New West Feature
What Next for Delisted Wolves?
Citing precedent, a federal judge in Montana grudgingly reverses himself on protection of wolves.By New West Editor, 8-04-11
A wolf on the run at Yellowstone National Park. Photo by Barry O'Neill, Wikimedia Commons.
Yesterday’s ruling by a federal judge in Montana that upheld the delisting of wolves under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) might seem like third time unlucky for protectors of the species, but is it?
Twice previously, U.S. District Judge Donald Molloy had prevented attempts to escalate the hunting of wolves in the West, but this time he cited a 9th Circuit Court precedent that he decided required him to rule against a challenge of the so-called wolf rider to a federal budget bill passed in April.
The rider, Section 1713 of HR 1473, was introduced during the spring budget debates by Rep. Mike Simpson, R-Idaho, and Sen. Jon Tester, D-Mont.
It does not specifically mention wolves or ESA. It simply requires reinstatement of a final rule issued April 2, 2009, and stipulates that this reissuance will not be subject to judicial review. The rule in question delists wolves.
Even so, conservationists were not entirely dismayed by Judge Molloy’s decision.
“I’ve never seen anything like it,” Kieran Suckling said to the Lewiston Tribune. Suckling, executive director of the Center for Biological Diversity, which was among several environmental organizations that challenged the rider, said of Molloy, “He is not only intimating the wolf rider is unconstitutional and the 9th Circuit is wrong but he is laying out a road map on how to appeal his own ruling and take it all the way to the Supreme Court.”
Molloy wrote that he would have found the rider unconstitutional if not for the court precedent, adding that he believed the manner in which the measure was enacted was disrespectful of the rule of law.
In the past, the judge blocked delisting in an order that stated all 50 states must agree to such removal of protections, rather than on a state-by-state basis. Idaho and Montana had delisted the species at that point, while Wyoming had not.
Congress retaliated to that decision with its delisting rider in the budget bill.
Nicole Rosmarino of the environmental group WildEarth Guardians told Friends of Animals, “The rider goes against a bedrock principle of our democracy: checks and balances between branches of government. Legislators can’t pick off specific court decisions they don’t like. That’s not fair for the wolf, and it’s certainly not good for our democracy.”
Conservationists are expected to appeal the decision, which could eventually go before the U.S. Supreme Court.
Like this story? Get more! Sign up for our free newsletters.
Comments
Add your comment below
Some people may forget that the Forest Service cannot use helicopters to spray weeds in grizzly habitat in northwest Montana because molloy said the noise might cause the bears to run. It was his ruling that put wolves back on the endangered species list way back on July 28th 2008 , he was predictable even way back then, "genetic exchange" was his excuse on that one. Predictability was an understatement when he voted the way he did on the "firearm freedoms act" especially when he is a Clinton appointee. Just recently he ruled in favor of the enviro groups on expanding ESA protections for the Lynx. He is capable of dismissing law suits, on October 1, 2010 he defecated on the 2nd amendment rights dismissing a state law on guns.
You're going to see some enviros come back saying "no wait" he has many examples of ruling against green like some timber sales..... people in the industry claim he lets the slam dunk cases go by just to have the 9th court of appeals overturn his ruling. Their question is "had he done it so he didn't look so green?" The greenies get their EAJA cash & he doesn't look so green. Has this man made a mockery of the ESA and other environmental laws!? His masterpiece in the shutting down of the logging industry is the 176 million board -feet of salvage logging on the Bitterroot National Forest ..... the reason 'Bush & the Forest Service "illegally cut off public appeals"'. In the asbestos trail of W.R. Grace he fined them 54.5 million dollars, the LARGEST fine ordered after a trial in Superfund HISTORY.
Old judge molley has a list a mile long that has made environmental lawyers a few bucks right Doug Honnold!? Then he has the nerve to egg on these groups telling them who's side he is really on! What a tool!
Molloy pretty much has to kick this one upstairs to the Ninth or the Ninth nails him on standing precedent. But the takeaway message is, Congress does need to change underlying law and Section 1713 might possibly not meet the standard for a "change."
But that's not Molloy's bailiwick. So he's making the argument to his superiors in a way that only HE can make....that's his legacy -- and as a senior he'll keep right on building his legacy as he sees fit until he no longer is able. That might be a while, sadly. Thanks, SO much, Mav Baucus.
Appeal on the way. I can't wait to see how the Ninth responds. But this is SO not over.
One thing I'll say about people from Wyoming, they can shoot. All those long shots at antelope.
The rider you are talking about would not in fact do what you think it would.
You still have Judge Malloy's earlier ruling (which included Wyoming's plan) which almost certainly is still going to find the predator zone left in the Wyoming agree in particular as unacceptable. There is also almost certainly no way he would find Idaho's current plan acceptable.
Theoretically it might be legally possible for Wyoming wolves to remain unlisted since they are not in the 9th Circuit, (I'm not sure on the details of this aspect of the law) but a 9th Circuit Court ruling against the rider means things are definitely likely to be tied up in court for awhile.
Nice thing is that even with a season, we still get to see yellowstone become uninhabital for large ungulates, thus showing that this experiment was a bad thing. How many moose left in yellowstone now? 50? 20?. 70% reduction in elk and still dropping.....
A hunting season will not be enough. We need wolves to be labeled predators.
In a way I do hope enviros attempt to take this to the 9th District and they attempt to over ride congress, I cannot think of much else that would make those guys mad enough to toss the entire ESA, campaign contributions be hanged.
“This is about protecting wildlife but also standing up for citizens rights to make Congress follow the Constitution. So we think if Congress can do it to the environment, they can do it to any issue. If Congress doesn’t like a particular issue they can just step on the Constitution and tell the courts that what they did was wrong."
It's kinda sad, funny, ironic, etc to me that those who claim to love and defend the Constitution so much let their hatred of wolves get in the way of their supposedly love, respect and defense of the Constitution.
Also, the blog 4and20 Blackbirds has a good post up about this very issue, which includes snips from Judge Molloy's actual ruling.
http://4and20blackbirds.wordpress.com/2011/08/04/judge-molloy-would-hold-senator-testers-wolf-rider-unconstitutional-maps-appeal-to-scotus-if-needed/
“This case presents difficult questions for me. The way in which Congress acted in trying to achieve a debatable policy change by attaching a rider to the Department of Defense and Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act of 2011 is a tearing away, an undermining, and a disrespect for the fundamental idea of the rule of law. The principle behind the rule of law is to provide a mechanism and process to guide and constrain the government’s exercise of power. Political decisions derive their legitimacy from the proper function of the political process within the constraints of limited government, guided by a constitutional structure that acknowledges the importance of the doctrine of Separation of Powers. That legitimacy is enhanced by a meaningful, predictable, and transparent process.
In this case Defendants argue — unpersuasively — that Congress balanced the conflicting public interests and policies to resolve a difficult issue. I do not see what Congress did in the same light. Inserting environmental policy changes into appropriations bills may be politically expedient, but it transgresses the process envisioned by the Constitution by avoiding the very debate on issues of political importance said to provide legitimacy. Policy changes of questionable political viability, such as occurred here, can be forced using insider tactics without debate by attaching riders to legislation that must be passed.“
“The Separation of Powers requires us to discern the difference between arguments of policy and arguments of principle. It is the function of Congress to pursue arguments of policy and to adopt legislation or programs fostered by recognizable political determinations. It is the function of the courts to consider arguments of principle in order to enforce a statute, even if the statute itself stems from an altered policy. This distinction holds true even when the legislative process employed involves legislative prestidigitation…”
“Fairness is dethroned and confusion is crowned queen when the laws enacted pursuant to established public policy are rendered inapplicable on an ad hoc basis…”
“If I were not constrained by what I believe is binding precedent from the Ninth Circuit, and on-point precedent from other circuits, I would hold Section 1713 [Tester's rider] is unconstitutional because it violates the Separation of Powers doctrine articulated by the Supreme Court in U.S. v. Klein, 80 U.S. 128 (1871)…”
“Structurally the doctrine of Separation of Powers is still viable, but in my view it is violated when there is an effort [Tester's wolf rider] to change a political policy by resolution that is not clear, does not identify what law is specifically being changed, does not state what rules apply in the future, and is inconsistent with the underlying political purposes of the law that is being changed…”
“The heart of the debate turns on whether Congress can insert into its directive a nonspecific phrase that by itself sweeps aside concerns that Congress is infringing upon the judicial power. When laws are amended by implication, questions can remain regarding how the law was changed. The political process requires Congress to take stances on issues. It is not the role of the judiciary to write the law. In my view, the Ninth Circuit’s deference to Congress threatens the Separation of Powers; nonspecific magic words [like those in Tester's rider] should not sweep aside constitutional concerns… The language “without regard to any other provision of statute or regulation” operates as a talisman that ipso facto sweeps aside Separation of Powers concerns.”
Perhaps wehn folks cannot afford bread because a judge somewhere decided that mice should have first crack at teh wheat in Wyoming and Colorado, they will finally quit financing enviro begging letters and insist their congress people dump the ESA and start over again when we are back on our feet financially.
Meh....if you are referring to the slo-mos as buffalo, you are correct, it you are referring to cattle, you are wrong, they have been infected by the huge reservoir of infected animals in Yellowstone, a source protected at any cost (to others) by the enviros.
Don't even get me going on Wyoming's imperious fiats.
Have you checked a Wyoming state Game & Fish line item revenue-expense budget lately ?
So much misinformation and purposeful disinformation on these points. I do have to agree on the ' Wolf as mitigator of brucellosis" point, and they will turn out to be more effective in dealing with other ungulate diseases, especially Chronic Wasting which can hardly be dealt with any other way. Wolves know. The positive value of wolves as an ecological force seldom makes it into these discussions , or rise to the level it deserves.
Agree on the other point above --- speaking broadly from 40+ years of field observations of Elkdom : Elk hunters do generally hate wolves. Somewhat more than they generally hate other hunters. Neither disposition does the general hunting class much good in the PR department...
You just won't let go of this nonprofits and their money thing , will you, Todd ? besides being pointless and off topic , you never seem to rail against all those other nonprofits out there . Like the NRA, the Farm Bureau , all the big hunter lobby and sportsmen's groups who also file lawsuits against this or that wildlife contention, Woolgrowers, Stockgrowers, the Blue-something snowmobiler coalition, outfitters and guides associations...blah blah blah ad infinitum ad absurdum
Take off your blinders and unplug your ears. And try to be inclusive instead of a country cherry picker
As for brucellosis it has spread tremendously since the wolves were imported. We had not had a brucellosis case for years before the wolves, thanks to vaccination of the cattle, now look there have been numerous out breaks in cattle and an increase in both buffalo and elk inside of Yellowstone. Maybe all of that nice fresh bloody tissue being hauled around?
I would have thought all of the wolf lovers would have wanted them where they lived instead of out here killing off the food supply.
Since you do not live in any of the 3 states affected by the needless wolf re-introduction,and the endless stream of lawsuits,and wolf "study" grant money brought on by it, and have not witnessed the wolves killing livestock, and leaving it to rot,not eating any part of the animals,or ripping a calf out of a cow elk,and leaving both to die and rot without eating a single part of either,or seen wolves kill horses,dogs and cats,and the occasional jogger,you have no idea what the wolves are doing,what effect they have on people who actually live in the affected areas,since all of your information comes from articles,and photos of cute wolf pups put out by all the animal "rights" groups.
The people who acually live in the affected areas are who should decide how to best manage wolf populations.
The wolves in Michigan,or Minnesota, or Maine are not in the same situation as the northern Rockies wolves-the Michigan wolves have millions of whitetail deer to eat,animals which reproduce very rapidly,usually having twin fawns every spring.
The wolves in the Northern Rockies will be managed by hunting, by the individual states,as it is up to the states to manage their own wildlife. Wolves are not endangered,there are plenty in other states like Minnesota,Michigan a few in Maine,plenty in Alaska,and plenty in Canada.
There were already wolves in NW Montana in the late 70's/ early eighties- saw them myself,when hunting in the backcountry.
People live in the west now,and cattle are raised in every state-people eat beef,humans evolved to be omnivores,eating meat,fish,poultry,legumes,grains,fruits,and vegetables.
Some of us hunt to get meat we can not otherwise afford,get used to it,it's legal.Wolves will be managed,by hunting to keep the population at a reasonable number,just as other animals are managed to keep populations healthy and stable.
Hunters are not going to wipe out wolves-just keep the numbers at a reasonable level. get used to it,that's what is going to happen.
Laws are laws. Keep pushing and your key environmental package, the ESA, will be reformed, which is should be anyway.
Obviously, ol Andrew has no foot in the game. Those cattle produce alot of income for alot of people. Saying that cattle have no place basically means all the people have to move to....except of course the wolf croud. All wolves cause is misery and destruction of property and wildlife.
Wish I could post about the problems your lifestyle brings to the rest of us.....
Our country just got downgraded from A(3) to A(2+) for its credit rating. These environmental obstructionist groups are rewriting the ESA as we speak! We can no longer afford to waste our environmental dollars on rich environmental lawyers!
I'm glad we have this new commentor here who calls himself Science Fiction Again---his utter yokel rants make you look almost moderate and logical. But thaty's just the Doppler effect applied to a stream of words...Red Shift. Very red, actually. Newbie SciFi Guy is gonna get this thread slammed shut with his knuckle dragging ape aspersions. It's obvious he's quite a few facts short of a load, so sci-fi becomes him. The vile name calling is unfortunate.
R22--- I do not know any rich environmental lawyers. Would you care to name any ? All the green lawyers I'm tangentially aware of are quite austere ; far from wealthy. They drive Subarus, wear blue jeans . The ESA law is not being rewritten by them ; it's being overruled by COngress, by fiat , by off-process nonlegislative means ( read: unassociated riders attached to must-pass budget bills) . Then ESA regulatory policy is being retooled with blunt instruments , but by rabid faux conservatives and special interest ideologists , NOT by the enviros or their lawyers . If anything, the greens have always insisted on strict enforcement of the ESA and other important environmental laws. You have it so bass-ackwards, as usual. Try putting the fault where it lies: on the contemporary Republican Party instead. That's where you'll find the Obstructionists , a big ball of cold blooded snakes , in Brooks bros. suits.
http://www.salon.com/news/env/environment/?story=/politics/war_room/2011/08/05/anti_environment_gop_house
It's always worth pointing out to conservative idiotologists that back in the 60's and 70's when the Great Bills were passed, the Republicans were the environmentalists and the Dems were against all this because of the percieved impacts on blue collar jobs in extractive industries. The GOP back then were real conservatives, and they were Teddy Roosevelt environmentalists and true conservationists. An authentic conservative would also be a genuine wildlife conservationist, but today the GOP has so perverted itself away from its core ideals that those two beliefs once joined at the hip are now utterly estranged. All the great environmental laws today came from Republicans. But today they scorch those same laws with political hatred and disown them. Plus ca change.
And you seem to be drinking from the same dubious tap as Todd these days. Starting to believe your own hallucinations...
The whole "non profit" thing is a scam when they get into multi million to billion dollar assets that are non taxable.
No Dewey, the greens do not live by the same rules they impose on everyone else, they are careful to impose the rules on other people.
http://www.defenders.org/resources/publications/annual_reports/2010_irs_form_990.pdf
NRA
Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation,
Safari CLub International,
Boone & Crockett
Pope & Young
the Wyoming Farm Bureau,
Wyoming Stockgrowers,
Wyoming Woolgrowers,
( and all the Montana-Utah-Idaho counterparts )
Sportsmen for Fish & Wildlife,
Mountain States Legal
Bluewater Coalition
....and about 100 other anti-enviro nonprofit groups and activist organizations who have also litigated that I don;t care to muster up at the moment ....
then you should drop this utterly faulty line of brown and grey reasoning you are trying to foist off on us.
I utterly totally hate having to pay for Wildlife Services to kill coyotes as much as the rancher hates paying for NASA in SoCal or Alabama or Florida , or Housing and Urban Development in Detroit.
Myself, I want the Catholic Church to pay taxes on its gold and art and holdings, and especially want the Mormon Church's own Bonneville Corp business division to pay thru the ying-yang for theirs.
But in the interests of commonwealth coming and going, we tolerate certain dislikes in order to enjoy those functions of government we do personally approve of and use. You cannot discriminate between them without degrading the worth of the commonwealth. Government is not a la carte.
BS on your Farm Bureau and Cancer Society analogies. Not true.
We apparently had a "Big Bang", a hot rock, some rain, some scum, oh my gosh, a line of apes with one missing, oh shucks, its science, teach it in your society's public schools, and base all sciences on this theology. It's not name calling, its public education. Now going and putting the doggy in charge of the eco system is an evolutionary contradiction. I'm the top predator.
I want the Catholic "Church" to prove ownership of those assets.
" I want the Catholic Church to pay taxes on its gold and art and holdings "
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/11/19/tracking-taxes-environmental-lawsuits/
BigSky, Todd, Etc I hope you don't spend to much time arguing with the wizard. Write Congressman Lummis and thank her for looking into this. Wisconsin congressman Ribble has sent me some information that is pretty interesting..... I believe ESA will be reformed! These tax dollar parasites need to be put in their place.
The front-page story in the Jan. 21 Idaho Mountain Express about the Wood River Wolf Project's financial worries provides an opportunity for an important public discussion about who pays for public-lands ranching.
Currently domestic sheep ranchers who hold grazing permits on the Sawtooth National Forest pay the ridiculously low amount of 27 cents per month for each sheep they graze.
Even though the federal grazing fee is more than 80 percent lower in constant dollars than it was in 1975, the discussion about the Wood River Wolf Project focuses on how citizens, Blaine County, the Forest Service and nonprofit groups need to come up with more money to protect domestic sheep from wolves than it is about who should be responsible in the first place for paying to protect domestic sheep on public lands.
In any reasonable business model, ranchers would be expected to pay to protect their sheep from predators, but in the make-believe world of public-lands ranching there is little discussion about that. Ranchers regard it as their right to demand that taxpayers take on costs of their business as if they were a special class of citizens exempted from all risks.
Even if the Wood River Wolf Project continued, domestic sheep grazing on public lands in the rest of Idaho will not be protected like the coddled Wood River sheep. Idaho sheep ranchers continue to rely on an annual $1 million federal handout that pays for aerial gunships to slaughter wolves and coyotes.
The four sheep ranchers in the Wood River Valley could easily afford to pay for nonlethal protection of their domestic sheep. It is time for them to start paying the costs of their business and to stop exporting those costs to taxpayers.
I will be writing the Blaine County Commissioners to oppose any funding for the Wolf Project; please join me.
Jon Marvel
these non native cows seem to be more important than NATIVE WILDLIFE such as wolves and other predators. These welfare ranchers need to stop using our hard earned taxpayer money to slaughter wildlife. Non native cattle cause more damage to the environmenrt than all of the native wild predators put together. It's time that we kick these non native cows off of our public lands and it's time for welfare ranchers to start using their own money for predator control and not leech of taxpayer money.
Grazing, whether light or heavy, results in better soil -as measured by its organic carbon and nitrogen content -compared. to ungrazed rangeland. -- Historical Fact !
"Ungrazed rangeland has more carbon and nitrogen tied up in the dead plant material accumulated above ground. And, this material can break down and blow away without contributing much carbon and nitrogen to the soil, But when cattle graze rangeland, their several hundred pound bodies trample the plant material into small pieces and aid in its decomposition and incorporation into the soil surface. And cattle excrete large amounts of manure, rich in plant nutrients. Both activities help to recycle carbon and nitrogen into the soil. ---Historical Fact !
Plants on the grazed areas historically have higher springtime photosynthesis rates than those in the ungrazed areas. A partial explanation for this difference was that there wasn't a lot of dead standing material blocking the sunlight. There was also more live leaf area on the grazed pastures in early spring. This early-season photosynthetic advantage under grazing may increase the total amount of carbon taken up by the rangeland plants. Some of this increase will be incorporated into the soil through greater plant growth, livestock trampling, and excretion. --Historical Fact !
Herd rotation is important also, and we do that to.
My first awareness of this began back in the 1960's, when I began to notice there was a lack of plant diversity beneath many of our stack yard fences, wherein Nebraska sedge (Carexnebraskenis) was often the only species in evidence, whereas next to these fence lines, where the grass had been mowed year after year, there was a great verity of plant life, such as Timothy, Red Top and clover in evidence.
I also noticed, that in marshy areas, on the Ruby Lake National Wildlife Refuge, where we held a grazing permit, in areas where grazing was prohibited, there was a similar phenomena occurring, only in this instance it was baltic rush (Juncus balticus) that dominated.
However it was not until some years later, when I was reviewing a scientific paper that had been prepared by George Vensel regarding grazing-wildlife relationships on the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge that I first tound written explanation. Basically, plants of every kind need three things to survive, soil, water and sunlight. Photosynthesis cannot occur without sunlight. And when old plant material is not removed from year to year by grazing or cropping, accumulating litter restricts sunlight critical for plant growth and survival.
So what happens when this is allowed to occur for more than a year or two? Some of the more important plants, beneficial to both livestock and wildlife, such as forbs, legumes, and fermer-stemmed grasses simply die out.
Plant diversity is lost, and insect production declines as well. For those of you that live in town, think of how your yards would look if you failed to mow your lawn or trim your trees and shrubbery. Plants, whether they are in your yard, or out in the country, in order to remain health need to be hedged, and in the wild, hedging is accomplished best by sheep and cattle.
Recently, it has been the practice on many wildlife refuges, to burn wet meadows as a means of removing excess plant matter. This however, does nothing to improve plant diversity. The most effective way of restoring plant diversity on wet meadow areas, is by haying or cropping during the growing season.
If you wait until after the plants have matured, its too late. The plants have already suffered for lack of sunlight. When wet land vegetation is removed early in season all plants have an equal chance at receiving available sunlight. In addition, when wet meadow grasses are cropped at an early date, they then freshen. New leaves are formed that are tender and nutritious.
Plants that have been cropped also require less moister than do mature plants, thus they stay green and lush for a longer period of time. Why is it, do you suppose, that during the 1940's and 50's it was Common to see great numbers of sagegrouse along the edges of meadow lands that had been grazed or hayed during early summer.
It was because of the new tender growth that is there of course. And if by chance there had been a rain or two, there was always an abundance fresh new clover or maybe even dandelion for the birds to use, which plants would not have been evident at such locations if it were not for The cropping of such areas. Hey, and the elk and deer love it.
Are those folks wanting the farm bill eliminated aware that is where the funding for food stamps comes from? Bacus from Montana also took a $500,000,000 farm bill appropriation to give to TNC to buy Plum Creek, that was really welfare to ranchers wasn't it?
Are hikers and other users of public lands going to be willing to pay commercial rates to use it when the farm/ranch income is gone? We heard a lot about how timber companies were getting subsidized, now they pretty much are eliminated, guess what, USFS needs taxpayer money to make up for the loss. Remember Dewey, when you get rid of the ranchers too, there will only be taxpayers left to pay forforest management. How much will you be willing to pay?
I've been observing manufactured consent in this country for four decades, incrementally becoming worse as those decades rolled by. Its obvious the street people, yourself and I, are not allowed to manage the Democracy of this Nation, its managed for us because according to the powerful corporation in charge of all corporations under its authority, we are to stupid, hopelessly ignorant. That includes you old boy.
John Taylor Gatto - The Scientific Management of Children
http://youtu.be/5UadPqGscfI
I believe in the proven pecking order of animals and of men, ya know what I mean their mister super intellectual? It also works in the corporate world, the corporation with the most gold holds the most power on earth. When you find the corporate King of the hill, you've found Caesar. Now tax the King on the Hill Dewey, after they prove up on ownership of course. If you don't get what I've just said, you simply lack in research skills. Its so out in the open its hilarious. When one makes the connection of their world power, including into the earth saving sciences section, only a fool would fail to realize their domination of that area as well. Thus its all Science Fiction Again for power, theirs alone. You'll be satisfied to know they look upon you as one of their assets. When it comes to putting others down, you're guilty as hell right along with the rest us.
BS on your intellectual beliefs, none of its true. In fact you Dewey, like the majority of the sheep can't handle the truth.
I have watched CRP land go stale out here in eastern montana for many years. After a couple of years, the grass stays brown, with little growth of green things. It just gets thicker and thicker until we get a fire, and when fire goes through old CRP, all you can do is go to the next road and try to stop it there. No days, they let them at least hay part of it every so many years. Makes for better quality wildlife habitat and slows the fire problem.
I can't say I can agree with the payment plans for CRP. I know of several farmers who get a nice yearly check and have not farmed for years. They just hold the ground and get the check. I have to agree it seems like welfare to me.
I agree that public land is public and should be used in some form by all....that includes CATTLE for the reasons you gave above. If somebody does not like the fee structure then lobby to get it changed. Kicking local people off of public land where they make their livihood is ridiculous. Their is enough wilderness in montana alone to keep a backpacker busy for 30 years and he still could not see it all.
Use it but do it right.
eco-logic Special Report
http://freedom.org/reports/srbio.htm
" The Convention on Biological Diversity is not a benign document. Nor is it just another treaty to help protect the global environment. It is the culmination of 15 years of strategic planning and the result of untold billions of dollars invested in a vision of how the world ought to be. The world, as envisioned by the treaty strategists, ought to be dramatically different from the world most Americans strive to achieve. It is a world vision in which American values are seen as the enemy to be subdued. It is a world vision that every American should see before allowing America to become a party to the Convention. "
I agree, Lummis should blow bubbles in her own fishbowl.
Keep your right wing blather to yourself and don't attach my name to it. The "Comrade" thing is also uncalled for. It's one step past Godwin's Law.
Juvenile behavior. So grow up and stay on topic, please.
You're a cry baby.
Funny thing about that left wing right wing thing you're addicted to, its going to the same place.
Another fake dream.
I won't lower myself to your anti freedom of conscience left wing clap trap filth, by saying, as you do "Keep your {left} wing blather to yourself." Because you have the right to believe that filth, but you have no right to make me believe it. You sir, are a proven biased selective reader.
Contra-diction anyone ? Seems that Cody Dewey Coyote is a bit confused, he does not belong to nor support the "environmentalist" {psychopaths} yet he gives them his blessings for a job well done.
"Don;t hange me on your virtual Environmental organization hook. I don;t belong to any of those green groups and I do not support them , financially or otherwise. I probably dislike them as much as you , these days, but I do not let it become hatred or rabid villification , nor do I make them out to be anything more than they are , in reality."---Cody Dewey Coyote, 8-03-11
" Ken—{Cole} a pox on me for suggesting anything that would increase your burdens at this fine blog. Yours and Ralph’s and Brian’s efforts and altruism are genuinely appreciated , moreso in the face of all the muck and bletch you must engage along with the considered opinion.---Cody Dewey Coyote, August 5, 2011
Your science fraud continues.
It's definitely degenerated . What a shame. NewWest had so much promise...
" I'm glad we have this new commentor here who calls himself Science Fiction Again---his utter yokel rants make you look almost moderate and logical. But thaty's just the Doppler effect applied to a stream of words...Red Shift. Very red, actually. Newbie SciFi Guy is gonna get this thread slammed shut with his knuckle dragging ape aspersions. It's obvious he's quite a few facts short of a load, so sci-fi becomes him. The vile name calling is unfortunate."
Ok, on topic, a delisted wolf during the legal hunt, err unconstitutional hunt of course, bullet to the lungs.
Ignore all past constitutional wrongs, unless of course it involves the wolfy.
---
I'm confident that SyFyGuy is already well known to us. Same old rabbler, new alias. It's his self-chosen costume Superhero caped crusader name . Ordinary guy who puts on the cape and mask and candy-colored spandex and goes slinking about to do great deeds in his spare time. ( He has a LOT of spare time, obviously, and spends most of it right here or over lurking at Ralph's site) .
I'm thinking William H. Macy's character " The Shoveler" in that goofy 1999 Ben Stiller pseudo-action film " Mystery Men". Great film about deluded people with heroic perturbations...