New West Wildlife
Analysis: Molloy Nixes Wolf Settlement; Congress to Enact Political Delisting
If Montana Sen. Jon Tester's successful in attaching a delisting rider to the federal budget, it's probably not worse than the rejected settlement, just "equally bad."By Brodie Farquhar, 4-12-11
 |
|
 | |
|
U.S. District Judge Donald Molloy on Saturday denied a settlement agreement among 10 conservation groups and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, which would have dropped wolves from Endangered Species Act protection in Montana and Idaho.
Had the agreement been upheld by Molloy, it would have allowed a fall hunt of wolves in the two states.
The proposed settlement, announced in March after months of negotiation between the Interior Department and 14 conservation groups, would have dropped ESA protections for Idaho and Montana wolves, in exchange for protection of wolves in Wyoming, Utah, Washington and Oregon. While 10 groups approved the settlement, four were adamantly opposed.
The March deal also called upon USFWS to convene a scientific panel to reexamine the original wolf-recovery goal of 300 wolves. The current tally is based on 705 wolves in Idaho, 566 in Montana, 343 in Wyoming and some 40 in Oregon and Washington.
Molloy’s denial of the settlement places the 1,300 wolves of Montana and Idaho back under ESA protections – for now, but for how long?
The settlement, prompted by concerns over livestock and wildlife losses to wolf predation, was widely viewed as an attempt to preempt Congress from enacting a delisting based on politics, rather than science. Conservation groups were horrified by the prospect of such a precedent, viewing it as a big step toward gutting the ESA. There’s little to no indication that, had the settlement passed muster with Molloy, it could have slowed or halted the Congressional rush to delist northern Rockies wolves.
Montana’s Republican Rep. Denny Rehberg’s H.R. 509 would delist wolves in the lower 48 states. Democratic Montana Sen. Jon Tester and Idaho Republican Rep. Mike Simpson have language in the federal budget bill that would delist Montana and Idaho wolves, turning management over to state game agencies and banning judicial review. Tester said this week he’s confident the rider will pass.
Molloy’s 24-page decision, however, was based on what Congress and the courts have done in the past – not on what Congress can be anticipated to do in the new few days or weeks. Molloy ruled that his court lacked authority to place a partial endangered species population under state management – particularly if that meant exposing that population to the hazard of hunting.
He wrote, “the Court cannot exercise its discretion to allow what Congress forbids.”
Molloy also ruled he couldn’t approve the settlement, without damaging the interests of the four conservation groups that hadn’t gone along on the March deal. The value of the settlement was damaged by internal dissent, he noted.
“When many of the parties do not want settlement it would be inequitable to force them to relinquish their litigation position for a perceived greater public good,” Molloy wrote.
What now?
Because the ESA was created by an act of Congress, Congress can do pretty much what it wants, within constitutional limits. And because the Tester/Simpson language is part of a budget package, it might not outlive the budget, unless renewed at some future point. Also, while Rehberg’s bill is drafted, the budget language for the remainder of this fiscal year won’t be known until later this week.
And now that the settlement has fallen apart, all 14 conservation groups are free to litigate wherever they deem prudent.
“We will fight delistings that are supposed to be based on science,” said Bill Snape, senior counsel for the Center for Biological Diversity – one of the 10 conservation groups that joined the settlement. “If Tester really cares about wolves and about settling this problem once and for all, he will embrace and lead the administrative conservation measures identified over the past several months, rather than inflaming the situation further with a bogus political delisting.”
Last month, Jon Marvel, executive director of Western Watersheds, said the settlement had no teeth for enforcement and is filled with vague promises and assurances. Molloy’s ruling essentially agreed with that assessment, noting there was no ceiling to allowable hunting losses and no hard, lower population number that would automatically trigger relisting wolves in Idaho and Montana.
“If Congress passes a wolf rider, it will not be worse than the proposed settlement – just equally bad,” said Marvel. He speculated that the anti-wolf rider could be stopped in Congress, but admitted it was unlikely.
“We have deeply cynical Democrats who are desperate to help Tester in 2012,” said Marvel – desperate enough to sacrifice the integrity of the Endangered Species Act.
Even though the conservation community was deeply divided over the March settlement, “we’ve never stopped talking to each other,” Marvel said. Part of the ongoing conversation is speculation as to whether the judiciary will tolerate a bill that says judges can’t rule on delisting the northern Rockies wolves, he added.
Like this story? Get more! Sign up for our free newsletters.
Comments
Folks,
It appears that a wolf delisting bill will very likely pass this week in Congress. The wolf delisting language is included in the continuing resolution to keep the government funded. We expect that this bill will pass by the end of this week. The language will be a victory primarily for Idaho and Montana, though portions of Utah, Oregon and Washington are also included in the delisting. Important language was also added yesterday to preserve Wyoming's court victory in support of important aspects of its wolf management plan.
This bill stops short of returning full state management authority back to these states, including Idaho and Montana. So USFWS remains in a supervisory role. If USFWS does not interfere and allows the states do their job, a wide variety of wolf management activities can be resumed by these states. We are hopeful this would be a step in the right direction for some of these states. This action does very clearly show that Congressional action is not only possible, but also necessary to delist no longer endangered wolf populations.
We could name a long list of names of members of Congress who have worked so diligently to delist wolf populations. Specifically, thanks go out to Senator Hatch and Lee of Utah, Senators Barrasso and Enzi of Wyoming, Senators Crapo and Risch of Idaho, Senators Kyl and McCain of Arizona, Senators Tester and Baucus of Montana, Congressman Rehberg of Montana, Congresswoman Lummis of Wyoming, Congressman Simpson of Idaho, Congressmen Matheson, Bishop and Chaffetz of Utah. We have not always agreed with some of these members, but all played an important role in getting wolves delisted.
Thanks also go to many sportsmen and conservation organizations that have lent their efforts and donations to Big Game Forever and to the wolf delisting efforts. Most importantly, this victory belongs to thousands and thousands of sportsmen from all 50 states who have truly gotten in the fight to protect the future of hunting through Big Game Forever. This week we will win an important victory in Congress that many experts said couldn't be won. You can't win a fight, if you are not willing to fight. So thank you to all those who have worked so diligently to make this happen. Your phone calls, emails and ongoing efforts were constantly a major conversation among members of Congress and legislative staff. This was truly a game changer in this fight for the future of wildlife in America.
While this has been an extremely difficult victory, it is hard to celebrate too much when we know that this bill does not delist most Western and Midwestern states. To our friends in Wyoming, Arizona, New Mexico, Michigan, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Utah, Nevada, Colorado, California, North Dakota, South Dakota, Iowa and many other states: We share your frustration that you were not included in this delisting. While it was not our decision to go with a two state bill, the actions of a few made this a self-fulfilling conclusion. We also worked very hard to make sure the bill did not destroy Wyoming's court victory in support of the right of states to make important wildlife management decisions. So while we celebrate the fact that Congress has now recognized that they must act to delist wolves. We know this is not good enough to fix the challenges of unmanaged wolves across the country.
We call on all sportsmen and all members of Congress to increase their effort and resolve to finish the fight. Thousands of emails are going to members of Congress to try to slow wolf delisting for the rest of the country. Let’s counter this effort with thousands of emails asking members of Congress to finish the fight. There are some who will use this two-state provision to try to kill the momentum on additional Congressional actions. We cannot let this happen. It is time to delist wolves in all states. Wildlife populations in the Midwest and West have suffered terribly. It is clear that Congress is willing act to address the problems of unmanaged wolves for some states. It is time for members of Congress to engage in the battle to delist wolves in your state and restore the primacy of states to manage their own wildlife.
Help us finish the fight. Ask all of your friends to join the effort at Big Game Forever to engage in this important fight for the future of hunting and wildlife in America. Signing the petition is fast, it’s easy and it’s free. Make a donation to help fund the ongoing efforts.
Let’s finish what we started.
--
Ryan Benson
National Director, Big Game Forever
Please take a minute and ask your friends to sign the petition at http://biggameforever.org/
You guys are the rotten fish no longer welcome at the table.
We won , you lost, primarily because you've had the ball for 16 years and it's time.
Snowboarding season is over.
Yes, it was a cheat to attach the Wolf Delisting rider to the budget resolution. A cheat. You couldn't do it fair and square, could you ...not in 16 years. Certainly not as a standalone issue openly and freely debated by lawmakers in full chambers...
The "cheating" part is not worthy of another key stroke.
Game over. Get a job.
Hunters and cattlemen trashed wolf delisting , not the enviros. With predator status, numbers became critically relevant again becuase there was no check on wolf kills . With trophy game status and limited regulated hunts, the numbers take care of themselves.
Your recollection of events and interpretation of reality are obtuse, to put it kinder than you deserve....
Whence I take a moment to remind you Todd that enviros are not the enemy, they are your conscience....
Section 1713? No touchie on Johnson's ruling? Hmmm, then that puts the Tenth in full play....but but but David Hayes dropped the appeal? Or just stayed it? Oooo oooo oooo.
Bottom line is, Molloy's ruling was proper within procedure and law, he would have been blown out of the water by the Ninth. The settlement was legal garbage, even if the "agreement" was about as politically clever as anything I've ever seen Greens vomit.
Doesn't matter. Congress has finally popped the bubble on the ESA's sanctity, even if it was only a half-a$$ed halfway measure aimed strictly at calming down the political heat below the boiling point. First time since the eighth-a$$ed "reforms" of 1982 or 84? Now there is an "institutional memory."
The other thing, the senior Congs that will be playing with the ESA now are not Pombo, in a purple district within bus range of San Francisco. These are red meat Republicans and we're gonna see some blood. Not right away, but soon.
I'm gonna have a cigar.
Since you are unbiased, and I'm not, perhaps you should analyze what section 1713 does with the Johnson ruling. I'm of the mind that Case 14 for Molloy against 118/138j had all the makings of a circuit conflict leading to the Supremes. Or -- a political explosion. Or both.
Dang, I should have kept my humidor humid. Kaff....
I told you that a "covenant not to sue" that wasn't signed by all parties was a worthless cheap trick pulled by rank amatures.
Harriett Hageman is thrilled that her 10th Circuit victory stands and Wyomings bull headed stance prevailed.
Here's what Minnesota DNR Landwehr said;''If they (federal authorities) don’t have the money to continue a federal control program, they should turn the management back to the state, and we’d take over control,” Landwehr said.
The bottom line,.. is the bottom line, the feds are bankrupt and can't indulge in the frivolity of being in the wolf protection rackets any more . China, Japan , Saudi creditors won't stand for it after bailing out Bankster perps who walked unprosecuted and left a $14 trillion gambling tab.
If the wolf cult is truly out for blood they should focus on Joe Cassano, Blankfein,H.Paulson, Raines, Rubin , Summers, Geithner, Greenspan,Bernanke, Tom Maheres, Phil Grahm, Dodd etc., etc.
- The settlement required the FWS to issue a new delisting rule which would be subject to the normal public review and legal challenge standards. Tester's bill automatically enacts the 2009 rule with no further public process and bans the public from suing over it.
- The settlement kept wolves in UT, WA, and OR listed. Tester's riders delists all northern wolves.
- The settlement established an independent scientific panel to determine Northern Rockies wolf recovery needs. Tester's bill does not.
Jon Marvel and Western Watersheds Project may need to trash the settlement to justify their stupid campaign to strike it down, but I expect that you'd not simply parrot their self-serving spin. The settlement was the only quiver in the enviro quiver to convince sympathetic dems to go against Tester and Reid. It was not guaranteed, but it was the only leverage the enviros had. Until, of source Marvel sanctimoniously worked to kill it in the name of some stupid vision of purity that predictably ended up killing many more wolves.
Now Bob "chicken little" Fanning wont have to account for all of the "donations" to the four + years in the making BIG MAGIC LAWSUIT.
got your new truck picked out Bobby?
It was GREAT political strategy, a flaming gift to the greens, a huge chance to preserve control AND completely rewrite the "science" (which is profoundly political...just look at SCB's mission statement) AND completely rewrite the SPR guidance to suit....
But it was illegal. Having all 14 plaintiffs on board didn't mean diddly, it would still be a legal skunk.
Congress can do anything it wants, but even judges like Don Molloy sometimes can't. This was one of those times.
And I must correct you on the Simpson Tester Baucus junker. Better than nothing, but it leaves all other wolf populations listed. Furthermore, Molloy still has not dismissed Case 14. The Freaky Four are still wanting to have him rule on the 10j/all-or-one, and if Molloy does follow through, whichever way he goes will be political dynamite, especially if he does what I think he will -- make all the wolves one big lumpy poo.
A lump of endangered political Semtex.
If you hate wolves and think that whenever you are "right" it's fine to 1) override existing laws and 2) ban your opponents from the democratic right to the judicial system, you gotta love Tester's bill.
If you care a whit about democratic processes (or wolves) then the settlement was a far better path.
So Mr. Marvel can crow about his "victory" and sanctimoniously send out fund raising letters, but he put the last nail in the wolf's coffin by that profoundly stupid legal manuever.
"Having all 14 plaintiffs on board didn't mean diddly, it would still be a legal skunk.Congress can do anything it wants, but even judges like Don Molloy sometimes can't. "
Even if all 14 plaintiffs signed the "covenant not to sue" someone else who must prove "standing" could sue,that's why a court "settlement" was smoke & mirrors all along and a Congressional fix was mandatory despite all the bluster about "best available science" from 1,300 nobodies pretending to be sientists.
All the rest is demagogue noise from bad losers.
"What are your credentials?"
43 science credits as a biology major University of Notre Dame, MBA, only human being in the 9 th Circuit with "standing" recognized in the Federal Register.
My C.V. has been published, look it up
Experience doesn't count for much if you haven't learned anything.
RH
Sad as it is, the current incantation of "environmentalists" are nothing but a batch of damned liars whose modus operandi is to continually move goalposts after agreements have been reached. Edward Abbey was surely correct when he openly lamented this new creature replacing the more principled of old, finally arguing that he would rather see the return of the ranchers and miners to the land than these entitlement minded, self-righteous Birkenstock-clad cretins making handsome livings by causing ranches to be subdivided into 40 acre ranchettes for the nuevo riche'. Looking across the landscape as he so did, your presumed successes are nothing but a litany of destruction.
What ever happened to that agreed upon figure of introducing a handful of wolves with an intended total population goal of 300? That number is what was put forth to the several states involved by the U.S.F.W.S. and the environmental groups which backed this insanity in the first place - period. Well, enough is never enough, and the litany of evidence from this fiasco is clear - negotiated agreements with either the Federal Government or these supposedly "non profit" N.G.O. "environmental groups" is like marrying a spouse intent on committing adultery.
In effect, their words, whether written or spoken, are worthless. Their promises are like those made by whores dressed in white satin, and should not to be trusted.
Once the camel has entered the tent, the defecation instantly begins. Never satisfied and consciously entering agreements with the aforethought intent of breaking them, these malefactors then sue the government (TAXPAYERS) because these always disgruntled "stakeholders" decide to arbitrarily change the original agreement to suit their newly discovered liking. So-called wildlife scientists (the field being now so emotional and politicized that it is no different than Lysenkoism - it can't even honestly be considered "science" anymore...) come up with argument after argument to justify goalpost adjustments, and then their seven-figure a year lawyers "valiantly" rush their pleadings to the Bench.
The true tragedy in all of this is that there are relevant environmental issues that truly need attention that literally affect us all, but the behavior of federal agencies, these self-appointed "stakeholders" as well as a worthless federal judge have shot down any credibility they once sort of had. Two of the three are now known liars and the third should have been impeached.
To hell with this entire charade. The delusional public is and has been mislead by a pack of voracious liars, and the only legal recourse left to those who have been abused by both government agencies, the so-called "stakeholders" and an out-of-control jurist is through legislation. Once the reality of a bankrupt nation and the associated economic collapse finally sets in with its attendant fury, I believe that is the moment to seriously discuss secession from this abysmal failure of a democracy. Were this still a Republic where Constitutional Law ruled the land, none of this would have ever come about.
As a point of information and an aside, my wife and I attended a "party" held by a long-time career male Forest Service employee back when the effort was underway to reintroduce a "Non-Essential Experimental Population" of Grizzlies into the Selway-Bitterroot and the Frank Church Wilderness areas. Not surprisingly, most of the attendees at the gala were government personnel from both the F.S. and the B.L.M.
As luck would have it, alcohol was being both served and consumed in quantity. One thing booze will do is loosen lips, and oft times what would never be spoken of flows freely from the lips. Hells bells, did I luck out that night - Free booze and drunk federal employees!
As it turned out, the host of the gala was a rather gregarious fellow, and he got just a bit drunk. Maybe more than a bit. He's a pretty good fellow and we get along famously. He was also pretty well dead set against the reintroduction of the Grizzlies and made certain that everyone within earshot knew what his position was, including me. Animated and vociferous, he was not shy about his views at all.
I was leaning on the fence next to him and said, "Hey (name withheld), this isn't a done deal yet. They're holding all these public meetings and have four alternatives to choose from, right? They may well pick the "No Action" alternative."
Taking a big old swig from his beer he turned to me and said, "John, let me tell you about these public meetings. They are nothing but B.S. to let the public think they have a say in anything. Well, they don't. I've been involved in this garbage for decades. We have to hold these meeting by law, but they're meaningless. The decision has already been made, this crap is all for show, and the only thing that will stop this bear reintroduction is if Congress won't fund it or the President nixes it, period. This is all b.s." BURP!
I went and got us both another beer and just kept listening to him talk about how it all works. It was fascinating.
Since Clinton was still president, I soon went out and bought a Browning .375 Holland and Holland because I live deep in the forest, right next to where they were going to "experiment." The "record of decision" had already been made, and what was need was for the show to run its course and the political winds to keep blowing from a certain direction. All U.S.F.W.S. needed was Al Gore to be elected for the funding to be put in place and then the decision to be published.
Was I happy about Bush being elected? Hell no. I knew what he and his neocons were going to do. It's their nature. I've been voting Third Party for decades because I don't like other peoples blood on my hands unless I decide to put it there myself. I despise both wings of the "Warfare-Welfare Party" that have done such a wonderful job of destroying this country. But remember this - When a 27 year federal employee whose way up the food chain and well into the G.S. mid-double digits tells you these mandated "public meetings" are nothing but theater to technically "follow the law", that's all they are. When dealing with "Agencies"", you haven't got a say in a damned thing. They are a law unto themselves. All they need to do is publish their mandates in the Federal Register and after a couple of months, some non-elected bureaucrat "made law" in our illusional system of "representative government." It's a socialists dream - rule by bureaucracy. "Phillip Dru - Administrator."
Time to go light up and wait for Act III, Scene I.
Ask yourself how you can compel bureaucrats to save game herds with lethal wolf control and fund the restoration of those game herds without a financial judgment to fund same and change bureaucratic behaviour?
I figgure if you get punitive { trebel} damages , take down some D&O;carriers on a couple billion you can get a substantive reduction in the size of the bureaucracies and cripple the NGO's all at the same time too.
In the next few weeks the latest version (fourth time) of delisting should be out for the Western Great lakes. Late last year the Defenders of Wildlife had said something to the effect that they were going to oppose the delisting once again! I'm wondering if anyone has seen or heard anything in that regard. The congressional delisting is dominating their web site right now.......DONATE NOW is the theme. They got to make hay right now because of them monsters in Montana are going to kill off all of the wolves! ;o)
It's inevitable that one of the groups will sue to stop this delisting in the great lakes! Has anyone seen anything?
Enjoy your cigar!