Wyoming wolf delisting. Comments link

Not sure, but this sentence on the commets page is what I find about that:

"Fields that will be viewable on Regulations.gov "

so maybe check that out?

txhunter58

venor, ergo sum (I hunt, therefore I am)
 
"The best scientific and commercial data available indicate that wolves in Wyoming are recovered and no longer meet the definition of endangered or threatened under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). Wyoming's wolf population is stable, threats are addressed, and a post-delisting monitoring and management framework has been developed."

What's to comment on? They won, we lost. Crying won't help now.

Eel
 
LAST EDITED ON Dec-24-11 AT 09:29AM (MST)[p]Huh??

The above comment is proposed, not passed.

So, you comment that we favor delisting and now want Wyoming to be able to control their numbers just like they currently control other wildlife populations: through hunting.

Or do you favor leaving it as it is and let them increase in number unchecked?

txhunter58

venor, ergo sum (I hunt, therefore I am)
 
LOL! Didn't mean to disrespect your post txhunter. It's just that the Feds have said wolves are no longer threatened in Wyoming, and have recovered.

They are looking for comments supported by scientific findings to change their mind.

If I comment that we need to de-list wolves....they already admitted that.

It's not up for a vote. So many yeas and so many nays.

If they do delist, it won't be because of anything any of us say. At least they haven't listened to my comments for the past 10 years.

Eel
 
Dear USFWS,

please adopt the Wyoming Wolf plan that your agencey has approved and is proposing to be implemented (USFWS adopted Wyoming plan on Oct. 1, 2011).

Wyoming's plan was developed by professinal biologists and game managers, and supported a bi-partisan team of people - Democratic Governor Frudenthal and the Wyoming Legislature.

The plan will allow Wyoming to keep the minimum number of wolves required - approximately 150, but will still allow for wolves outside the Jackson to Cody area (most of the state) to be controlled as predators.

THE USFWS has been aerial hunting and killing nearly 50 wolves a year in the "predator zone" proof that wolves in the predator zone get into trouble. It makes no sense to pay the government - since we are $15 Trillion in debt - to control wolves when hutners, landowenrs and ranchers will do it for everyone.

Thanks for listening to the Wyoming people, who fought hard to get their plan accepted. Judge Johnson ruled in essence that Wyoming's plan was acceptable

Turn wolf managment over to Wyoming ASAP.

Merry Christmas

hope lots will comment, thanks for bringing this up
 
Eel: Yes, but this is also a political process. If they get 10 million comments against delisting and 100 for, it could change the process. Defeat has been snatched from the jaws of victory at the last minute before. I think the more positive comments the better. So often we are asked to "vote" in some meaningless nonscientific poll. I think this is different.

txhunter58

venor, ergo sum (I hunt, therefore I am)
 
I commented pro Wyoming plan. The problem isn't going to be with the USFWS, but rather the courts. Wyoming's plan is DOA without a rider to stop litigation. Unfortunately,their plan just won't pass the mustard of the courts. I think the interior dept. knew this and gave Wyoming a hand job.




I wanted to take a scalp,but the kill was not mine.
 
I am sure you are right, but if we have to take baby steps, so be it.

txhunter58

venor, ergo sum (I hunt, therefore I am)
 
I guess I misunderstood. My apology txhunter. Just when I think it can't get worse they prove me wrong.

Keep up the good fight.

Eel
 
4100,

just the opposite of your view.

1. The USFWS rejected Wyoming's plan. That decision was taken to Federal Court, and Judge Johnson ruled in favor of Wyoming's plan. Congress affirmed that decisoin in April 15 delisting of ID and MT.

2. Feds then approve Wyoming's plan, with a tweak or two from teh one they rejected. moved the predator boundary a few miles near jackson.

3. If it is taken to court, same Judge is sitting their waiting, who ruled in favor of Wyoming's plan.

4. appeal of the plan and Johnson's ruling is in the 10th circuit in Denver, not 9th and San Francisco like MT and ID.

complicated, but Wyoming's plan should stick

hopefully some folks will comment and support it.
 
Okay Don...

WE ALL-- know you just want more "charity paycheck" contibutions.

There is no doubt among most everyone of us that you do not want the Wyo---Wolf gig to ever go away 'Join/Send us your $$$ and we will continue to fight'...via the courts....because it will always be in the courts for Wyo--Wolf.

So you want us to Toss our $$$ to your money grab scam BGF/Wyo--$FW..blah--blah--blah....for how many years now Don??? Cha--ching for you and your puppet$.... all those years.....and many more to come right Don.....$$$$$$

Face it Don--- it is your very LAST money grab (maybe some ca$h flow from N. Mex/Az.--spin it buddy--spin it = $$$) for BGF/SFW ect----geeezz how many "charity paycheck" non profit Con Org$ you got coming into your wallet??

On the surface----Utah $FW/$FH, UTFNAW$ (even though you Blow Smoke about being the Founder of UTFNAW$) Full Curl $ociety, BGF.....How many have I missed Don....

Ca$h flow buddy---Ca$h flow...

We will hunt wolves in Wyo 6 weeks (1 1/2 months) a year and then 10 1/2 months of court battles for ever-----Ca$h flow for you Don----Ca$h flow.

Why you tryed to back stab Idaho and Montana on their Wolf hunts---is totaly beyond many of us----well then again........Ca$h flow buddy Ca$h flow to fight the Wyo wolf....blah--blah--blah...

Robb
 
The Lummis Rider, limiting judicial review of the Wyoming wolf plan, was eliminated at the insistence of the Obama White House on Wednesday December 14th. The Wyoming delegation could try for a no litigation clause through stand alone litigation. However, this likely would be blocked by the now Democratically controlled Senate. Senators Barbara Boxer(D)California and Ben Cardon(D)Maryland would be the parties leading the charge to block a vote on stand alone legislation that limits legal challenges to the plan. Isn't it great to know that Senators from California and Maryland can block something that has nothing to do with their respective states. They vote this way because they rely on the various eco-elite groups for some of their campaign cash.


Without the Lummis Rider, the various eco-elite groups (opposing the Wyoming Plan) will still have to file suit in Wyoming Federal District Court to stop approval of the Wyoming wolf plan. This is also where they will have to seek their injunctions. If anyone thinks that they will find a sympathetic judge to rule in their favor, I would like to know who they think that judge is? This will no longer be going to the Federal District Court in Montana for resolution. You can bet the eco-elite groups know this. Perhaps, Judge Alan B. Johnson can enlighten them on the subject.

The state legislature in Wyoming will still have to vote to approve the plan. That should happen early in 2012. I don't think the Wyoming legislature will change their votes to approve the "wolf deal" because Lummis could not get the no litigation clause.

In the meantime, the National Park Service, USFWS and Wyoming Game and Fish have been killing problem wolves in Wyoming in 2011. I don't know the exact number, but it is not insignificant. The total 2011 kill in Montana is 120(far short of the state quota) and in Idaho it is 190.
 
No disrespect intended, Robb, but it sounds like the pain killers from your surgery soured your Holiday. I hope you are OK.
I have never been big on personal attacks on a public forum but I will stand up to the FACT that Don has tried to make a difference with the Wolf issue, while most others just sat on the sideline.
So I hope that doesn't overshadow the "real issue" that perhaps wolves will be delisted soon in Wyoming.
 
LAST EDITED ON Dec-29-11 AT 10:09PM (MST)[p]PleaseDear nailed this one...

Wyoming is about to get a lesson in pi$$ing backward on their wolf plan.

The wolf hippies have lost MT and ID...done deal. SFW and BGF tried everything in their power to stop the Tester/Simpson rider and Wyoming foolishly went along for the ride.

Lummis makes a failed attempt, and a lame one at that, to copy-cat Simpson/Tester. It was pure politics, just trying to save face with her Wyoming constituents. Enzi's office has made it clear that a stand alone no-lawsuit bill is a joke, and I dont expect any of the Wyoming delegation to even draft legislation to that effect. If they do, its all show...no way it will pass. Pretty telling how much "clout" Wyoming/SFW/BGF really have on this issue, as well as in D.C. when a measly legislator from Rhode Island slams the door on Lummis' rider. Barely a wimper from BGF/SFW and surely no sign of any fight.

In the meantime, without the no lawsuit clause, rumors are flying in the Wyoming State Legislature that many State Reps are backing away from passing the new wolf plan.

Mainly because they recognize that Wyoming is at a major risk to lose a delisting case in front of just about any court.

While DKpeay/BGF/SFW want everyone to believe that Johnsons ruling somehow "trumps" Molloy's ruling, nothing could be farther from the truth.

Further, the wolf hippie attorneys are well aware that conflicting court rulings on the same subject make for fertile ground in any new lawsuit...and also very likely to be successfully appealed to a higher court.

Wyoming is up a major creek...and is clearly out in the weeds, hoping to come up with a way to salvage their plan. Theres a price be paid for your actions, and Wyoming is paying it right now. Sadly, the Wyoming Wolf Coaliation...backed by SFW/BGF and various Wyoming Stock Growers associations seem to find no problem gambling a losing hand with MY PUBLIC WILDLIFE. They continue to throw the publics wildlife under the bus for profit...just as PleaseDear said.

Also, the total wolf kill in Montana is not 120...the State and Feds are still killing wolves in Montana as well...same with Idaho.
 
I guess we can agree to disagree then. I do believe however that your understanding of the Johnson ruling is wrong headed. He never ruled in favor of Wyoming's PLAN, but rather the fact that USFWS didn't give it the consideration due. They never went through the process. It would have been rejected anyway, but would have been give the consideration.

The law is the law, and I wouldn't bet on Wyoming hunting wolves in the near future. Isn't that good for SFW/BGF and the wolf preservationists? The money train continues.




I wanted to take a scalp,but the kill was not mine.
 
Yes, and Montana, and Idaho's killing a lot of wolves that in the same boat as Wyoming. Not just hunting deaths.


I wanted to take a scalp,but the kill was not mine.
 
Yes-----surgery sucks.

I have one person and one topic that I have very little self control over my emotions/dislike about......on M&M.

1- person is not bad out of about 5,000 people on M&M

1- topic Con Org$

I do my best to avoid both---

Once and a while I fail.

Robb
 
1. I believe, the federal comment period on the proposed wolf plan ends January 13th, 2012.Enough negative "comments" on the wolf plan during the 2012 campaign period could end the plan. There is no particular weight given to "comments" from Wyoming residents over those from other states.

2. The Wyoming legislature will be in session in 2012 from February 13 through March 9. The wolf deal with the federal government will be passed or not during the budget session.

House Speaker Ed Buchanan said "he expects lawmakers to be cautious about approving the deal and said he'll look at why opponents of the deal are objecting to it".

State Senator Bruce Burns said "he didn't expect lawmakers to change their votes based on whether there's a no litigation clause in place"

The Buchanan and Burns quotes came from a Casper Star Tribune article on the subject dated December 17, 2011. You can bet that the Wyoming legislature is now seeking legal opinions prior to the session on the potential judicial success of the proposed Wyoming wolf plan if it is approved. Those opinions would include the legal issues involved and who would be hearing and ruling on the case at the district and appellate levels. The eco-elite groups will be doing the same.

Whether Buzz H's statement as follows "In the meantime, without the no lawsuit clause, rumors are flying in the Wyoming State Legislature that many state reps are backing away from passing the Wyoming wolf plan. Mainly because they recognize that Wyoming is at a major risk to lose a delisting case in front of just about any court" is mere supposition, wishful thinking or fact will be determined shortly. What the Wyoming legislature does on the wolf deal will be determined in about 60 days.

In my opinion, the wolf debacle will always come down to politics, campaign contributions and not science. Eco-elite Bill Snape (counsel for the Center for Biological Diversity)made this point on the issue of the "no litigation rider" as succintly as it could be made when he said this about the Lummis Rider "This is a different situation than when you had Baucus and Tester doing it". The only difference is the party advancing the rider.

Nationally, the political landscape will change dramatically in 2012. No one knows who will control the House and Senate after the 2012 elections. Also, no one knows what will happen to the Obama Administration after the 2012 election. The upcoming 2012 national elections will have a significant impact on the future of the ESA. It may result in a significant change in course or the continuation of the current status quo.
 
At this point, I believe its a toss up on whether the Wyoming state legislature will adopt the new wolf plan.

As to the comment made about the Simpson/Tester rider being different...it surely was, and while I dont agree with much that Bill Snape says, in this case he's right.

Mightyhunter would have you believe its all based on politics and the party advancing the rider...really? Thats a load of crap, Mike Simpson, last I checked, was a Republican. The Simpson/Tester rider wasnt about partisan politics, rather about two concerned Representatives who were tired of being bound by Wyomings failed wolf plan. They acted in the best interest of their states to gain control of wolf managment. It worked and a couple groups...and one State...are all butt-hurt over it. Also, its fair to note, that Montana and Idaho both had ACCEPTED wolf plans in place, and had also implemented successful wolf seasons that Molloy upheld in court. So, when MT and ID along with their Representatives, successfully passed the no-litigation rider it most certainly was much different than Wyoming trying to do the same, without an accepted plan in place and the history of a successful season that was upheld by the courts. Not even close to the same...

Also, good luck with changing the ESA...40+ years of court cases and many failed attempts to get rid of it. I dont care who controls the house, senate, or whitehouse...its political suicide for members of either party to be mucking around with the ESA. There will be a lot of lip service, lots of whining and complaining...but at the end of the day its all going to be talk and nothing more.
 
It is all politics, money and nothing more when it comes to the wolf issue. The sportsman groups use the wolf issue to generate donations. The eco-elite groups do the same. The politicians on both sides love the campaign contributions that come with the stance they take on an issue. The rancor and partisanship fuels the economic engine for all the politicians and the various groups involved. In the meantime, good science and the desires of the majority of people in Wyoming end up in the backseat.

Buzz H mentions Mike Simpson (R) was behind the Simpson-Tester rider. Anyone with "a single firing brain cell" knows that rider would have gone no where, regardless of the content of the Idaho plan, if the two Democratic Senators from Montana, Baucus and Tester, hadn't jumped on board. Those two jumped on board because it was politically necessary for them to do so. With various stand alone bills floating around, and the public sentiment in Montana at the time, they had no choice but to act in a political manner. To suggest otherwise is being less than honest.

Buzz H is a Democrat, a big public union man, and works for the federal government (USFS). He lives and works in Wyoming and continually expresses his contempt for the Republicans that run Wyoming at the state and federal level. That contempt is only exceeded by his contempt for ranchers and the SFW. He has the absolute right to express that contempt. However, he likes to underplay the role that all these eco-elite groups have played in the "wolf issue" because to do otherwise would show how his political party has sold out to these groups. He also likes to underplay the role of Judge Malloy in this mess. Again, that would point a finger at the fact that Judge Malloy was nominated by Senator Max Baucus (D),and appointed by Bill Clinton(D)to the federal bench. It is not happenstance that the eco-elites sought out this judge to hear their lawsuits on the wolf and the grizzly bear.

There is plenty of blame to go around for why the "wolf issue" in Wyoming continues to drag on. There are too many people from both sides pretending that the issue isn't political. Look at their agenda before deciding what you believe the truth to be. 2012 is going to be a big political year. The outcome of the elections will have a direct outcome on how the ESA will be used in the coming years.
 
LAST EDITED ON Dec-30-11 AT 12:00PM (MST)[p]LAST EDITED ON Dec-30-11 AT 11:58?AM (MST)

LAST EDITED ON Dec-30-11 AT 11:56?AM (MST)

There are sportsmens groups that are asking for money over the wolf issue, thats already been established and its hardly a secret who those groups...bgf, sfw...are.

Your claim that Simpson, Tester, and Baucus had to come up with their rider because of pure political reasons is crap. They could have just as easily supported the failed attempt that BGF/SFW were endorsing via their two bills. That would have saved them all the political capital they needed...with more than plenty to spare.

Further, WTF should it matter that 3 representatives from Montana and Idaho acted on behalf of their constituents to get wolves into State Management? You arent, and have likely never been, a resident of either MT or ID. Further, you likely dont even hunt either state and contribute to wildlife management there. They all acted from the influence of Montana and Idaho hunters that were involved in the wolf plan, involved with sporting groups there, and wanted state wolf control. Wyoming was hindering progress for MT and ID, so they cut ties...and rightfully so.

As far as the rest, you havent even the first clue. For starters, you're on libelous ground, you should recognize that with your lawyer background. I'm not a Democrat...I've a voter registration card that proves other-wise. Who I work for and my affiliation in a Union has nothing to do with the facts of the wolf issue. None.

I've held the same discontent for Gov. Freundenthal on the wolf issue that I'm also holding toward Gov. Meade. Both have ignored sportsmen, wildlife biology, and the residents of Wyoming on this issue. MY PUBLIC WILDLIFE is paying the price for it. The WWC along with the associated stockgrower organizations have used nothing but undue influence in Wyomings plan...and failure at levels to get an accepted plan passed. Its a fact jack, and I dont give a rip if that group is made up of Democrats, Republicans, Independents, Catholics, Mormons, or Hindu's...they've thrown my public wildlife and hunters under the bus. Start asking Wyoming hunters what they want...they'll tell you in no uncertain terms, they want state control of wolves and they want a wolf hunting season. Period.

To use your words, "To suggest otherwise is being less than honest."

For the record...what party did the President belong to that passed the ESA? I always forget, maybe with your "knowledge" of law you could help me out.

Also, good luck getting the ESA changed...laffin'.

Nothing else going on right now that needs more attention...laffin' even more.
 
LAST EDITED ON Mar-05-12 AT 10:21PM (MST)[p]LAST EDITED ON Mar-05-12 AT 10:20?PM (MST)

Mightyhunter,

The WY legislature doesnt mean much in this issue, never has. What passed today isnt where the battle happens. You should know that if you have the first clue about the "pulse" of the wolf issue.

BTW, hows that WY wolf season treating you?

We'll see what happens around September, thats the big show.

Oh, and nice stalking skills...impressive.
 
I know, you have been involved in the wolf issue since 1986. A 57-1 vote by the Wyoming legislature was a big whiff for you. You must have had your finger on your own pulse as it relates to the issue. I hope you get over your disappointment. Was the only nay vote your cousin?

Obviously, this is just another step in the process. Your friends, the "wolf hippies", and their various groups will have another shot at this. Because your predictions are so "spot on", I have a couple of questions for you as the all knowing. Who will hear the case? Which of the various eco-elite groups will file the lawsuit? These are both important questions. Do you even know who the potential judges are for review of such a case? There may be at least one judge that has a conflict of interest on the subject. Do you know if the major players in the eco-elite movement will even get involved or will they sit this one out? If a lawsuit is filed, will they be able to obtain a preliminary injunction to stop a hunt in 2012?

There is still a lot of uncertainty in all of this. Despite a hunt in Montana, the wolf population has increased in that state. The quota was not met and the season was not further extended. Idaho has taken a more aggressive approach with trapping, longer seasons, cheap non-resident tags, aerial gunning, etc? Each of those states has handled the wolf situation in a different manner.

I know that you, as a federal employee, like the idea of an all knowing federal bureaucracy controlling the actions of the various states. It is the keystone of your personal and political beliefs as a Democrat. You like the "one size fits all" mentality that currently pervades in our government. Some folks don't care for that kind of government.

Only time will tell.

just sayin...
 

Click-a-Pic ... Details & Bigger Photos

Member Gallery Photos and Videos!

90468ABD-3239-4E19-B45E-F15B238B2B21.jpeg
Success
The best view
elk3.jpg
30E5745E-1E9A-4993-BD45-1912EFF9F97E.jpeg
Crazy Cool Muley Antler
IMG_4045.jpg
CC8F2642-45F1-43B6-81E1-61944E297227.jpeg
20240828_100754.jpg
16854.jpeg
73EC85D2-DB99-4C7B-AEAF-3309168D5B63.png
IMG_0048.jpg
Back
Top Bottom