do? Try and divine Schweitzer's intent? They're a legal firm with a long history of working environmental organizations to uphold federal and state law. If Schweitzer is going to bend or break the law, and advocate that Montana residents, in your terms, incite "civil disobedience" then he's going to get some blow-back.

Now your attempt to create a false equivalency between environmentalists using civil disobedience, and the government encouraging the same is really weak. Enviros when they engage in civil disobedience understand the consequences of their actions, and that includes getting arrested. And usually the offense they commit isn't a felony federal offense, like violating the ESA is, and which many that Schweitzer would encourage probably have no idea what the sentence and/or fine is.

"Second, and this is the biggie, Elk populations in the southern areas of Montana, especially around Yellowstone, continue to decline.

And why is it declining? Could it be because of a multitude of factors, including an increase in brucellosis prevalence in the herd? Loss of winter range to development? Lack of food sources? Harsh weather and over-average winterkill? Persistent drought? Over hunting? Competition for forage with cows and sheep? "D", all of the above? Let's have some intellectual honesty here instead of a ploy to feed a false meme.

Billings Gazette, 7-16-09:

Too many missed meals may be the larger cause of the decline of elk in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem - not wolf predation or the elk's fear of being eaten by wolves, according to a newly published study.

"What seems to be happening is all these subtle behavioral responses seem to be adding up over winter," said Scott Creel, an ecology professor at Montana State University and the lead author of a study that appears this week in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. "I was initially a little surprised. When I began looking at elk-wolf interactions, I thought predation would be the main cause."

The presence of a predator in the ecosystem is meant to strengthen prey herds in the long run. Unfortunately, what we're getting is a bunch of short-sighted reactionary, arm-chair biology in lieu of a reasoned debate that would resolve the issues that incite Schweitzer to his over-the-top statements.

Back to the drawing board, Rob.

---

by: JC @ Tue Mar 01, 2011 at 18:53:10 PM UTC

Strawman? (0.00 / 0)

That's a rather odd accusation, JC, considering that I was showing how EJ was building a Straw Man through accusations that don't fit the facts.  In case you missed it, what you call "disingenuous" doesn't automatically make something untrue.

Bozeman Comical:  Nothing Schweitzer said was contrary to law or his powers as Governor, or in fact any different from what he said in the letter.

Rueters:  Directly contradicts the Missoulian article.  Either an order was given or it wasn't. Hint, it wasn't.

Helenair:  Completely beside your point.  Because ...

JC:

So, we have another case of Schweitzer teeing off verbally, and then backtracking.

Funny how you show no quote at all where Schweitzer "backed off" of anything.  And if he "backed off", as you claim, then what was the point of EJ's letter claiming more than he ever said?  Doesn't that kind of make what they wrote something of a lie?  Talk about building a Straw Man.

So what do you expect EJ to do?

Nothing different than they've done.  What does that have to do with anything?

If Schweitzer is going to bend or break the law, and advocate that Montana residents, in your terms, incite "civil disobedience" then he's going to get some blow-back.

JC, somehow you got it in your brainyworks that I don't understand that there will be blowback.  You're also assuming that that "blowback" is somehow superior to Schweitzer's stance.  That's an assumption that needs to be questioned, exactly as I did.

Now your attempt to create a false equivalency between environmentalists using civil disobedience, and the government encouraging the same is really weak.

Okay, full stop.  You have issue with me when I generalize "the left", but yet little difficulty with lumping government under one heading contrary to the very discussion taking place.  What was initially, and remains, at issue is one governmental entity at odds with another. The EJ is a buttinski, a Johnny-come-lately.  In other words, it ain't about them.  Your attempt to include their voice in an argument which ain't theirs is precisely a false equivalence. They do not have equal footing in a spat between the DOI and the Governor.  So don't be telling me about false equivalence.

Second, and this is a biggie, before telling me what environmentalists support and do or don't do, you might want a touch of situational awareness.  Contrast your claims about environmentalists with Matthew's post right here, and then we'll talk about what's false.

Third, and this is the biggest.  One of the reasons I felt compelled to write this post in the first place is the arrogance that I smelt coming from the EJ letter.  'Montanan's don't understand'.  'The Governor is telling people what to do'.  No, on both counts.  As I pointed out very clearly in the post, Montanan's understand a great deal that environmentalists seem to think over their pretty little heads.  And one of those things is that if something attacks your livelihood, kill it.  That it's against the law is very clear to every stock owner, and it would be rather an insult for you to tell them that they don't know what they know.  Here's something they've known for a long time:  SS&S.

Finally, JC, you have missed the point which Schweitzer was making, both in his letter and interviews. Paraphrased, it is this:  'If the Federal government expects to oppress Montana with federal law, then quit expecting Montana to do the enforcement for you.  Do it yourself, Ken.'

JC, there are a helluva lot of big money herds in the north Sheilds valley, and to the north and east of Great Falls.  When wolves start predating there, what do you think the likely destiny for canis lupis in Montana will be?

Let's have some intellectual honesty here instead of a ploy to feed a false meme.

Speaking of intellectual honesty, you didn't read either of those links concerning elk decline, did you, JC?  If you had, you'd know that biologist don't have the first damned clue why elk herds are declining.  But let's trust biology, right?  We should always let the completely clueless call the shots.  What is 'intellectually honest' is that they want more time and money to study it.  I'm fine with that, as indicated.  There is nothing dishonest from me, or the Governor or anyone else in saying, hey, time's running out.  And don't insult me with appeal to a "false meme" that you neither clarify or seem to understand yourself.  If the herds are declining, and you don't know why, how can you possibly claim that the assumption that it's wolves causing it is "false"?  You're overstating more than a smidgen.

Unfortunately, what we're getting is a bunch of short-sighted reactionary, arm-chair biology in lieu of a reasoned debate that would resolve the issues that incite Schweitzer to his over-the-top statements.

No, what we're getting is inaction from the federal government, useless lawsuits and hyperbole, from all angles.  What you seem to want to ignore is that there was a reasoned debate, and a resolution that was fine for both the federal government and Montana, based on reason and biology.  And then a lawsuit put an end to all of it and left us right back at your ridiculously uninformed drawing board.  You obviously think that Schweitzer is uninformed, chasing a "meme" and "over the top", you think that Montana stock growers don't understand the issues, you want to leave control in the hands of ignorant biologists (who weren't elected to write policy at any time), ignore that the agency which is tasked with doing something appears powerless and to tell me about drawing boards.  So where is there room in your world for "reasoned debate"?  And more importantly, why should you demand others to join you at your blank little drawing board?

---

by: Rob Kailey @ Tue Mar 01, 2011 at 23:55:16 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Ok, this is getting too complex (0.00 / 0)

to argue in a dozen different directions at once.

Let's suffice it to say that you have your impressions...

"inaction from the federal government" (i see the end of a 30 year process that has been long in the making, and no amount of impatience on your part is going to make things happen any faster than they are);

"useless lawsuits" -- if EJ didn't have standing, they'd be thrown out of court immediately. They have standing because they and the groups/individuals they represent have been involved in this issue for a very long time. The lawsuits may be useless to you, but they are not useless to wolves or their supporters. Such be democracy and legal process

"you didn't read either of those links" -- yes I did. Notice I didn't make any conclusive statements. The false meme I refer to is your sideways insinuation that wolves are responsible for the decline. You have no more evidence of that than you do the contrary of the other possibilities I posed. I said "false meme" not that the conclusion that the decline is the fault of wolves is false. A meme is not a conclusion, it is a convenience that people use to describe a situation to support their position, in the hopes that it becomes common wisdom. It is a ploy.

... and I have mine. A reasoned debate would necessarily have to include a discussion of the history of wolf recovery, and the role of federal law in that. It would be an extensive debate.

If you want to debate the "arrogance" of EJ, that's fine, but I'm not interested. If you want to debate lawsuits, we can do that, I'm game. You want to debate policy, and/or public perceptions and what may or may not happen given a variety of biological factors, we can do that. COrrect me if I'm wrong, but I get the sense that you really just want the EJ lawsuit to go away, and everything would just be hunky-dory.

But I'm not going to let scare tactics--"When wolves start predating there, what do you think the likely destiny for canis lupis in Montana will be?"--influence my opinion, or let it dictate policy, or whether or not a particular lawsuit has merit.

People are freaking out because wolf recovery is coming to the end of a very long process, and they want what they want NOW! Well, it ain't gonna happen, and some of the strategies and tactics are going to have the reverse effect that people want.

Steve has a nice look at what a recovered population is, below, and where we need to go. But he leaves out one important consideration: that a delisting can't happen without  the knowledge that state management and public attitudes/actions not lead the species back into an endangered or threatened status. Unfortunately, the political climate in both Idaho and Wyoming is hurting delisting efforts. And now it appears that Montana is going to go off of the deep end.

---

by: JC @ Wed Mar 02, 2011 at 02:51:54 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Okay (0.00 / 0)

i see the end of a 30 year process that has been long in the making, and no amount of impatience on your part is going to make things happen any faster than they are

I don't see an end at all, and I confess much surprise that you do.  Many don't including the Governor.  My impatience may be of no consequence, but his is.  Your statement to me may be a matter of fact.  To Brian Schweitzer, it's a statement of petulance.

if EJ didn't have standing, they'd be thrown out of court immediately. They have standing because they and the groups/individuals they represent have been involved in this issue for a very long time. The lawsuits may be useless to you, but they are not useless to wolves or their supporters.

None of the above and this is what causes me, personally, to bristle at environmentalists.  The EJ has no standing in this issue.  The law does.  The sad long slog of environmentalists had jack all to do with Malloy's ruling, save that they brought the suit.  What had standing was that Wyoming couldn't be singled out for restriction.  What you see as a great victory for environmentalists, I see as more evidence of the failure and weakness of the federal government.  The lawsuit was useless, to many more than me, because it simply settled on an unworkable status quo for Wyoming, but seriously damaged useful efforts in Idaho and especially Montana.  Yeah, wolves will only get killed by FW&P in Montana .. for now.  Let's see what happens later.

Notice I didn't make any conclusive statements. The false meme I refer to is your sideways insinuation that wolves are responsible for the decline.

Those statements are flat out contradictory.  I tried to tell you that, but you don't seem to want to get the obvious. Saying something is false is exactly a conclusive statement. I made no conclusive claim.  You did.  If it turns out that wolf predation is responsible for the decline of elk population, I would hope that you'd be embarrassed as hell for saying "false".  You know as little as I do, but you've drawn your line.  I'm not the one engaging a ploy, here, JC.  You are.

A meme is not a conclusion, it is a convenience that people use to describe a situation to support their position

No, that's a complete rewrite of the definition of "meme".  And it still doesn't address your contradiction of conclusively (*FALSE*) stating what isn't conclusive (Idunno?!?).

It would be an extensive debate.

Uhhm, it's happening around you as I write this in response to the very debate.  Are you sure you know what party you're at?  ;-)

COrrect me if I'm wrong, but I get the sense that you really just want the EJ lawsuit to go away, and everything would just be hunky-dory.

See, your sense is kinda fucked up here.  The Malloy ruling is what it is, nor do I wish the lawsuit which sponsored it to just "go away". I think fantasy books were fun when I was younger, but I don't tend to hold hope in the fantastical.  Here's what is.  Wyoming wouldn't play ball with the DOI.  Their control plan was slaughter.  Idaho and Montana both had adequate control plans, Montana's being vastly superior and accommodating, just as the Governor wrote that it was in his letter to Salazar.  certain organizations took issue with the idea that anything would be done, at all, to control wolves that involved violence.  So rather than actually pursuing their interest of unfettered population of wolves, or whatever might be the motivation, there lawsuit was that the ESA couldn't be applied save for habitat range as opposed to state boundaries. Legally speaking, they're right; Judge Malloy said so.

So here we are.  The federal government is impotent in enforcing it's own laws.  So the DOI demands that Montana enforce laws which the DOI just used to screw over the interests of Montana.  It can't afford control to some and not others unless there is a change in the law which allows local control, but any attempt to change the law "subverts the law" as if the law were handed down by God and not passed by a Congress in the first place.  Montana bent over backwards trying to accommodate the DOI in enforcement and compliance with the Endangered Species Act. If any of the debilitatingly disappointed would actually care to look, Montana still does a hugely better job of adhering to the ESA than pretty much any other state.

But I'm not going to let scare tactics--"When wolves start predating there, what do you think the likely destiny for canis lupis in Montana will be?"--influence my opinion, or let it dictate policy

JC, I like you a lot, and I respect your opinion.  But let's face it.  What you're going to allow won't matter for shit when the really big agra-dollars get involved.  When wolves are considered a varmint species outside of a National Park, I will be around to ask you just what the hell you were thinking.

where we need to go

What do you mean "we", Bwana?

This state, Montana, is kinda going off the deep end.  It's doing so because the situation concerning wolves is FUBAR.  Exactly as Schweitzer indicated, we have done everything necessary to have a local control plan that serves most interests.  We've been told by the federal justioce department and the DOI to shut up, and clean up their mess.  Schweitzer is frustrated and forcing their hand.  Not once have I agreed with his stance, but I do admire his tactics.  This is the debate you've called for.  Stand on the outside of it if you wish.  But this is the discussion at hand.  

---

by: Rob Kailey @ Wed Mar 02, 2011 at 04:06:37 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Round and round... (0.00 / 0)

I don't see an end at all, and I confess much surprise that you do.

Maybe you don't see an end because you don't understand the process? The way this thing doesn't end is if the state takes matters into its own hands prematurely. And people start making demands that are unrealistic. As to Schweitzer thinking I'm petulant, I could give a rat's ass.

The EJ has no standing in this issue.  The law does.

Then you don't understand the concept of legal standing. Technically, you are correct. EJ has no legal standing. Their clients, the plaintiffs do. All thirteen organizations and their members. Disclaimer: I am a member of several of the organizations, and have either been an employee or a contractor to many of them. So in essence, I have standing in the EJ case, and you do not (unless you are a member of one of the plaintiff organizations).

What you see as a great victory for environmentalists, I see as more evidence of the failure and weakness of the federal government.

I see no victory for environmentalists in all of this. I see some relief for the wolf. But I do agree that it is the failure and weakness of the federal government that has brought us to this point in the EJ lawsuit, though I think I interpret that weakness and failure differently. It was the failure of the USFWS to correctly apply the law as it pertains to the different populations (experimental, non-essential vs. native threatened)  over state and recovery plan boundaries that led to Molloy's injunction.

For what it is worth, Molloy will hear arguments in a few weeks on the case, and will most likely issue a final ruling soon after that.

The lawsuit was useless, to many more than me, because it simply settled on an unworkable status quo for Wyoming, but seriously damaged useful efforts in Idaho and especially Montana.

And "damaged useful efforts"? If Molloy finds those effort lawful, they will resume. If he does not, then they were not useful, as they were unlawful.

If it turns out that wolf predation is responsible for the decline of elk population, I would hope that you'd be embarrassed as hell for saying "false".

Embarrassed? Hardly. I said the "meme" was false. Because there are going to be a myriad of factors influencing elk population numbers. Legal hunting is one. For every animal hunted, the population declines by one. Hunting is as responsible for declining numbers as any other factor. An elk killed by a wolf or an elk killed by a hunter has the exact same effect on the overall elk population.

Montana still does a hugely better job of adhering to the ESA than pretty much any other state.

Well, that's highly debatable, as the state has been the target of numerous lawsuits related to the ESA. I don't think that blanket statements like this are particularly useful. FWIW, I (and the organizations I was working for) have sued the state over ESA issues that were pretty egregious.

I was going to try and make some sense of the preceding two paragraphs to this comment but they were pretty garbled up. I get the sense you're pissed because Montana's efforts get mingled up with other states' efforts, and we lose out because Wyoming's management plan sucks. Well, this is the heart of the issue that Molloy is going to sort out. I'm patient enough to wait a month or two to see his decision and the reasoning behind it. Sorry that you're not.

What you're going to allow won't matter for shit when the really big agra-dollars get involved.

The big agra-dollars are already involved. Why do you think Wyoming is doing what it is doing? Why do we have huge battles over habitat in Montana? And as to the insinuation that my efforts don't matter, that is why the lawsuit is handled by EJ for the plaintiffs and their members. It doesn't matter what I think. It matters what the court thinks right now. I know you're having a difficult time with letting the legal process run its course, but that's the way it is.

When wolves are considered a varmint species outside of a National Park, I will be around to ask you just what the hell you were thinking.

Many people already consider them varmints, and nothing I or others do will ever change that. Wolves were considered a varmint 30 years ago when I started paying attention to the issue. they'll be considered varmints by some 30 years after they've been recovered.

In reply to your "What do you mean "we", Bwana?" question, as Steve Kelly said:

When the habitat, regulatory mechanisms, population size, and distribution are sufficient, I will be the first to cheer their removal from ESA protection.

That's where we need to go, as that is the direction that the law takes us.

We've been told by the federal justioce department and the DOI to shut up, and clean up their mess.

To throw a "we" back at you, just who is this "we" that the feds have told to shut up? NOt me. This is just bombast that isn't useful.

Schweitzer is frustrated and forcing their hand.

Sure, I agree he is frustrated. But he is not forcing the fed's hand, if that's what you mean. Judge Molloy is the one who is doing the forcing here. And if the feds aren't adhering to the law, it doesn't matter diddly how frustrated Schweitzer gets, or how he tries to force anyone's hands. If anything, he is making matters worse for himself, and state management efforts, as the letter from EJ last week points out.

---

by: JC @ Wed Mar 02, 2011 at 19:31:02 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Round and round is the very point, JC (0.00 / 0)

No progress is going to be made while all sides remain intractable from their righteous consideration that disagreement means the opponent is WRONG.

And for the personal record, I'm getting damned tired of you talking down to me about an issue I know as well as you.  You want to have a rational debate?  Check your ego at the door.

Maybe you don't see an end because you don't understand the process?

Or maybe because I've seen the process fail.  There was a solution in place that all sides were happy with, save those organizations that wish to outlaw all wolf hunting.  I hate to break it to you JC, but wolf hunting is going to be a part of any control measure.  Period.  It was part of the control measure that the holy and apostolic biologists at the DOI signed off on to give Montana what limited control it had, and then was revoked.

Let's be plain here.  The Montana control plan was already accepted and wolves were already delisted in the state. Those organizations which brought suit here did so on a legal technicality.  Don't mistake me; it was a good one and ended precisely as I expected. But it simply verified what those who pay attention knew before hand.  Wyoming calls the shots, and the executive branch is impotent to deal with that fact.  Matthew Koehler and I have bumped heads before over the idea that legislation is needed to break this impasse.  The way I see it, legislation is needed to break the strangle hold that Wyoming has over the entire Rocky Mountain region regarding wolf control. Matthew disagrees, though I'm not terribly certain why. What is clear is that Molloy's ruling established Wyoming's non-compliance as the baseline for Montana's abilities.

So many of us have seen 'the end' as you would put it, and we've seen it stripped away by a) those who would not see wolves hunted at all, b) the state of Wyoming, and c) the Justice system.  The ESA has become a hammer that is being used to bludgeon states and stock growers and governors into compliance with an agenda that stands against the will of all 3.  There's your process, JC.  And just because it worked for you doesn't mean it actually worked for the betterment of wolves, the environment or the state of Montana. That's a concept you might want to start embracing someday.

The way this thing doesn't end is if the state takes matters into its own hands prematurely.

That's one way.  I'm amused at the blind spots you show to others, as clarified above.  Regardless of your blind spots, I agree with you.  Schweitzer 'took things into his own hands' only so far as he is legally allowed to do so as a duly elected Governor of our fine state.  If the legislature acts on HB 471, that's a different topic altogether, ain't it?  And in truth, it won't matter at all.  Wyoming calls the shots, remember?  We can change our wolf control plan all we want, from the office of capital janitorial services for all it matters.  The ESA applies as long as Wyoming can't be made to play ball, or there is no legislative action at the federal level.  You should be happy. You're going to get what you want either way ... for now.

Then you don't understand the concept of legal standing. Technically, you are correct.

Oh. I am correct about something I don't understand.  Again with the arrogance.  Here's a fact.  Now that Molloy has ruled?  EJ has no legal standing, nor do any of it's clients.  That's not being technically correct, JC. It's being factually correct.  You and your organizations are meaningless until you throw your dollars at another lawsuit.  Do try to keep up with current events.

And "damaged useful efforts"? If Molloy finds those effort lawful, they will resume. If he does not, then they were not useful, as they were unlawful.

Speaking of false equivalence, since when did useful = lawful?  Wasn't that kind of the point I was making about 'civil disobedience'?  Or did you just forget that part?

We both know how Molloy will rule (at least I hope we do.)  He will maintain that the ESA doesn't recognize state borders.  I don't fault him for that.  He would be correct in ruling so.  But don't blow smoke up anyone's ass that a ruling one way means "lawful" and a ruling the other means "useful".  They aren't the same thing at all.  And again, Wyoming's lack of compliance will call the shots.

Because there are going to be a myriad of factors influencing elk population numbers.

That's an amazing amount of certitude for someone who throws "FALSE" in the face of others when there is, scientifically speaking, no certitude to be had.  That would be none, JC.  But don't let that impede your rants.  You're kinda on a roll here.  You might be right, you might be wrong.  Doesn't slow you down none, so you just go.  Place odds and bets in Vegas.  Hell, I'll play that game...

An elk killed by a wolf or an elk killed by a hunter has the exact same effect on the overall elk population.

No.  Really it doesn't if the elk taken is a calf.  And here I thought you were an acolyte of biology.

Well, that's highly debatable, as the state has been the target of numerous lawsuits related to the ESA.

And here we have false causation.  "numerous lawsuits" somehow means that Montana isn't trying to live up to the ESA.  Or it could mean that Montana has more Endangered species ~cough bison wolverines black footed ferrets cough~ that have involvement in court.  Or it could mean that Montana is just more full of litigious disgruntled assholes.  It could mean a lot of things, JC.  I noticve that you bring up none of them.

I get the sense you're pissed because Montana's efforts get mingled up with other states' efforts, and we lose out because Wyoming's management plan sucks.

Your sense?  Do you know thing one about the Molloy ruling or the past 6 years of attempted wolf management?  Welcome to reality, pal.  And enjoy your stay.  Hopefully the more attentive won't be too unkind while you flail around looking for "truth" in what's right in front of you.  Yes, Wyoming is the problem.  They have no governing factor concerning wolves, and your buddies in litigation have decreed that Montana has no governing factor concerning wolves because the federals couldn't do anything about Wyoming, and the ESA must be holy, apostolic and sacrosanct.  Yes, as a Montanan who wants wolves to succeed in the lower 48, I'm kinda pissed indeed.

I know you're having a difficult time with letting the legal process run its course, but that's the way it is.

I'm sorry, but there's only one response to something so idiotic.  Fuck you and your hypocritical ignorance.  The legal process is running it's course and you have jack all to say about it right now.  The Governor said something you don't like and ain't you so important for disagreeing.  Uhh no.  Not so much.  You wail and whine about "biology", and then insult any disagreement with legal technicalities.  Those would be the technicalities that you are foolish enough to blame others for clinging to as you grip them tightly to your righteous breastplate of environmental honor.  You waffle your support to the legal process and then wail about 'science'.  When the hell did those become the same, JC?  Never?  Is that what I'm hearing?  Oh wait.  That would be exactly what I'm hearing.  

---

by: Rob Kailey @ Thu Mar 03, 2011 at 00:11:29 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Geez Rob, (0.00 / 0)

You demand that "Check your ego at the door" and then you proceed to flail yours all over the place.

I'm not going to continue a discussion with these demands put in place. Suffice it to say, that when you make this claim:

Here's a fact.  Now that Molloy has ruled?  EJ has no legal standing, nor do any of it's clients.  That's not being technically correct, JC. It's being factually correct.

Molloy has not issued a final ruling in the current case. So you're blowing smoke out your backside with the above statement. Oral arguments for the current case are scheduled for March 24th.

And you allude to the fact you know this when you say:

We both know how Molloy will rule (at least I hope we do.)  He will maintain that the ESA doesn't recognize state borders.

You're confused. And I can't argue with that anymore. I don't need the personal digs, as you slide into ad hominem to avoid dealing with the issues as I've framed them. You make a whole lot of false assumptions and insults, and I don't have the time to refute you point by point anymore.

I'm done.

---

by: JC @ Thu Mar 03, 2011 at 01:00:28 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Recovery is not as easy as it sounds. (0.00 / 0)

FWS/DOI gets to define recovery goals for listed species, generally, even if biologists, activists, states, and others may have perfectly legitimate evidence that it's inadequate, or in rare cases, overly cautious.  The feds don't always get it right.  The states hardly ever get it right, or species would have no need to be listed in the first place.

The term recovered population, a legal term,  is sometimes confused with a self-sustaining, viable population, which is generally determined by applying a set of  biological criteria. Sometimes the two terms can be used more or less interchangeably.  Not so with wolves, grizzlies, buffalo, and other wildlife species that seem to generate fear  and anger in certain communities with powerful political ties. Politics and science, well, what can one say.  Since Copurnicus, or Galileo, it's been a battle royale.  So, what's changed?    

Wolves are not yet free from the multiple threats that warranted their listing in the first place.  When the habitat, regulatory mechanisms, population size, and distribution are sufficient, I will be the first to cheer their removal from ESA protection.  That time is not yet here, and the feds, states, and powerful political forces suggesting only violent "management solutions" really need to chill out.  The sky is not falling.  

I will continue to support wolves. So do a lot of other people.

---

by: steve kelly @ Wed Mar 02, 2011 at 01:35:00 AM UTC