Wildlife and People

Otter Signs Wolf Disaster Bill

Begrudgingly, Promises NOT to Abide By It

Idaho Gov. Butch Otter yesterday signed the Wolf Disaster Bill [here, here, here, here]. (Note: we previously reported that he signed it last week, which was incorrect and we redacted that mistaken report. Now we are convinced Otter has actually signed the bill, based on numerous sources).

The full text of the Bill (now law) is [here].

Gov. Otter penned a letter [here] to Idaho Sec. State Ben Ysura explaining his reasoning.

Otter claimed in his letter that Idaho citizens do not need him to declare any “state of disaster” before they are legally allowed to protect themselves and their properties from wolves. As we all know, that is false. Massive depredations of livestock and pets have occurred in Idaho while armed state troopers stand idly by, in fact threatening the victims of wolf attacks with arrest and prosecution if they attempt to defend themselves from wolves.

Otter claimed that the phony Simpson-Tester-Baucus budget wolf rider [here] will solve all the wolf problems. That is also patently false.

Otter also expressed concern that the Legislature’s declaration of a disaster usurps his “right” as governor to do all the disaster declaring in Idaho. But then, Otter didn’t do his job and has failed to declare any wolf disaster to date.

Otter concludes his letter by stating that “portions of the bill may prove useful in the future, if state management is revoked and the wolf is relisted in the future”.

Hello, Governor. The Idaho Dept. of Fish and Game has NEVER managed wolves in Idaho, has repeatedly violated the 2002 Wolf Plan approved by the Legislature, and has worked hand-in-glove with the USFWS to promulgate wolves and destroy elk, deer, and moose populations. Nor have wolves ever been “delisted” successfully, nor will the Simpson-Tester-Baucus rider delist them.

But at least Otter signed the Disaster Bill. He will not enforce it, though, so what’s the point?

Budget Wolf Rider a Farce

The budget wolf rider which is getting ample hysteria in the always-hysterical MSM (here, for instance) is actually a farce.

The rider [here] was proposed by Sen. Jon Tester (D-Mont.), Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.), and Rep. Mike Simpson (R-Idaho). It has been attached to the (eighth) emergency budget agreement necessary to fund the government for the rest of the fiscal year (because the Democrat-majority Congress last year failed to pass a budget for 2011). The emergency spending bill is expected to be approved this week.

The rider is a fake, a fraud, and will not accomplish what the sponsors claim. The rider allegedly reinstates the 2009 USFWS partial delisting of wolves (only in Idaho and Montana) that was thrown out by Judge Donald Molloy [here].

The USFWS’ 2009 partial delisting was fraught with multiple Catch-22’s. It set new, higher lower limits for the wolf population. It divided wolf populations along state lines. It forced impossible restrictions on all states. It was based on faulty science. Judge Molloy was right to throw it out.

The budget wolf rider not only reinstates a defective delisting, it is based on language that forbids the Judiciary from review of the new law. That is unconstitutional. The Legislative and Executive Branches do not tell the Judicial Branch what laws they may or may not review. Not under our Constitution. Congress has tried that trick before, and the judges laugh at them for it. It’s a challenge to the judges, one they jump at. It will not take “unparalleled legal maneuvering” to get a judge, any Federal judge, to throw it out.

The enviro-litigious groups are not scared; they are enthused about it. Don’t be fooled by their PR rhetoric. They are not known for their honesty. They create false crises to attract donations. The budget wolf rider is a false crisis.

Already the USFWS is ratcheting up the minimum wolf numbers. They are about to be given carte blanche to do so. They are now shielded from Congress, although not from Federal judges. Let’s not forget that USFWS caused the wolf crisis in the first place.

Yesterday the USFWS declared Great Lake wolves to be a different species. The more species there are, the fewer individuals in each, and therefore they are all more “endangered” than they were day before yesterday. Many of us tried to warn against exactly that outcome. It’s not scientific. There is only one species of wolf. But the USFWS doesn’t care about valid science. They care about money, and all their money comes via one of the worst laws ever enacted in this country, the ESA.

Congress had another bill in the hopper, HR509 [here]. It would have simply declared all wolves to be not endangered. It was simple and direct. It had equivalency to the ESA. It did not need a special “no review” clause. In effect, it modified the ESA, and since Congress created the ESA in the first place, that modification was eminently constitutional. HR509 was supported by a majority of state delegations. The budget wolf rider effectively kills HR509.

Note that the new budget wolf rider does not modify the ESA. It modifies a court ruling, and attempts (ineffectually) to modify the U.S. Constitution by limiting the powers of the Judiciary. Note that Sen. Tester is very clear on that point [here]:

“We didn’t amend the Endangered Species Act,” Tester said in an interview with E&E Daily.

Congress could (and should) amend or rescind the ESA. The ESA is the source of a host of problems. It is a weapon used to wage war on the West. It does not “save species”. It does, however, cause untold suffering, hardships, and violations of human rights.

I understand that many feel the budget wolf rider is a “victory” for rational wildlife management. I disagree. It is a setback.

A “wolf hunt” will not control the wolf population. They breed faster than sport hunters can reduce them. The wolf population will continue to grow, and prey populations will continue to shrink.

Wolf populations need to be controlled with effective predator control methods. That means comprehensive hunts, trapping, and probably poisoning as well. If comprehensive methods are not employed, wolf numbers will continue to grow. The real solution is to rescind or modify the ESA so that species which are not actually endangered of going extinct do not get special protections.

Tester, Baucus, and Simpson jury-rigged the law. Their budget wolf rider is a farce. It is a slap in the face to folks who demand responsible wildlife management. I hope the Tea Party takes notice. We do not want any more backstabbing from liberals and RINO’s. Congress has failed on this issue. We need to throw the frauds and failures out next election.

Federal Wolves - States Rights

by Idaho State Rep. Phil Hart

Full text [here]

Selected excerpts:

Today there are many issues that confront our political institutions. We are living in interesting times. For state governments the big issues are balancing budgets and federal government encroachment. And for the state of Idaho, the face of federal government encroachment is that of a Canadian Gray Wolf.

Under the authority of the Endangered Species Act, in the mid-70’s Washington D.C. bureaucrats began to contemplate the introduction of wolves into parts of the so called lower 48 states.

Over the objections of the Idaho Legislature, the governor of Idaho, and Idaho’s congressional delegation, in 1995 the federal Fish and Wildlife Service introduced 35 Canadian Gray Wolves into central Idaho. A like number of wolves were introduced into Yellowstone Park in Wyoming, just across the Idaho border.

The plan was to protect this population of Gray Wolves such that their numbers would increase to 300 and at least 30 breeding pairs across the three state region of Idaho, Montana and Wyoming. The Idaho Legislature, with a gun to its head, agreed to this scheme in a 2002 Wolf Management Plan it ratified; while at the same time passing a resolution stating that its real desire was to remove the wolves from Idaho all together. The DC bureaucrats were going to introduce the wolves no matter what the state of Idaho wanted; and the negotiated 2002 Wolf Management Plan reflected Idaho’s effort to at least have a say in the process. …

The Canadian Gray Wolf was introduced as a “nonessential experimental” species as defined by the Endangered Species Act. The ESA only allows the introduction of an “experimental species” when the original native species is extinct. But the Idaho Timberwolf was not extinct; we had about 80 of them. These Timberwolves were documented by recognized experts. No problem for the federal government, they just solved that dilemma by lying. Consequently, the introduction of the Canadian Gray Wolf into Idaho was based on fraud.

It gets worse. Under the original agreement Idaho was to have 100 wolves with 10 breeding pairs (our share of the three state total of 300 wolves with 30 breeding pairs). That goal was achieved in about 2002. Today, nine years later the Canadian Gray Wolf is still listed as “endangered”. The wolf issue has been tied up in endless lawsuits promoted by the environmentalists. Demonizing the wolf opposition and litigating on the issue has proved to be a money making machine for these left of center folks. Each time the environmental advocacy groups file a pro-wolf lawsuit, they rake in the bucks and contribute to the mismanagement of the wolf introduction process. …

In 2002, the Idaho Legislature agreed to manage a population of one hundred wolves. We now have somewhere between 800 to 2,000 wolves. The wolf population is out of control. And experts predict unacceptable consequences to the people of Idaho and their livestock, pets and the big game resources of the state. As the Canadian Gray Wolf consumes itself out of its natural food sources, it will turn to those areas inhabited by people for something to eat. There are already areas of Idaho where the big game numbers are so diminished that the big game herds are now in what is called a “predator pit”, a condition where the number of animals left in a herd are not enough to sustain that herd given the depredation rate unless there is aggressive human management.

Today, wolves are increasingly visiting areas occupied by humans. They have been seen numerous times within the city limits of small towns. Wolf kills have been found as close as three miles from the Statehouse located in Boise. The experts say that wolves are becoming habituated to the rural and urban fringe areas of Idaho. When this occurs, the experts tell us to expect the worst.

Idaho has an emergency. And according to the Idaho Constitution, the first and foremost duty of the state government is found at article I, section 1, “All men… have certain inalienable rights, among which are enjoying and defending life and liberty; acquiring, possessing and protecting property, pursuing happiness and securing safety.” Both the legislative and executive branches of state government are empowered to declare an emergency.

For some of those who live in rural Idaho today, all of those rights referred to in article I, section 1 of Idaho’s state Constitution is now at risk, or has already been completely taken away. Those who have wolves frequent their neighborhoods have lost the quiet enjoyment of their property and are physically at risk. Idaho has an emergency, and we need to reduce the number of wolves in Idaho.

“The promotion of safety of persons and property is unquestionably at the core of the State’s police power….” Kelley v. Johnson, 425 U.S. 238, 247 (1976).

When the states met in Philadelphia in 1787 to draft the Constitution, they met as individual sovereign states, each of whom possessed all the power of any sovereign government on planet Earth. In the process of drafting the Constitution, they delegated portions of their sovereignty to the federal government through the express language of the Constitution. And just to make it clear as to what the limits of that delegated power was, they included the Bill of Rights the Tenth Amendment of which states, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the state, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.”

The police power of the sovereign has been retained by the states, and in no way has it been shared with the federal government. And when lives, peoples’ safety and the protection of property are at risk, our state government has a duty to exercise its police power and protect Idahoans and their property. …

Worldwide, there are several hundred thousand gray wolves. From a global perspective, the gray wolf is not threatened. Under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), the Canadian Gray Wolf has been categorized as “nonessential – experimental.” This is the lowest category in terms of importance that can be given to a species by the ESA. In any balancing analysis that might be made judicially, something that is “nonessential” is not going to trump the necessity to protect the life and safety of American Citizens. …

These are federal wolves, as it was the federal government who introduced them into Idaho over our objections. They told the state of Idaho that the wolves would be considered recovered when we had a total of 100 wolves in Idaho. Now we have between 800 and 2,000 wolves and the situation is out of control.

Idaho’s wolf emergency is a state issue. And in this situation, the state of Idaho has both a duty and the authority to protect its people and their property. House Bill 343 lays out the facts, the argument and the authority to do so. And the governor can devise a process, outlined in an executive order, that is dignified and methodical in confronting this emergency. Now is the time for Idaho to exercise its sovereign power, expressly retained by states as evidenced by the Tenth Amendment of the United States Constitution.

Of Wolves and Men

by Jim Carrell

I attended the Wolf Disaster Declaration rally at the Idaho state capitol on April 6, 2011. I and several others present resent being labeled (By Fox 12 in their April 6 article “Idaho Wolf Emergency Looming”) as part of an “Anti-Wolf Coalition” or being part of a “rabid crowd” for simply showing up and supporting our belief that wolf numbers need to be managed.

I am not anti-wolf; I am anti-unmanaged-wolves. The animal itself is simply being what it is: an apex (pack) predator. The need for wolf management is supported by clear evidence that shows massive damage to many of the ungulate populations (namely elk, moose, and deer) of ID, MT, WY, MN, WI, and MI. Some prime examples of the damage already done are below (it’s not global warming or habitat loss):

Lolo Zone of Idaho Elk Herd:

* 80% population decline since Canadian wolves were introduced in 1995.

* Average age of the cow elk in this herd: 9 to 10 years old — the age they begin to lose ability to produce calves. Many of the cows that are able to breed are aborting their fetuses due to constant harassment by wolves.

* Calf recruitment: Almost zero. Of the calves that are being born, most will not make it through their first winter before being killed, primarily by wolves.

Northern Yellowstone Elk Herd:

* 75% population decline since Canadian wolves were introduced in 1995.

* Average age of the cow elk in this herd: 9 to 10 years old — the age when they begin to lose ability to produce calves. Many of the cows that are able to breed are aborting their fetuses due to constant harassment by wolves.

* Calf recruitment: Almost zero. Of the calves that are being born, most will not make it through their first winter before being killed, primarily by wolves.

Moose of Yellowstone:

It is my understanding that prior to 1995 over 1,200 moose were in Yellowstone. It is also my understanding that today they number fewer than 100, a 92% population decline.

In short, these elk herds and moose are in danger of being lost forever. Wherever Canadian Gray Wolf numbers remain unchecked in ID, MT, and WY, as well as several Midwestern states, similar ungulate population declines are occurring. The myth that wolves only kill the sick and the weak, or just what they need to survive, has been busted. The statement “…there is no wolf emergency right now,” made by Suzanne Stone, Rocky Mountain Wolf Coordinator for the Defenders of Wildlife, at the rally on April 6, 2011, is unreasonable and conveys a hidden agenda in my opinion. As long as there are people or organizations covering up the damage wolves are doing to other wildlife and the threat they present to humans, there will be people or organizations that will counter them — some louder than others.

More consideration should be given to the people who live in rural areas who are being personally affected by wolves. There is evidence supporting that their way-of-life, economy, and well-being — both physical and psychological — have been dramatically affected by an over-population of wolves. Given these reasons, some are beyond fed-up with the situation, which may be understandable if one were to walk in their shoes. It is simply not the desire of the majority to eradicate wolves. Most of us just want them controlled before their numbers are uncontrollable — and before further damage is done to the ungulate numbers, rural living, ranching, and the use of public lands.

Many other people (who may or may not live in rural areas) who hunt, fish, berry-pick, camp or enjoy viewing all wildlife (not just wolves) have been adversely affected as well. State revenue has certainly been impinged. Almost every hunter both resident and non-resident recognizes the quality of hunting has been severely compromised in areas that have too many wolves.

My personal belief, in light of all the damage that mismanaged, introduced Canadian Gray Wolves have caused, is that we should reduce their numbers to what was originally agreed upon before all of the “goal line” changing occurred in this “Non-Essential” and “Experimental” project (as stated in the terms of the Northern Rocky Mountain Wolf Recovery Project). The Canadian Gray Wolf is nowhere near extinct — there are at least 50,000 in Canada alone (a country that has strict wolf management). Many believe there are over 10,000 in the lower 48 and they reproduce at a rate of 25-30% per year.

Since its beginning, the Northern Rocky Mountain Wolf Recovery Project has been one deal broken after another. The documentary “Yellowstone is Dead” [here] takes an in-depth look at this and I highly recommend watching it.

Recently, Congress stepped in and delisted wolves in Idaho and Montana. Where this is a step in the right direction, it leaves out several other states like WY, MN, WI, and MI who are also experiencing severe losses because of unmanaged wolves. That is why I support H.R. 509 — a bill that delists the non-endangered wolves completely and in the process secures all states’ equal rights of sovereignty to manage all wildlife within their own borders.

Many of the facts are not being publicized by the mainstream media. This matter is utterly polarized and the media should stop fanning the flames and practice ethical, unbiased journalism.

Molloy Rejects Suckling Wolf Fraud Deal

District Court Judge Donald Molloy has rejected the fraudulent “compromise agreement” [here] proposed by Kieran Suckling of the Center for Biological Diversity.

Judge blocks deal on protections for wolves

By Keith Ridler, AP, April 10, 2011 [here]

BOISE, Idaho (AP) — A federal judge has blocked a proposal to lift the endangered species protections for wolves in Montana and Idaho that had been hammered out by U.S. wildlife officials and conservation groups. …

In the 24-page decision, U.S. District Judge Donald Molloy in Missoula, Mont., cited the court’s lack of authority to put part of an endangered species population under state management and expose that population to hunting, noting “Congress has clearly determined that animals on the ESA (Endangered Species Act) must be protected as such,” and the court couldn’t “exercise its discretion to allow what Congress forbids.”

He also said he couldn’t approve the settlement proposed in March because not all the parties involved in the case agreed with it. …

We will pursue the 24-page opinion/decision, and read it, and link to it after we corral it. If you have a copy, please forward it to us by email. Thank you.

Idaho Enacts Wolf Bill

Yesterday Idaho Governor Butch Otter signed the Idaho Wolf Disaster Bill [here].

Correction: As of Sunday afternoon, Otter has NOT yet signed the bill. Rumors that he had already were wrong, and I was wrong to rely on them. He is expected to sign the bill soon. I will report the signing when (and if) it occurs.

On Tuesday the bill passed the Idaho House by a vote of yes 64, no 5. On Wednesday the Senate approved on a 27-8 vote. Saturday, Gov. Otter signed it into law.

The full text of the Bill (now law) is [here].

The new Law directs the Governor to declare a “state of disaster” with regard to wolves, and to order actions to resolve the crisis, including wolf removal (specifically, the eradication of wolf packs) by the USDA-APHIS Wildlife Services and/or County Sheriffs.

The new Law also reasserts Idaho’s federally-approved 2002 Wolf Conservation and Management Plan (ILWOC 2002). That plan, drawn eight years after the USFWS illegally dumped Canadian gray wolves in Idaho, calls for retention of 15 breeding pairs (150 wolves).

There are currently between 800 and 1,500 wolves in Idaho [here].

Of interest is that the new Law designates the Governor´s Office of Species Conservation [here] as the primary implementer, rather than the Idaho Department of Fish & Game (IDFG).

The Idaho Legislature is fed up with the IDFG and no longer trusts that agency to do anything right, and with good cause [here, here, here].

The test now is whether the Feds and the courts will allow Idaho to exterminate wolves or will instead put up legal roadblocks. This issue is nowhere near resolution, but Idaho has made a significant step forward.

Idaho Wolf Disaster Bill To Be Considered

Next week the Idaho Legislature’s Senate Resources Committee will consider a “wolf disaster bill”. The bill declares an emergency and authorizes the Governor to direct state agencies and sheriffs to control gray wolves.

The full text of the draft Bill is [here]. It reads in part:

LEGISLATIVE FINDINGS AND INTENT.

(1) Section 1, Article I, of the constitution of the state of Idaho provides: “All men are by nature free and equal, and have certain inalienable rights, among which are enjoying and defending life and liberty; acquiring, possessing and protecting property; pursuing happiness and securing safety.” It is the duty and right of the legislature and the governor to protect the state, its citizens and property.

Section 36-103(a), Idaho Code, provides: “All wildlife, including all wild animals, wild birds, and fish, within the state of Idaho, is hereby declared to be the property of the state of Idaho.” The state of Idaho therefore has the responsibility to manage the big game animals of the state.

(2) The Idaho legislature finds and declares that the state’s citizens, businesses, hunting, tourism and agricultural industries, private property and wildlife, are immediately and continuously threatened and harmed by the sustained presence and growing population of Canadian gray wolves in the state of Idaho. The Idaho legislature, therefore, finds the population of gray wolves in Idaho, having been introduced into the state in 1995, over the united objection of the Idaho congressional delegation, Idaho legislature, Idaho governor, Idaho counties and numerous Idaho agricultural groups who were gravely concerned with the negative effects this action would impose on Idaho and Idahoans, is now many times exceeding the target number originally set by the federal government and the number set in Idaho’s federally-approved 2002 wolf management plan. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) has delisted the gray wolf in Idaho in 2008 and 2009 returning management to the state, only to be sued both times by environmental groups forcing the wolf to be relisted as endangered.

As a result of all the above, the legislature finds that public safety has been compromised, economic activity has been disrupted and private and public property continue to be imperiled. The uncontrolled proliferation of imported wolves on private land has produced a clear and present danger to humans, their pets and livestock, and has altered and hindered historical uses of private and public land, dramatically inhibiting previously safe activities such as walking, picnicking, biking, berry picking, hunting and fishing. The continued uncontrolled presence of gray wolves represents an unfunded mandate, a federal commandeering of both state and private citizen resources and a government taking that makes private property unusable for the quiet enjoyment of property owners.

An emergency existing therefore, it is the intent of the legislature to reg1ulate the presence Canadian gray wolves in Idaho in order to safeguard the public, wildlife, economy and private property against additional devastation to Idaho’s social culture, economy and natural resources, and to preserve the ability to benefit from private and public property within the state and experience the quiet enjoyment of such property. …

The draft Bill was carefully written to avoid challenges under the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution. Idaho attorney John L. Runft of Runft & Steele Law Offices in Boise writes:

In drafting this act, one objective was to avoid the claim that this bill was attempting to “nullify” a federal act (the ESA), thereby violating the Supremacy Clause (Art VI of the U .S. Constitution) aka “federal preemption”. The recitations and findings of fact were to demonstrate that this matter had transcended from a federal matter under the ESA and had become an emergency affecting the welfare of the citizens of the State of Idaho.

The express objectives of the wolf “reintroduction” under the ESA, enacted pursuant to the Commerce Clause (Art I, 8 of the U .S. Constitution), have long since been achieved. When mismanagement of a federal program creates a disaster emergency that remains unconstrained, the Commerce Clause and Supremacy Clause do not work to shelter the results of such federal mismanagement from action by a state to protect the welfare of its citizens. Article 1 Section 1 of the Idaho Constitution provides that the State of Idaho is “mandated” (pursuant to its “police powers”) to protect the rights of its citizens, among which are “enjoying and defending life and liberty; acquiring possessing and protecting property; pursuing happiness and securing safety.”

The preemption doctrine derives from the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution which states that the “Constitution and the laws of the United States… shall be the supreme law of the land… anything in the constitutions or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.” This means that any federal law-even a regulation of a federal agency-trumps any conflicting state law. Federal “occupation of the field” occurs, according to the U.S. Supreme Court in Pennsylvania v Nelson, 350 U.S. 497 (1956), when there is “no room” left for state regulation. Courts are to look to the pervasiveness of the federal scheme of regulation, the federal interest at stake, and the danger of frustration of federal goals in making the determination as to whether a challenged state law can stand.

The police powers of a state (those inherent powers exercised by a state for the order and welfare of its citizens) are not automatically superseded by acts of Congress. From the standpoint of federal constitutional law, states have general police powers except where restricted by the federal Constitution. Because the Congress has limited powers granted in the Constitution, the Federal government does not have a general police power, as the states do. The exceptions are laws regarding Federal property and the military. On the other hand, Congress was granted by the New Deal Court a broad quasi-police authority from its power to regulate interstate commerce and raise and spend revenue.

Nevertheless, as stated by Justice Stevens in Levine v Wyeth, 555 U.S. ___ (2009), “We start with the assumption that the historic police powers of the States were not to be superseded by the Federal Act unless that was the clear and manifest purpose of Congress.” The U.S. Supreme Court ruled, 6 to 3, in Levine v Wyeth, 555 U.S. ___ (2009) that state juries may award damages for harm from unsafe drugs even though their manufacturers had satisfied federal regulators. (See also, Silkwood v Kerr-McGee, 464 U.S. 238, (1984) In Gonzales v Oregon, 546 U.S. 243 (2006) the Court considered whether Congress, in enacting the Controlled Substances Act, intended to pre-empt state laws such as that of Oregon’s which authorized physicians (under strictly controlled circumstances) to prescribe lethal doses of controlled drugs for terminally ill patients. The Court, ruling 5 to 4, held that the Act did not authorize pre-emption of Oregon’s Death with Dignity Act.

This proposed act does not intrude into federal management of wolves. In fact the act abjures management, and lists wolves as a “predator.” The proposed act focuses on the results of federal mismanagement. he measures taken by the state in this act are analogous to measures that might be taken to control a disease that was negligently released from federal experiments in a federal laboratory that was under federal control and management; and especially, as in this case, where the federal government has failed to control the outbreak.

The federal government has already repeatedly acknowledged that the objectives of the wolf “reintroduction” has been met and greatly exceeded. This proposed legislation is not in conflict with those objectives.

Inquiry under the Supremacy Clause begins with a presumption that the state law is valid. (Pacific Gas and Electric Co. v State Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission, 461 U.S. 190, (1983)) The Pacific Gas case stands for the proposition that a state act will not be preempted if the federal and state interests and objectives are distinct. Here, the interests are clearly distinct and different. The federal law’s objectives are preservation of species (an objective achieved in this instance) and the state’s objectives are the protection of the rights and welfare of its citizens from the continuing federal mismanagement of the federal program. Moreover, the federal law and regulations relating to wolves contain no “police power” provisions for the protection of the state’s citizens or for the reimbursement to said citizens for property loss arising from said federal program. Therefore there is a personable presumption that there exists no conflict and no preemption.

Gray wolves are not endangered; they are rife. The USFWS recognizes that fact and has twice attempted to remove wolves from the endangered species list (under two different administrations). Federal judges, however, at the behest of eco-litigious lobby groups, have refused to allow the delisting on specious technical grounds.

Now the Idaho legislature hopes to assert its rights under the US Constitution to protect the health and safety of Idahoans. While the blood-thirsty, anti-human eco-lobby may protest, the US Constitution provides for states’ rights.

It is interesting to note that the legal foundation of the ESA rests on the Commerce Clause (Article I, 8 of the U .S. Constitution) which gives the federal government the privilege of regulating “interstate commerce”. Rabid, spree-killing wolves are not “commerce”, although they have crossed state lines in search of prey. The confounding of commerce with vermin movement is one of the ridiculous and hurtful abuses of language that our judges and legislators are famous for. Orwell called it “newspeak” — language that deliberately disguises, distorts, or reverses the meaning of words in order to violate and usurp fundamental human rights. The lying liars that lie lie for a reason: to do grievous harm to their fellow men.