The Muddier Pro-Wolf Efforts Make The Water, The Clearer Their Intentions Become
by Toby Bridges, LOBO WATCH, March 28, 2011 [here]
Anyone who has followed the gray wolf issue in the Northern Rockies for the past decade or so has seen it make a lot of twists and turns along the way. From the very start, even before the first imported Canadian wolves were released into the Greater Yellowstone Area back in 1995, the introduction of those wolves into an ecosystem that had been “wolf free” for 60 to 70 years came under fire from hunter-based sportsmen groups and many respected wildlife professionals. The very claim that wolves had been extirpated from Montana, Idaho and Wyoming by the 1930s was even challenged, and still is today.
The Northern Rockies Wolf Recovery Project has been plagued with ongoing accusations of relying on manipulated science to dump a non-indigenous wolf into the region, outright lies to camouflage the devastation wolves would deal other wildlife populations, as well as fraudulent claims and predictions purposely made by the “wolf experts” who put the recovery plan together. Among many other reasons for the finger pointing has been the suspected unauthorized misuse of tens of millions excise tax dollars to fund that wolf transplant - tax money that had been collected on firearms, ammunition, fishing tackle and archery equipment, that was to be used exclusively for wildlife habitat and fisheries improvement.
With so many such accusations, an ever growing number of residents in the Northern Rockies are more than a bit perplexed over how the one federal judge who has repeatedly ruled on wolf management issues has turned a blind eye to how unscrupulously this project has been forced upon this country. Instead of questioning the extremely dirty issues which severely tarnish the validity of bringing in non-native and definitely non-endangered wolves from Canada, U.S. District Court judge Donald Molloy, of Missoula, seems to look for the tiniest loophole to jump through in order to decide or rule in favor of the environmental group coalition that keeps wolf management tied up in “his” court. And they’ve gotten good at that. In fact, so good, that even though wolves reached the outlined recovery goal back in 2002, there has been only one wolf management hunt, in 2009, and in just Idaho and Montana. Today, there are 500% more wolves roaming the Northern Rockies than established as a “recovered population” in the original plan.
Rehberg Doubts Wolf Settlement Will Solve the Problem
by Rep. Denny Rehberg (MT), 03/18/11 [here]
WASHINGTON, D.C. – Montana’s Congressman, Denny Rehberg, today released the following statement in response to a short-term incomplete settlement hatched by the Department of Interior and a few environmental obstructionist groups.
Here we go again. Fool us once, shame on you – fool us twice shame on us. But I’m not going to sit around and wait for them to fool us a third time with another lawsuit that once again removes Montana’s right to manage our own wildlife. My bill will fix this mess once and for all, which is why it has broad bipartisan support from around the country. Wolf management needs to be left to the states.
Endorsed by the American Farm Bureau, American Sheep Industry Association, Big Game Forever, Boone and Crockett Club, Congressional Sportsmen’s Foundation, Mule Deer Foundation, National Association of Conservation Districts, National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, National Rifle Association, National Shooting Sports Foundation, National Trappers Association, Public Lands Council, Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, Safari Club International, Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife, U.S. Cattlemen’s Association, U.S. Sportsmen’s Alliance, and the Wild Sheep Foundation.
H.R. 509 has also been endorsed by the following state groups: Arizona Cattle Feeders Association, Arizona Cattle Growers’ Association, Arizona Wool Producers Association, Arizona Desert Bighorn Sheep Society, Arizona Elk Society, Arizona Sportsmen for Wildlife, California Cattlemen’s Association, California Public Lands Council, California Wool Growers Association, Citizens for Balanced Use, Colorado Cattlemen’s Association, Colorado Wool Growers Association, Florida Cattlemen’s Association, Friends of the Northern Yellowstone Elk Herd, Georgia Cattlemen’s Association, Idaho Cattle Association, Idaho Wool Growers Association, Independent Cattlemen’s Association of Texas, Kansas Livestock Association, Lobo Watch, Maryland Sheep Breeders Association, Michigan Cattlemen’s Association, Minnesota Farm Bureau Federation, Minnesota Lamb and Wool Producers Association, Minnesota State Cattlemen’s Association, Montana Association of Conservation Districts, Montana Association of State Grazing Districts, Montana Farm Bureau Federation, Montana Outfitters and Guides Association, Montana Public Lands Council, Montana Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife, Montana Stockgrowers Association, Montana Trail Vehicle Riders Association, Montana Woolgrowers Association, Montanans for Multiple Use, Nebraska Sheep and Goat Association, Nevada Cattlemen’s Association, North Carolina Sheep Producers Association Inc., Oregon Cattlemen’s Association, Oregon Hunters Association, Oregon Sheep Growers Association, Treasure State ATV Association, Utah Cattlemen’s Association, Utah Wool Growers Association, Virginia Cattlemen’s Association, Washington Cattlemen’s Association and the Wyoming Stock Growers Association.
Judge’s decision unfairly punishes ranching community
By Sens. Ted Ferrioli, Doug Whitsett, Frank Morse, and Fred Girod
Note: Sen. Ted Ferrioli (R-John Day) can be reached at sen.tedferrioli(at)state.or.us. Sen. Doug Whitsett (R-Klamath Falls) can be reached at sen.dougwhitsett(at)state.or.us. Sen. Frank Morse (R-Albany) can be reached at sen.frankmorse(at)state.or.us. Sen. Fred Girod (R-Stayton) can be reached at sen.fredgirod(at)state.or.us.
The Statesman-Journal, March 18, 2011 [here]
U.S. District Court Judge Ancer Haggerty’s decision — to enjoin seven Grant County ranchers from using their forest service grazing allotments — is truly a case of justice gone blind, because it tries to force federal bureaucrats to follow the law by punishing ranching families who had no control over agency failures that brought on the lawsuit.
Cattle ranching in Oregon is already an iffy proposition because of rising costs of fuel and feed and unnecessarily draconian water standards enforced by the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Add to these all the special requirements of the Endangered Species Act and ranchers face the toughest performance standards of any agricultural enterprise.
Does Oregon need its ranchers? You bet! Today, cattle production is one of Oregon’s top income producers and a mainstay of Eastern Oregon rural communities. With the near-collapse of the Eastside timber industry, ranching is the only thing keeping the services and supply sector (mostly small family-owned operations) alive.
Because federal permits are required to authorize grazing in upland areas where snow and rainfall create the headwaters of salmon-bearing streams, a U.S. government document called a Biological Opinion must be prepared to demonstrate that grazing on the allotment will not degrade salmon habitat.
Grazing practices are structured so that cattle are continuously moved to prevent overgrazing and damage to stream banks. Both ranchers and forest service range managers are responsible for monitoring grazing operations. The Biological Opinion describes the protocols, actions and practices that protect endangered species habitat.
Judge Haggerty concludes that the Biological Opinion written by federal bureaucrats is inadequate. He has determined that it will not withstand scientific review and fails to meet the requirements of the Endangered Species Act.
Accordingly, Judge Haggerty has ordered the forest service to prepare a new Biological Opinion. But in our opinion, he has wrongly enjoined the use of grazing allotments until a legally sufficient Biological Opinion is prepared.
In effect, Judge Haggerty is holding the ranching community hostage for the failures of federal bureaucrats, transferring all of the financial and social harm to families that had no control over the agency that so miserably failed to perform its duties under the law to craft an opinion that preserves both cattle grazing and salmon habitat.
While federal bureaucrats suffer no consequences for their poor performance, ranching families face financial ruin. This must not become the model for justice under the Endangered Species Act.
Perhaps it would have been wiser for Judge Haggerty to have ordered the forest service to rewrite the Biological Opinion before June 1, 2011, and to issue temporary “take” permits to the ranchers pending approval of the Biological Opinion.
By doing so, Haggerty would have held the agency accountable for protecting salmon runs without destroying what’s left of rural economies.
Additional Notes:
1. Yesterday Judge Ancer Haggerty modified his ruling to allow 15 of 19 ranchers involved in the case to use their alloments for one more season [here].
2. The lawsuit was brought by the Oregon Natural Desert Association and the Western Watersheds Project. Those eco-litigious sue-sue-sue groups were recently gifted $22 million by the El Paso Corp who are building the Ruby (natural gas) Pipeline. See [here, here, here, here, here]. The “deal” was an extortion payment [here]. The sue-happy eco-monkey-wrencher groups agreed to not tie up the pipeline project in court in return for the huge payoff.
3. Eco-litigious groups also receive huge windfalls in return for suing the government through the “Judgment Fund” and the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA) [here, here, here]. $Billions have been funneled to sue-happy monkey-wrencher groups, much of it directly from Federal land management agency budgets.
4. The Oregon Natural Desert Association is also supported by corporations that include Patagonia, Trader Joe’s, and Bank of the Cascades [here]. Their Board, staff, advisors, and “consultants” are exclusively white liberals with no background in ranching or forestry. In fact, along with WWP, ONDA is virulently anti-ranching and anti-forestry. Their roots go back to monkey-wrencher eco-terrorist groups.
5. More damage to streambanks is done by government protected feral horses and donkeys than by cattle [here].
6. The endangered species allegedly at risk is the steelhead, aka rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss). The species has been introduced for food or sport to at least 45 countries, and every continent except Antarctica [here]. The species is in no way, shape, or form “endangered”. In fact, it is considered (by the USFWS) to be a pest and a competitor to other fish in other watersheds.
Radicals Join Simpson, Tester, Baucus in Wolf Delisting Fraud
In an article prepared by the radical enviro cult and printed in the Main Stream Government Press (MSGP), eco-litigious pro-wolf-anti-everything-else groups have proposed a “compromise agreement” for consideration by retiring Wolf Judge Donald Molloy.
We will parse the news article for your edification.
Feds, wildlife groups agree to delist Montana wolves
By the Associated Press, March 18, 2011 [here]
BILLINGS - Facing mounting pressure from Congress over gray wolves, wildlife advocates reached an agreement with the U.S. Department of Interior on Friday to lift the species’ federal protections in Montana and Idaho and allow hunting to resume. …
Note that there is no author given other than AP. That’s a ruse. Of course somebody authored the article; they just don’t want their name used. And the MSGP accommodates, because they don’t their readers to know who authored the article, either.
It came straight from the radical eco-litigious groups. They write the articles and AP distributes them as “news”. The MSGP newspapers print them as if they were the work of independent “fair and balanced” journalists, whereas in fact they are pure propaganda written by the most extremely biased.
Note also that the radical pro-wolfers are called (call themselves) “wildlife advocates” whereas in fact they hate wildlife and want most species slaughtered to extinction. That’s why they promoted the introduction of exotic wolves in the first place — to slaughter elk, deer, moose, rabbits, and everything that moves, and livestock, and pets, and human children. They don’t advocate for those other wildlife species because some species are more equal than others, in their eyes.
The settlement agreement - opposed by some environmentalists - is intended to resolve years of litigation that have shielded wolves in the Northern Rockies from public hunting, even as the predator’s population has sharply expanded.
That’s false. The so-called “agreement” [here] does not resolve litigation. The eco-litigants promise only to forestall litigation on certain esoteric points of law regarding wolf delisting and only for a period of three to five years:
10. Settling Plaintiffs agree that they will not, either collectively or individually, file a lawsuit, raise claims against, or otherwise challenge in court before March 31, 2016 any final delisting or reclassification rule issued pursuant to paragraph 5, above.
11. Settling Plaintiffs agree that they will not, either collectively or individually, petition Federal Defendants to list either the NRM DPS (as defined by the 2009 Rule), or any wolf population or subpopulation located within the NRM DPS (as defined by the 2009 Rule), for a period of three years after this Agreement becomes operative pursuant to paragraph 1, above.
Read it carefully. The signers promise not to sue for five years over “paragraph 1 above” which is a restatement of Judge Molloy’s August 5, 2010 Order and only that portion of the Order that threw out the USFWS’s 2009 delisting rule in the States of Idaho and Montana. For Judge Molloy’s entire August 2010 ruling see [here]. In addition the signers promise not to sue for three years over “paragraph 5 above” which calls for Wyoming to come up with new wolf management plan. They will sue at the drop of a hat over every other point of law having to with wolves. And their promises aren’t worth spit.
In his August 2010 ruling, peppered with phrases such as “stentorian agitprop” and “Talmudic disagreement”, Judge Molloy wrote:
The Endangered Species Act does not allow the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service to list only part of a “species” as endangered, or to protect a listed distinct population segment only in part as the Final Rule here does; and
the legislative history of the Endangered Species Act does not support the Service’s new interpretation of the phrase “significant portion of its range.” To the contrary it supports the historical view that the Service has always held, the Endangered Species Act does not allow a distinct population segment to be subdivided.
Clearly the Judge ruled that the USFWS may NOT separate wolves into an Idaho-Montana sub-population and a Wyoming-Utah-Washington-Oregon sub-population. But that’s exactly what the proposed “agreement” proposes to do.
If Judge Molloy accepts the “agreement,” then his August 2010 ruling isn’t worth the paper it was written on. He would have to do a complete about-face, a backwards flip-flop as it were.
In November of 2011 United States District Judge Alan B. Johnson ruled that the United States Fish and Wildlife Service’s (USFWS) rejection of the Wyoming Wolf Management plan was arbitrary and capricious [here].
Judge Johnson is in District of Wyoming, subject to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. Judge Molloy is in the District of Montana, subject to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Molloy cannot overrule Johnson. It’s beyond his jurisdiction. Molloy cannot agree to special strictures on Wyoming because Wyoming is not in his District.
The Obama Administration lawyers know all this. The apparent acquiescence by the USFWS to the “agreement” is just more legal worm food. They know the “agreement” is a crooked one and cannot be endorsed or enforced by Molloy. It’s just more Full Employment for Lawyers. It solves nothing and does not reduce litigation — it expands it.
Those niceties did not stop the Obamaloids, in the form of political operatives Deputy Secretary David J. Hayes, Acting Service Director Rowan Gould, and you guessed it, Mr. Tamper himself, Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar from signing on to the “agreement” [here].
ALL the eco-litigants did NOT sign on, however. From the AP article:
Attorneys for Earthjustice previously represented most of the plaintiffs in the case. They withdrew this week citing “ethical obligations” …
“We’re going to defend the judge’s ruling,” said Tom Woodbury with the Western Watersheds Project, referring to Molloy’s 2010 order that reinstated protections for wolves in Idaho and Montana.
Get that? The biggest and richest eco-litigious law firm in the world, Earthjustice (formerly Sierra Club Legal Defense) had some “ethical” pangs and refused to sign. Another refuser was the Western Watersheds Project, now flush with $22 million they extorted from the El Paso Corp over the Ruby Pipeline [here].
There is no honor among thieves, and some of the thieves are already giving the other thieves the finger. Meaning that eco-litigation will proceed apace, regardless of what the “agreement” promises and whether Molloy accepts it or not.
Speaking of thieves, the “agreement” is exactly the trick that RINO Mike Simpson, Holocauster Jon Tester, and Porkulus Max Baucus are trying to pull in Congress [here].
It’s all a fraud. The only rational and fair thing to do is to take wolves off the ESA list because they ARE NOT ENDANGERED, something that everybody involved now agrees about.
HR509 and S249, the “State Sovereignty Wildlife Management Act,” are supported by Representatives and Senators from over 30 states [here]. The SSWMA removes gray wolves from the ESA:
Notwithstanding any other provision of law (including regulations), the inclusion of the gray wolf (Canis lupus) (including any gray wolf designated as “non-essential experimental”) on any list of endangered species or threatened species under section 4(c)(1) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (7 U.S.C. 1533(c)(1)) shall have no force or effect.
Good-bye, adios, so sorry, that’s it.
HR509 and S249 are what engendered all this fraudulent foo-fraw by the radical eco-litigious crowd and their lapdog comrades in the Obama Administration. Because if the SSWMA passes, then the wolfish legal games are over. And it will pass, because majorities in both Houses of Congress have already signed on. And because if it doesn’t, Tea Party-ers will gang up and throw the recalcitrant wolf-lovers out (and they know it).
The game is coming down to the final minute, and rads are too far behind to win.
Simpson, Tester, Baucus Seek To Undermine Judge Johnson’s Ruling on Wyoming Wolves
Note: the following is excerpted from a March 17, 2011, letter written to members of the Wyoming Wolf Coalition by their able attorney, Harriet Hageman. The full text is [here].
Alert! High Priority! Call to Action!
Please ask Congress to stop throwing Wyoming to the wolves
by Harriet M. Hageman
Executive Summary
We reported to you earlier this week that the Federal Defendants in the above-referenced actions have voluntarily withdrawn their appeal to the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals. We were a bit surprised by the agencies’ move in that regard, but now believe that we have uncovered the reasoning behind it.
* Judge Johnson’s decision has now “gone final” in favor of Wyoming’s Wolf Management Plan, and has the full force and effect of law.
* There are troubling efforts afoot in Congress that are designed to reverse this important victory for Wyoming, to “undo” Judge Johnson’s decision, and to nullify the rights of all States to manage their wildlife resources.
The purpose of this letter is to describe those activities, and to issue a call to action for all of you who have fought this battle over the last several decades.
Ruling in Favor of Wyoming’s Wolf Management Plan Becomes Law of the Land
On November 18, 2010, the Honorable Alan B. Johnson, the Federal District Court Judge for the District of Wyoming, issued his “Order Setting Aside Agency Decision in Part and Remanding Agency Decision in Part,” finding that the Defendants (the Department of Interior (DOI), the Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), Ken Salazar, Rowan Gould, and Stephen Guertin) had acted “arbitrarily and capriciously” in rejecting the Wyoming Wolf Management Plan [here]. More specifically, Judge Johnson concluded (among other things) that the Defendants violated the Endangered Species Act (ESA) when they rejected Wyoming’s proposal to designate wolves as trophy game animals in certain areas, and predators in others. …
Key testimony provided by the top federal wolf biologist (Ed Bangs) concluded that the “2007 Wyoming wolf plan is a solid science-based conservation plan that will adequately conserve Wyoming’s share of the GYA wolf population so that the NRM wolf population will never be threatened again.” Id. at 032183. As you know, Wyoming has since adopted even more safeguards that what existed in the 2007 Plan.
The Defendants initially appealed Judge Johnson’s decision to the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals. On Monday of this week, however, they voluntarily dismissed that appeal. Such action resulted in Judge Johnson’s decision “going final,” thereby ensuring that it is not subject to collateral attack. In other words, Judge Johnson’s decision is now “the law of the land” and cannot be attacked by either the federal agencies or any environmental groups. We are pleased that this common-sense result affirms the science-based reality that Wyoming’s Plan provides adequate protections to Wyoming’s wolf population.
Judge Johnson’s decision was a great victory for all of the citizens of the State of Wyoming, including our livestock producers, our sportsmen groups, and our outfitters. It was a great victory for those cities and counties in Wyoming that have suffered the economic impacts of an ever-expanding wolf population. Judge Johnson’s decision, and the dismissal of the 10th Circuit Appeal, will also allow Wyoming to protect its historically-abundant wildlife species, including those elk and moose populations that have suffered so tremendously as the result of the federal agencies’ intransigence associated with the “wolf experiment.” …
TROUBLING EFFORTS BREWING IN CONGRESS AS IT SEEKS TO REVERSE WYOMING’S VICTORY
I am now writing to you with great disappointment, as I fear that our victory in the wolf saga is now at risk. Once again it appears that politics may prevail over science and good public policy. Wyoming’s Wolf Management Plan and our victory before Judge Johnson are now at risk as the direct result of an amendment that has been introduced by Representative Mike Simpson, a Republican from Idaho, and Senators John Tester and Max Baucus, Democrats from Montana. The amendment would either be added to the “continuing resolutions” that have been in the news lately (to keep the federal government running as the House and Senate seek to hammer out the 2011 budget), or to the budget bill itself.
The purpose of the Simpson/Tester/Baucus amendment is as simple as it is troubling. It is designed to delist the wolf populations in Idaho and Montana, as well as parts of Oregon, Utah and Washington, while the remainder of the States –- including Wyoming -– are left to fend for themselves. Most importantly, however, the very wording of the proposed amendment appears to be designed to nullify Judge Johnson’s decision in its entirety.
Mr. Simpson’s amendment works by reinstating the USFWS’s 2009 Final Rule (the one rejected by Judge Molloy in Montana). There are two sections of the 2009 Rule that are important here, both of which would become law if the Simpson/Tester/Baucus amendment passes. As you remember, the first portion of that Rule approved the then-existing Montana and Idaho Wolf Management Plans, both of which allowed the States to assume management authority over their wolves (although with federal permission and involvement). The second part of the 2009 Final Rule rejected Wyoming’s Wolf Management Plan, stating that “the Wyoming portion of the range represents a significant portion of range where the species remains in danger of extinction because of inadequate regulatory mechanisms.” 74 Fed.Reg. 15123.
Considering the language of the 2009 Rule, if Congressman Simpson and Senators Tester and Baucus were to be successful in including their proposed language as part of either a short-term “continuing resolution,” or the 2011 budget, and such bill passes both the U.S. House and the Senate, we can fully expect that the federal agencies and the environmental groups will argue that Judge Johnson’s decision has been congressionally nullified. Even more troubling is the fact that their amendment includes language that is intended to then block Wyoming from challenging the statute: “Such reissuance [of the Final Rule] shall not be subject to judicial review.” HR 1, Sec. 1713. To state that this is a real and immediate threat to Wyoming’s ability to assume management of the wolf population is an understatement.
You may ask: “why would Simpson, Tester and Baucus seek to impose a rule from 2009 when, from the States’ rights standpoint, and from the standpoint of wolf management, Judge Johnson’s decision is much more favorable to every State in the Union?” I have asked the same question, and none of the answers are favorable.
The actions of Representative Simpson and Senators Tester and Baucus are beyond troubling, and should be cause for concern for anyone who seeks to protect our wildlife populations, our livestock producers, and our States’ rights. Perhaps as significantly (and of grave concern), there are four groups that have endorsed Congressman Simpson’s efforts, and appear to be willing to sacrifice Wyoming’ interests:
* National Rifle Association (NRA)
* Safari Club International (SCI)
* Congressional Sportsmen Foundation (CSF)
* Boone and Crockett
By supporting only limited delisting in just a few of the affected States, these four so-called sportsmen groups have essentially sold out everyone else that has been affected by this issue. While these groups also support all of the wolf delisting bills, including some very good legislation (discussed below), their actions in supporting HR 1 (with Congressman Simpson’s amendment) has allowed the Representatives and Senators to “race for the bottom” in order to take the weakest stand possible on the issue.
While these groups publicly claim that they support delisting in all western States, as well as in Wisconsin, Michigan and Minnesota, their actions are counterproductive. Their support of the amendment described above will likely undermine other pending wolf litigation that will protect all States. Their actions will also have a more dire outcome: the important victory that is represented by Judge Johnson’s decision, and that resulted from years of hard-fought battles and the investment of tens of thousands of dollars, could be lost. This does not hurt only Wyoming, but will hurt every State in the nation that seeks to manage its own wildlife without the federal agencies’ unlawful (and often-times destructive) micro-management out of Washington, D.C.
There are two other bills currently pending in Congress - HR509 and S249, both of which would return management of wolves to all of the affected States. The Simpson/Tester/Baucus approach not only undermines our ability to get either one of these bills passed, but will likely make it more difficult to obtain any additional Congressional action into the foreseeable future. In other words, the actions of Simpson/Tester/Baucus, along with the NRA, SCI, CFS, and Boone and Crocket, have enabled those who seek to prevent the passage of any other bill that would actually provide for legitimate and effective delisting of the wolves.
Passage of the Simpson/Tester/Baucus amendment is not an incremental victory as some would claim. This is not an incremental victory for ensuring that States have the right to manage their own wildlife populations, or an incremental victory under the ESA. Judge Johnson’s decision was a victory. The Simpson/Tester/Baucus effort is designed to take that victory away.
By supporting a weak piece of legislation, these groups have allowed several of the Congressional Representatives and Senators to play both sides of the aisle -– to argue that they support delisting when such claims suit their political aspirations, and to argue that they fought against delisting when such a position will garner them votes from the so-called “environmental” groups. In other words, this amounts to nothing more than obtaining only the slightest and short-term moral victory for a limited number of people, and at the same time ensuring a very troubling defeat for the citizens of Wyoming and for the States’ right to manage wildlife. While we recognize that political compromises are sometimes necessary, I cannot support legislation that is specifically designed to undo Judge Johnson’s finding that the Wyoming Wolf Management Plan is biologically and scientifically sound. This is simply not good science, good public policy or even good politics. …
We fully and whole-heartedly support delisting in Idaho and Montana (and all of the States where wolves exist). Such delisting, however, cannot be done so that Wyoming is sacrificed at the alter of environmental extremism.
Judge Johnson’s decision must stand. We must fight against this effort to use the promise of delisting in Idaho and Montana (and portions of Oregon, Utah, and Washington) as a ruse to nullify the most important decision that the States have obtained in the last seventeen (17)+ years of wolf battles, as well as the rights of States to control their own destiny in terms of wildlife management.
Please contact the offices of Congressman Simpson, and Senators Tester and Baucus and ask them to support only HR 509 and S249. Please request that they not re-introduce the Wyoming-busting amendment described above.
Please contact Representative Lummis’ office and thank her for her strength and continued efforts to fight this battle on your behalf. Please call the offices of Senators Enzi and Barrasso and thank them for their hard work in supporting the right bills on this issue, while fighting against the bad ones. Our Congressional Delegation has stood strong on this issue, and we need to commend them for their efforts on our behalf.
Please contact the NRA, SCI, CFS and Boone and Crocket and ask them to stop their support of an amendment that is specifically designed to undo our important and hard-fought victories. Ask them to instead focus their efforts on passing a solution that protects all of the States that have been plagued by this predator. Ask them to stop throwing Wyoming to the wolves.
Please distribute this letter to anyone you believe could help us to expose what is going on in Congress.
Sincerely,
Harriet M. Hageman
Hundreds Expected To Turn Out For Wolf-Judge Protest Rally At Missoula U.S. District Court Building
By Lobo Watch, March 15, 2011 [here]
Residents of the Northern Rockies have just about had their fill of wolves. Actually, what they’ve mostly grown tired of is how wolves are now making a seriously negative impact on other wildlife populations - namely the elk, deer and moose populations that have made Montana, Idaho and Wyoming famous, and which are now disappearing rapidly in many areas. Rural residents have also become weary of fighting to keep wolves away from their livestock, and worrying about the safety of their children.
Many of those who live close to the land are equally disturbed at how a handful of self-proclaimed “environmental” groups continue to fight the wolf management hunts needed to control wolf numbers at a level where big game herds can still flourish, plus allow ranchers to profitably raise cattle and sheep. Likewise, tax-paying citizens are now realizing that these same groups or organizations have financially benefited from the billions of federal dollars they’ve received through the Equal Access to Justice Act, for the grossly padded legal expenditures for which these “non-profit” organizations are reimbursed. And many Northern Rockies residents are now growing extremely suspicious of the one federal judge these groups continually get to hear their cases, and wonder just what the incentives are for this judge to always decide in their favor.
That anger…that frustration…that distrust will surely be openly displayed on March 24, 2011 as a large crowd of sportsmen, rural land owners, ranchers, and those who have seen their logging careers ended by these same “green” organizations, and the very same Judge Donald Molloy, gather in protest of efforts to once again thwart any control of ever growing wolf numbers, and to stop ever escalating wolf devastation. The issue has reached and surpassed the boil-over point, and hundreds are expected to join in the protest - and there will more than likely be quite the array of protest signs - some targeting wolves, some taking environmental groups to task, and some questioning the motive of the judge inside.
LOBO WATCH has been hearing from groups up and down the western side of Montana…and from across Idaho…and even from Wyoming who fully intend to be standing in front of and alongside the Russell Smith U.S. District Court building on that day. The rally will take place at the corner of East Broadway and North Pattee streets in Missoula, as Judge Molloy once again listens to the wishes of groups like the Defenders of Wildlife, the Center for Biological Diversity, and the Humane Society of the United States, who are opposed to any control of wolf numbers, and especially reducing the wolf populations to an acceptable level. The hearing on March 24 is an attempt by these groups to have the definition changed for the “experimental” and “non-essential” classification of the non-native and non-endangered Canadian wolves that many feel the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service wrongly transplanted into the wildlife rich Northern Rockies. Or to eliminate that classification altogether.
After listening to the arguments of these groups last June, Molloy placed gray wolves back on the Endangered Species List, which cancelled out management hunts that were scheduled for Montana and Idaho. Molloy based that decision on the fact the USFWS did not accept Wyoming’s wolf management plan, and he ruled it was wrong to permit hunts in adjacent states. However, another federal judge in Cheyenne, WY decided that USFWS had been wrong to reject Wyoming’s plan. Still, the management hunts in Montana and Idaho remained canceled - and that will be one part of the issue that draws many angry sportsmen to this protest rally. Some will be protesting for individual state right to manage wolf numbers, others will be calling for the complete resignation or impeachment of Judge Molloy.
This rally is being co-organized by a number of sportsman and land owner based organizations. LOBO WATCH has become the lead organizer. Anyone wanting to participate should contact Toby Bridges at lobowatch (at) yahoo.com. Right now, plans are for protesters to be at the courthouse starting at 12 noon, since the actual hearing begins at 1:30 p.m., and there needs to be a crowd around the courthouse when key players and the media begin to show. Molloy’s court session will likely end around 4 p.m., and some protesters need to be still be on hand. Any time or date changes will be posted on the LOBO WATCH website [here, here].
Rigging the Game in Nevada
Note: The following is excerpted from “Mule Deer Working Group Supports Feeding Deer to Predators Instead of Restoring Healthy Herds”, the lead article in The Outdoorsman, Bulletin Number 42, Jan-Feb 2011. The entire issue is [here]. Back issues are available at Idaho For Wildlife [here].
By George Dovel
In December of 2010, Nevada’s Board of Wildlife Commissioners decided Nevada Department of Wildlife (NDOW) biologists must take the necessary biological steps to restore and maintain mule deer populations as a condition of continued employment. See Outdoorsman No. 41 Pages 10-11 [here] for details.
Like their counterparts in other western states, NDOW wildlife managers have ignored science and state law in order to implement the radical 1991 “Wildlands” agenda adopted by the United Nations in 1992, and promoted by assorted national and international interests. Their goal of “Re-wildling” North America – by replacing rural humans with protected large carnivores and “native” plants in a vast system of “Core Areas” and “Wildlife Corridors” – is already being implemented.
NDOW Director Refused to Obey Commission
As happened earlier in Idaho and in other western states, when a majority of Nevada Wildlife Commissioners directed NDOW to implement predator control in depleted mule deer herds during the past two years, the Director and his biologists refused to do it. Early in 2010 USDA Wildlife Services control agents explained they could not control predators when the state agency that normally gave them direction refused to agree to it.
In November of 2010, after repeatedly refusing to follow Commission direction to control mountain lions and coyotes in selected areas where they were decimating mule deer herds, NDOW Director Ken Mayor was fired by outgoing Gov. Jim Gibbons. But once Nevada’s new Governor, Brian Sandoval [RINO, Mafia Party] was sworn in, he re-hired Mayer as Acting Director and made no secret of his intention not to reappoint Commissioners whose terms expire in June.
Those Commissioners have already solicited applicants for the Director position and are providing Sandoval with three names from which the law says he may hire one. But if Mayer is not one of the three, Sandoval is expected to re-hire him after the Commission terms expire.
With Acting Director Mayer influencing the new governor and his legal counsel, the Commission lost the opportunity to acquire additional funding that was needed to restore a healthy predator-prey balance in areas where mule deer exist in a predator pit.
More Job-Killing Unfounded Regulations From ODEQ
Senator Doug Whitsett’s (Klamath Falls, District 28) Newsletter, March 11, 2011 [here]
The Oregon Department of Environmental Quality is in the process of adopting the most restrictive water quality standards in the nation. The proposed human health criterion standards relate to the highest concentration of a pollutant in water that is alleged to not pose a significant human health risk. The numeric standards being proposed for Oregon are an order of magnitude tougher than any of the other 49 states in the US. Compliance with the new Human Health Toxics standards will be virtually impossible because in many situations the selected numeric standards exceed the normal background concentration of the regulated pollutant. These new rules have the potential to profoundly affect the fiscal soundness of businesses, agriculture and forestry in the state. They may be expected to have an extreme negative effect on Oregon’s future job growth and economic recovery.
These new requirements for water quality standards rules are based upon the amount of fish that ODEQ assumes to be consumed by certain tribal entities in Oregon. However, closer evaluation of the scientific protocol used to delineate the proposed standards reveals an apparent lack of empirical scientific data collection, as well as a lack of reproducibility of the data sets.
When the ODEQ was recently queried in a legislative hearing about the background used to formulate the new rules, they replied in the following written form:
Legislature: “How many Oregonians are eating the amount of fish that (the ODEQ) proposed water quality standards are based upon?
The reply from ODEQ was: “We are not aware of any studies that quantify the fish consumption of all Oregonians.”
Legislature: “Is the DEQ aware of any studies documenting the harm to human beings related to toxins consumed through a fish-oriented diet?”
ODEQ reply: “We are not aware of any such reports.”
Legislature: “Does the DEQ have information on the statistical confidence in the studies that the proposed rules are based upon?”
ODEQ reply: “DEQ convened a Human Health Focus Group…. the group recommended that DEQ rely on five studies, four conducted in the Pacific Northwest and one national study.”
The five studies include one undertaken in 2002 by the EPA (see here, 2002 EPA Estimated Per Capita Fish consumption in the United States).
Examples of the quality of research reported from this study include the following:
P11 “The CSFII surveys have advantages and limitation for estimating per capita fish consumption. One limitation of the CFSII surveys is that individual food consumption data were collected for only two days, a brief period, which does not necessarily depict “usual intake.”
and
“Survey participants provided two non-consecutive, 24 days of dietary data. Both days’ dietary recall information was collected by an in-home interviewer.”
and
P 23 “The day 2 interview occurred three to 10 days after the Day 1 interview, but not on the same day of the week. The interviews allowed participants “three passes” through the daily intake record to maximize recall. Two days of dietary recall data were provided by 20,607 individuals across the four survey years. This constitutes an overall two-day response rate of 77.5%.
In other words, three attempts were made to have the respondents recall from memory the desired intake amount.
and
Sec 1.3 “Low income individuals are oversampled to ensure their representation in the survey.”
This sentence represents a scientific oxymoron because a survey should be represented by unaltered and broadly selected samples, not by manipulated sampling methods.
and
“Because daily averages are estimated from each respondent from only two days, the precision of an individual’s daily average consumption is diminished. Therefore the limited-time period of dietary intake collection does not produce usual intake estimates.”
and
P 27 “Non-consumption of a given food or food group by a majority of individuals, combined with consumption data from high–end consumers can result in a wide range of observations. This can lead to a highly-skewed distribution of consumption values.”
Further evidence of questionable data gathering are found in quotes from the ODEQ’s supposedly “scientifically sound and relevant report” entitled Human Health Focus Group Report: Oregon Fish and Shellfish Consumption Rate Project, June 2008 [here].
This report appears to be nothing more than a literature review wherein the data was exclusively comprised from existing literature.
P3 “The discussion and conclusions presented in this report were generated in one year May 2007-2008, a relatively short time considering the scope of the questions addressed.”
and
P4-5 “Oregon’s current numeric human health criteria are based on EPA’s 2002 recommended Clean Water Act Section 304(a) water quality criteria. EPA derived these criteria by considering the known toxicity of the regulated chemical and the likely exposure people have to these chemicals . EPA’s current recommended CWA Section 304 (a) human health based water quality criteria are calculated using the national fish consumption rate of 17.5g/day. This nationally recommended rate is roughly equivalent to two – 8 oz fish meals per month. This rate represents the 90th percentile of all people who were interviewed from across the US. Until 2003 Oregon’s water quality standards were based on a fish consumption rate of 6.5 g/day consistent with EPA’s default fish consumption rate. EPA increased its recommended rates to a nationally based per capita default level of 17.5 g/day while urging states to rely on local consumption data wherever possible.”
In other words, ODEQ’s proposed fish consumption is 175 g/day, an order of magnitude greater than the recent EPA’s 3- fold increase. Before that three-fold increase the fish consumption standard was about 5 pounds per year. The proposed ODEQ standard is 140 pounds per year!
Another report quoted by the ODEQ is the 17 year old study “Fish Consumption Survey of the Umatilla, Nez Perce, Yakama, and Warm Springs Tribes of the Columbia Basin (CRITFC 1994 [here]. It states:
“The survey of Columbia River Basin Tribes is regarded as the study most relevant to Oregon fish consumers.” “No consumption of any shellfish or open ocean fin fish was reported. Since these questions were not asked in the interview, it is not clear how this may have affected the fish consumption rates reported by the Columbia River Tribes.”
and
P 10 “Although the raw data were not available for re-analysis, there was good documentation of the summary statistics conducted.” “The survey interviewers noted that individuals had difficulties in reporting the quantity of fish they consumed. Overall, there was not sufficient information to calculate reliable fish consumption estimates.”
What is the scientific relevance of a study based on “good documentation of summary statistics” based on information that was not sufficient to even calculate fish consumption estimates?
From the report Fish Consumption Survey of the Suquamish Indian Tribe of the Port Madison Indian Reservation, Puget Sound Region 2000 (an eleven year old survey of a Washington tribe) [here].
“The Suquamish staff chose to include high consumption rates because they were familiar with the individuals eating those large quantities and that the consumption rates reported were likely to reflect real consumption. With no adjustments made for the high consumption rates, it was noted that the reported means may be highly influenced by the consumption of just a few individuals.”
Does this statement imply that the researchers purposely selected individuals who ate large quantities of fish and then used that level of consumption as the average consumption rate in order to inflate the true amount of fish eaten by the average Tribal member?
From the study, A Fish Consumption Survey of the Tulalip and Squaxin Island Tribes of the Puget Sound Region (Troy et al. 1996), another Washington state survey which is 15 years old [here]:
“The Tribes survey is regarded as being relevant to Oregon fish consuming populations although some of the fish and shellfish they consumed may not be found in Oregon waters.”
And the final study quoted for the new ODEQ water quality standards determination, The Lake Whatcome Residential and Angler Fish Consumption Survey (Washington Department of Health 2001) [here]
“The fish consumption rates from this survey were not useful because of inconsistencies on how the interviewee reported their fish consumption. The four week recall diet limited the ability to fully quantify fish consumption due to the low number of people that consumed fish during that period.”
All five of these reports, which are being used to force Oregon’s businesses, agriculture and forestry to comply with the most restrictive water quality standards in the United States, are chocked full of the disclaimer language as exampled above. One of the “sound scientific” reports was nothing more than a literature review. The new ODEQ standards are based on fish consumption rates ten times greater than current EPA national values.
Moreover, the proposed rules appear to assume that the levels of the toxics found in fish are the result of the fish acquiring those levels of toxics exclusively from their contact with fresh water in Oregon. Salmon, steelhead, ocean bottom fish, many shellfish and crabs, and a variety of other fish species spend the preponderance of their life cycle in the ocean. Strict implementation of the proposed rules on Oregon fresh water bodies would have little if any effect on the toxics concentration found in these species.
To summarize, the new rules are based on the amount of fish assumed to be eaten by certain Oregonians. The assumed average annual rate of fish consumption has been recently revised from about 5 pounds to about 140 pounds. That 28 fold increase is based on little more than speculation. The influence ocean water on species that spend most of their lifecycles in that environment appears to be ignored.
In my opinion, the scientific relevance of these studies is at best pathetic and at worst criminally negligent.
Please remember that if we do not stand up for rural Oregon, no one will.
Best regards,
Doug Whitsett
