Governor Mead Takes Action

[SMOKESTICK]

Here is a copy of a Press Release from Governor Mead's office.

OFFICE OF GOVERNOR MATT MEAD
State Capitol
Cheyenne, WY 82002
Ph. (307) 777-8784

September 24, 2014

******FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE******

Contact:
Michelle Panos
Communications Director
[email protected]


Governor Mead Signs and Files Emergency Rule for Wolves

CHEYENNE ? In response to the ruling by US District Court Judge Amy Berman Jackson placing the gray wolves back under the protection of the US Fish and Wildlife Service, Governor Mead today signed and filed an emergency rule establishing that Wyoming?s commitment under its management plan is legally enforceable. The emergency rule has the full force and effect of law immediately and is effective for 120 days or 240 if extended by the Governor.

The Wyoming Game and Fish Commission initiated the formal rulemaking process set forth in the Administrative Procedures Act that will make this emergency rule permanent. The Commission expects to complete the process in November.

The Attorney General also filed a motion with the US District Court today asking the Court to recognize Wyoming's management commitments are legally enforceable.

?Now that Wyoming has resolved the Court's concern, I hope the Court will amend its ruling and allow Wyoming?s continued management of gray wolves,? Governor Mead said.

 

[mightyhunter]

Governor Mead has taken quick action to remove the TECHNICALITY that Judge Amy Berman Jackson in D.C. Federal Court used to make her ruling earlier this week. The eco-elites may have won a small skirmish with her ruling but the stronger issues they lost.

The issues lost by the eco-elites are the following:
1)Wolves are not threatened or endangered.
2)Wolves are not at risk due to the lack of genetic connectivity.
3)The USFWS determination that the predator zone is not a significant part of the wolf's range is reasonable.

When confronted with this quick action by the State of Wyoming, Judge Amy Berman Jackson, will be put in the position of having to reveal whether she will follow the law as she previously created it or will she create another TECHNICALITY or ROADBLOCK in an attempt to rule for the eco-elites. She is being boxed in by the State of Wyoming. Maybe she, and the eco-elites, thought the State of Wyoming would be scrambling around for months and years trying to work this out.

My concern about all of this is the misinformation being put forth by those on these forums whose only agenda is to tell everyone they were right.

However, my biggest concern about all of this started at the beginning of this lawsuit. This Judge in the Federal District Court in Washington D.C. never had any business hearing this case to begin with. Her claim that the case was of national significance was pure baloney. A Federal District Judge in Colorado found just the opposite and transferred the case to Wyoming. She was rewarding the eco-elites for forum shopping. If the eco-elites are allowed to forum shop in the future with their cases, they will be making regular stops in D.C. because they have a greater chance of finding a liberal activist judge that will side with them. If this continues, you can bet the grizzly delisting lawsuits down the road will be filed and heard in the D.C. District.

just sayin...mh

 

[nfh]

Well said mightyhunter

 

[nontypical]

Nothing new here...the so-called "conservation groups" have been "judge shopping" for years. It's how they constantly win their frivolous lawsuits. It's a situation that needs to be looked into and changed.

I hate how one judge in one day can reverse years of scientific research done by dedicated professionals with one swift stroke of a pen. Law trumps science. What BS. These groups definitely know how to play the system.

I also hate how the media refers to these eco-elites as "conservation groups"...that description couldn't be further from the truth...

 

[ironranger]

Glad to see a governor actually take action in support of hunters. Good to hear!!! Thanx for posting it....

 

[nfh]

LAST EDITED ON Sep-29-14 AT 10:59PM (MST)[p]I enjoyed reading the powell tribune the other day. How some say the predator zone is 80 percent of the state... So that means 20 percent is the park and surrounding areas of the park. so my /confusion is do the enviros think we need wolves in the badlands/casper and all other areas?????


And once again I am not saying kill them all but just simple control. I think its funny when people say humans mess up the environment well the enviros are doing a good job on this one.

 

[jm77]

>Glad to see a governor actually
>take action in support of
>hunters. Good to hear!!! Thanx
>for posting it....


I'd wager it was more in support of the ranching industry. Hunters are the tool that manages wolves.

 

[440sixpack]

Hunters need the ranchers more than they need the hunters. as long as we're wanting the same thing it's all good.
















Stay thirsty my friends

 

[Triple_BB]

Whether hunters need ranchers depends on where you hunt. Wouldn't hurt my feelings if they kicked all the ranchers off forest service lands...

And its pretty safe to say most ranchers need hardworking American taxpayers to subsidize their operations.

 

[pymulies]

Considering a vast amount of winter grounds and transition areas in Wyoming also include private property, I really appreciate all livestock operations allowing Elk/Mule Deer/Whitetail/Antelope/Moose/Sheep to graze throughout the year on their private. I would argue that almost every wild animal at one point and time spends time on a ranchers land, which that rancher doesn't get compensated. The only way they can profit off of wildlife hunt/outfit/lease to hunters. The ranchers don't get AUM payments from the state for wildlife that spends months upon months on their property.

One time I would agree is domestic sheep in contact with wild sheep. Mainly for the health issues associated with contact of the two species.

Imagine a rancher saying he was going to keep all wildlife off of his property, as you are suggesting they shouldn't be allowed to use forest service lands. This is something that they pay to use and pay the same taxes as any other citizen does.

Also: I do not hunt private, have a ranch, or in anyway benefit other than the reasons above from private ranch land.

py

 

[mightyhunter]

http://trib.com/lifestyles/recreati...cle_bc7f3e40-b0c3-5235-9d05-685f632d18aa.html
A slight update. Eco-elites are fighting Wyoming's recent action. I believe the hearing is today (Tuesday)just before the wolf hunts were scheduled to take place on Wednesday.

Will the judge issue a written order or will she rule from the bench? I have no idea.

 

[mightyhunter]

http://trib.com/lifestyles/recreati...cle_b3e4785a-1e7e-5528-8b2b-5872b385d389.html
The judge ruled from the bench and it is no.

 

[SMOKESTICK]

Maybe we are asking the wrong questions?

 

[BuzzH]

I wonder what would have happened if Wyoming had used Montana and/or Idahos plans as a template of what a proper Wolf Management Plan looks like???

Just a wild guess on my part, but I reckon all 3 states would be 7-10 years into full State Management, wolf hunts, and past the required 5 years probabation of their plans working.

It appears that the latest ruling is pointing to an appeal, but I also suspect that appeal will likely be denied.

IMO, Wyoming is on its way back to revisiting the State Wolf Management Plan if they want to regain State control. Maybe this time, the livestock lobby and WYSFW will listen to the Citizens/Sportsmen of Wyoming. They've had their chance, and blew it...time for a Plan that assures wolf numbers and also state control.

Exactly what should have happened from the start.

 

[SMOKESTICK]

You can wonder all you want to and you can suppose anything you like.

And.......

you are right, it is just a guess, on your part.

What I know, Wyoming has prevailed in two courts; Judge Johnson (Wyoming) and Judge Jackson (Washington, D.C.)both stated that Wyoming's plan works. The data supports Wyoming's plan.

Given that Wyoming has only lost on technicalities, why would Wyoming change its plan? Neither court had a problem they could identify with the predator zone. Johnson suggested its expansion, which the state addresses. He suggested Wyoming needed to look at genetic connectivity, which Wyoming did. Judge Johnson found that both issues were mute as the data demonstrates that Wyoming has it right. Judicial activism keeps thwarting Wyoming's authority.

Wyoming has been better able to manage wolves under federal authority than either Montana or Idaho. The fed's will continue to kill wolves, so their numbers don't get out of control.

I still remain confident that Wyoming's plan works and is worth defending. You and everyone else are welcome to participate in the process; however, you are not allowed to alter what has actually happened in Wyoming.

Perhaps you need to understand that Montana and Idaho chose their direction and so did Wyoming. Who is better off? Just look at the overall numbers and I believe Wyoming is better off having stood up for its citizens rather than capitulating to extreme environmentalist and sportsmen from Montana that now reside in Wyoming.

What should have happened is that extreme environmentalists should not have been allowed to seek legislative actions from the bench. Activist Judges have been behind every technicality that has preempted state authority. Wyoming needs to keep fighting for their sovereignty!

 

[BuzzH]

LAST EDITED ON Oct-01-14 AT 03:45PM (MST)[p]Technicality after technicality...and Wyoming Sportsmen are sick of it. It gets old watching other states WIN in court, watching them continue to hunt wolves and move forward with State Management while guys like Bob Wharff babble about states "rights".

Bob, you can make all the excuses you want, Wyomings plan has been a major hang-up and the precise reason why Wyoming has continued to find itself on the losing end of court case after court case.

Its not a matter of if you, or I, think that Wyomings plan works, it matters that judges dont believe so. It matters that Wyoming entered into a binding agreement with the Federal Government and all U.S. Citizens in regard to wolf reintroduction.

I'm not a self-centered, self serving slave to Peay and Bensen...I want whats best for the Sportsmen/women of Wyoming. You want the wolf saga to continue...its good for your paycheck and you can believe you still have some influence in Wyoming.

You know all this Bob, but you continue to play ostrich...you've really knocked it out of the park!

Oh, and its no shock that Wyoming has fewer wolves, considering only a small part of Wyoming is in the core recovery area...intuitively obvious to the most casual of observors.

 

[feduptwo]

Can't imagine the resident buerocrat siding with the federal judge and thinking more federal control is appropriate. Go figure

No matter what Wyoming does we will not win. Knowing there is no such thing as state rights and the side with the most money always wins we are doomed. Sportsman are walking dead. Wolves, sage grouse, wild horses, mismanagement of public lands, we've lost it's just a matter of time.

I hate to say it Buzz is right. Wyoming should get in line like the rest of the sheep and follow into submission. We should put no plan forward. Feds should make all decisions on wolves in Wyoming. Actually judge Jackson should submit the new plan. Well live with whatever. It doesn't really matter because sportsmen haven't killed enough wolves in any Western state to have a positive effect on big game.

We stood on principle, had a good plan and had a recovered wolf population (that we didnt want) but because the other side has more money and the power of propaganda It didn't matter. This country sold its soul a long time ago and were way to far down the slippery slope to reverse course now.
My vote is now full throttle down the path of retarded buerocrats deciding what I wipe my ass with. Maybe if we hit rock bottom we can fix it but I hold little hope for that.

 

[mightyhunter]

I haven't read the last decision from Judge Amy Berman Jackson. I have checked the court website and it has yet to be published. I will post it after I have had a chance to review it. I have been told that many were left scratching their heads after her bench ruling. I was told that it did not make sense considering how she had ruled with her 40 page decision the week before.

The choices after her decision are to appeal it or start over in the process. In her decision she determined that the wolves are not threatened, that they are not at risk due to lack of genetic connectivity and that the USFWS determination that the predator zone is not a significant part of the wolf's range is reasonable. If this portion of her decision is left unchallenged by an appeal from either side, it will become law i.e. etched in stone. The eco-elites won't like that. Starting over in the process, if her decision on these three issues is not appealed by either party, makes zero sense.

Buzz H keeps hammering home that if you just do what Idaho and Montana have done, all will be well. That is extremely na?ve. Idaho and Montana gained state control through the legislative process as a result of a compromise. That was the Simpson-Tester Rider. Yes, a rider to other legislation. The legislative branch basically took the issue away from the judiciary. I don't see that happening anytime soon in Wyoming. Wyoming is on its own subject to the whims of judiciary, the coffers of the eco-elite groups, and the current interpretation of the ESA.

Wyoming may be put in the position of doing all that it can to satisfy the USFWS and the ESA and having some judge say that is still not enough. They could throw out the predator zone and put the whole state under trophy management and still have some judge say no. The fact that this judge initially ruled that a lack of a binding promise between the State of Wyoming and the USFWS, to guarantee a certain number of wolves, is a technicality. That technicality was one created by the judge. Buzz H doesn't like that, but it is a fact. I wonder if Idaho and Montana have a binding promise that would pass muster with this judge. Because of the Simpson-Tester rider, no judge will be allowed to make such a determination. Now the administrative ruling on this subject by Governor Mead was just a temporary stop gap. He tried to box the judge in. Will the legislature gather and pass a law satisfying the promise portion of the judge's decision? Can that be presented to this judge down the road? Would she listen or just create another technicality? Would she say that 100 wolves or ten mated pairs is not enough? I don't know.

My thinking is let the decision stand. Don't appeal it, unless it is clear that the judge screwed up with her second decision (which I have not read) that is inconsistent with her initial determination and findings from last Tuesday. Wait and see what the eco-elites do. They may try to appeal the balance of her decision that is not what they wanted.

Be prepared down the road for the grizzly delisting to be challenged in D.C. Federal District Court. The eco-elites have found their judicial darling. She may have opened the floodgate to all ESA litigation involving the western states to be determined by liberal leaning activist judges. There are a ton of such judges in that district.

I took my rifle for a walk in the Sunlight Basin yesterday. I didn't see a single deer in 12 miles of hiking. Because the deer migration has not yet started, I was not surprised. I ran into a small group of elk hunkered down in a very thick stand of Douglas Fir. They were only chirping but no bugling was taking place. They know better. By the way, I saw a lot of wolf crap on every ridge I walked. Based on my observations,I would say their numbers are fully recovered. But that has very little to do with the reality facing Wyoming.

just sayin...mh

 

[SMOKESTICK]

MightyHunter,

I think you are seeing things the same as am I. Wyoming and the USFWS both supported delisting. The evidence supports delisting; yet, an activist Judge, living in Washington, D.C. has placed wolves back under federal protection.

How can this be the intent of the ESA?

Clearly, wolves are neither threatened or endangered; yet, we have a D.C. court Judge that places them back under federal protections. How can any state ever receive relief under this kind of system. The fact is, they cannot, without Congress stepping in as they did for Idaho & Montana.

It is unlikely that any other state will step up and help Wyoming fight this injustice in Washington, D.C. But, in my opinion, Wyoming is obligated to continue its fight. I believe you have outlined the problem well. However, I do believe there is another option, one that I am now working on. A few more t's to be crossed and i's that need to be dotted.

 

[mightyhunter]

http://www.powelltribune.com/news/i...-federal-protection-as-canine-debate-heats-up

I read this article and the last quote struck me as pathetic. The quote is from Maggie Howell who is the director of the Wolf
Conservation Center in Salem, New York. She states that she does not know why Jackson denied Wyoming's request to not place wolves on the endangered species list in Wyoming. "But we're happy about it". A real moron and a true eco-elite.