User Tag List

Informational! Informational!:  0
Likes Likes:  0
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 8 of 17

Thread: so much for playing nice...........

  1. #1
    rattler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    missing, presumed dead
    Posts
    8,554
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    so much for playing nice...........

    http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-...05-725355.html

    US Judge Orders Protection For Rocky Mountain Gray Wolf

    SAN FRANCISCO (Dow Jones)--A federal judge on Thursday restored Endangered Species Act protections to gray wolves in Montana and Idaho, reversing a government decision to remove the protections.

    U.S. District Judge Donald Molloy concluded that the government's decision to remove, or "delist" gray wolves in Montana and Idaho from protection violated the ESA because the law requires such decisions to be made about an entire species, not a subset of a species.

    In April 2009, the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service removed ESA protection for northern Rocky Mountain gray wolves in Montana and Idaho, but not Wyoming.

    "The plain language of the ESA does not allow the agency to divide a [species] into a smaller taxonomy," the judge ruled.

    The Interior Department's assistant secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks, Tom Strickland, said the agency would work with the three states as well as tribes, environmental groups, ranchers and other landowners "to manage wolves and ensure the species continues to thrive and coexist with livestock, other wildlife populations, and people.

    "Today's ruling means that until Wyoming brings its wolf management program into alignment with those of Idaho and Montana, the wolf will remain under the protection of the Endangered Species Act throughout the northern Rocky Mountains," Strickland said.

    The northern Rocky Mountain gray wolf was listed as endangered under the ESA in 1974. In later years the government developed a recovery plan and reintroduced populations of gray wolves into central Idaho and Yellowstone National Park.

    In April 2009, the Fish & Wildlife Service concluded that with more than 1,500 wolves, the species was thriving and that state laws in Montana and Idaho were likely to support the wolves' continued success. However, the agency determined that gray wolves in Wyoming remained in danger of extinction because of inadequate regulation.

    Defenders of Wildlife, the Greater Yellowstone Coalition and other wildlife advocates sued the federal government after the 2009 decision, arguing that the government can't arbitrarily choose which animals should be protected and where.

    The decision puts an end to wolf hunts in Montana and Idaho planned for this fall.

    -By Cassandra Sweet, Dow Jones Newswires; 415-439-6468; cassandra.sweetdowjones.com
    even odds more wolves are going to be shot illegally this fall than were taken with tags last fall.....when these dang things were shoved down our throats we were told the target population for the entire population in MT, ID and WY was gonna be under 400 wolves and then controls would start in the form of a hunting season....now we are at 4 times what the biologists in the 90's told us the ecosystem could handle and we are not allowed to control the dang things.....elk and moose numbers have dropped to the point hunting can not be allowed in alot of areas......chances of me taking a moose in my life time in my home state have gone to dang near impossible odds from one every 7-10 years just 5 years ago.....

    and before you eco freaks start trying to quiote the fact that Montana's elk herds have grown....keep in mind is a big state with elk living from the Idaho to the North Dakota borders and the only herds that have grown are those where there are no wolves....most the herds in areas with wolves have dropped to 5 or 10% of their populations just 10 years ago.....

    also these wolves are not in anyway endangered.....cross that imaginary line into Canada and they are hunted legally and not being wiped out....

    ---------- Post added at 10:58 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:19 AM ----------

    RMEF Calls on Congress to Reform Endangered Species Act

    MISSOULA, Mont.—The Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation is calling for immediate Congressional review and reform of the Endangered Species Act following a judge’s decision yesterday to reinstate full federal protection for gray wolves.

    The Aug. 5 ruling means state wildlife agencies no longer have authority to manage skyrocketing wolf populations—even in areas where wolf predation is driving cow elk, moose and elk calf survival rates below thresholds needed to sustain herds for the future.

    RMEF says the judge has opened a door for perhaps the greatest wildlife management disaster in America since the wanton destruction of bison herds over a century ago.

    “When federal statutes and judges actually endorse the annihilation of big game herds, livestock, rural and sporting lifestyles—and possibly even compromise human safety—then clearly the Endangered Species Act as currently written has major flaws,” said David Allen, RMEF president and CEO. “We have already begun contacting the Congressional delegations of Idaho, Montana and Wyoming to ask for an immediate review of this travesty—and reform of the legislation that enabled it.”

    Allen pointed out an irony, if not an outright error, in the decision issued by U.S. District Judge Donald Molloy.

    “Judge Molloy said wolves in the northern Rockies are a single population that cannot be segmented based on political boundaries. But he essentially did that very thing himself, because he considered only the wolf population within the U.S. There are 75,000-plus gray wolves across Canada, yet Judge Molloy stopped at the border and did not consider the entire Rocky Mountain population. The gray wolf is simply not an endangered species,” said Allen.

    Animal rights groups who continue to litigate over wolves are “gaming the system for their own financial benefit,” he added, saying, “There are no elk in Iowa, but we are not suing folks to reintroduce them. This is simply a financial scam for the animal rights groups, and it’s all being paid for by the American taxpayer.”

    Additionally, Allen urged the governors in Idaho, Montana and Wyoming to begin the process of formally implementing “the 10(j) rule” as provided within federal law. For all species reintroductions classified as a “nonessential, experimental population,” as is the case with gray wolves under the Endangered Species Act, the 10(j) rule allows states more flexibility to mitigate for unacceptable impacts on big game populations, livestock and domestic animals.
    cervid serial killer
    Know guns, know peace, know safety. No guns, no peace, no safety
    I didn't get stimulated but he kept his promise on change, that's about all I got left!
    http://www.wolfpointherald.com/--http://www.safety-brite.net/

  2. #2
    Let's positive thinking! seedjar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Olympia, Washington
    Posts
    4,064
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I can see where this is coming from, but I won't offer the arguments you might expect. This part here:
    "The plain language of the ESA does not allow the agency to divide a [species] into a smaller taxonomy," the judge ruled.
    This is something you should be interested in, too, because if the above were not the case, you could see some real abuses of the ESA in the form of tiny niche populations becoming sheltered at the behest of special interests. If you think it gets in the way of hunting now, imagine what would happen if they could enforce protections on a herd-by-herd basis...
    ~Joe
    o//~ Livin' like a bug ain't easy / My old clothes don't seem to fit me /
    I got little tiny bug feet / I don't really know what bugs eat /
    Don't want no one steppin' on me / Now I'm sympathizin' with fleas /
    Livin' like a bug ain't easy / Livin' like a bug ain't easy... o//~

  3. #3
    kulamauiman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Kula, Maui USA
    Posts
    1,921
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    "The plain language of the ESA does not allow the agency to divide a [species] into a smaller taxonomy," the judge ruled.


    how does this then affect S. rubra ssp jonesii and S. rubra ssp alabamensis? Can't see this decision not having an effect on protection for these subspecies......

  4. #4
    Let's positive thinking! seedjar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Olympia, Washington
    Posts
    4,064
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    The EPA didn't create the taxonomy for Sarracenia, so I don't think it has any bearing.
    ~Joe
    o//~ Livin' like a bug ain't easy / My old clothes don't seem to fit me /
    I got little tiny bug feet / I don't really know what bugs eat /
    Don't want no one steppin' on me / Now I'm sympathizin' with fleas /
    Livin' like a bug ain't easy / Livin' like a bug ain't easy... o//~

  5. #5
    rattler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    missing, presumed dead
    Posts
    8,554
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    i realize the judge followed the ESA but you have to admit the reasoning he used is false......said you cant use political boundaries to define species populations than does just that by using the Canadian border.....

    the arbitrary lines get used all the time with species and their ratings.....for example the walleye is considered native to the Missouri River in North Dakota....take one step, cross the arbitrary line into Montana and in the Missouri River the walleye is an introduced species......what has changed in that one step? there is no natural physical boundary, only natural physical boundary that would have prevented it is Great Falls several hundred miles up stream.....

    you can hunt wild bison in Montana and Utah, you saying we cant hunt them because they no longer exist in wild populations in Kansas where they once romed? what about elk, elk are absent from huge portions of their historic range.....do we close down hunting in Montana because there arent any elk in Nebraska? nothing physically preventing Montana elk and buffalo from winding up there.....

    the reasoning being used is idiotic and thats being nice.........
    cervid serial killer
    Know guns, know peace, know safety. No guns, no peace, no safety
    I didn't get stimulated but he kept his promise on change, that's about all I got left!
    http://www.wolfpointherald.com/--http://www.safety-brite.net/

  6. #6
    rattler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    missing, presumed dead
    Posts
    8,554
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by kulamauiman View Post
    "The plain language of the ESA does not allow the agency to divide a [species] into a smaller taxonomy," the judge ruled.


    how does this then affect S. rubra ssp jonesii and S. rubra ssp alabamensis? Can't see this decision not having an effect on protection for these subspecies......
    you really want to have some fun? they imported larger timber wolves from northern Canada into a ecosystem that housed smaller prairie wolves.....by introducing the Canadian wolves they destroyed the genetically distinct prairie wolves that were here before the reintroduction....and there were wolves here in the 80's anyone that hunted the remote country has been around them.....they destroyed a subspecies by bringing in another cause it was easier....

    game departments do this all the time though which should drive anyone here nuts.....Tennessee wanted elk, great TN used to have elk....did they reintroduce Manitoban elk which are the closest subspecies to the now extinct eastern elk that used to live there? nope....the brought rocky mountain elk over cause their horns get bigger.....had no concern about "reintroduction" they just wanted elk with big antlers.....
    cervid serial killer
    Know guns, know peace, know safety. No guns, no peace, no safety
    I didn't get stimulated but he kept his promise on change, that's about all I got left!
    http://www.wolfpointherald.com/--http://www.safety-brite.net/

  7. #7
    Let's positive thinking! seedjar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Olympia, Washington
    Posts
    4,064
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I don't think he's saying that wolves in Canada are genetically distinct; they're just out of the jurisdiction of the law. That is kind of shady though.
    Quote Originally Posted by rattler View Post
    nope....the brought rocky mountain elk over cause their horns get bigger.....had no concern about "reintroduction" they just wanted elk with big antlers.....
    Oh, that's the worst kind of lame.
    ~Joe
    o//~ Livin' like a bug ain't easy / My old clothes don't seem to fit me /
    I got little tiny bug feet / I don't really know what bugs eat /
    Don't want no one steppin' on me / Now I'm sympathizin' with fleas /
    Livin' like a bug ain't easy / Livin' like a bug ain't easy... o//~

  8. #8
    rattler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    missing, presumed dead
    Posts
    8,554
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by seedjar View Post
    I don't think he's saying that wolves in Canada are genetically distinct; they're just out of the jurisdiction of the law. That is kind of shady though.
    ~Joe
    out of jurisdiction does not matter, he is acting like the world ends at the border.....he says Montana cant shoot wolves cause Wyoming doesnt have an approved plan....the wolves can move from Montana to Wyo so they are one population....using his reasoning since Montana wolves cross into Canada they are a part of the Canadian wolf population in the southern Rockies.....that means the wolves are not endangered.....only way to keep the wolves under the ESA is by using the Canadian boundary......Montana wolves are being artificially kept under the ESA because they decided they can use the US Canadian border to ignore Canadian wolves....its politics not hard science.......
    cervid serial killer
    Know guns, know peace, know safety. No guns, no peace, no safety
    I didn't get stimulated but he kept his promise on change, that's about all I got left!
    http://www.wolfpointherald.com/--http://www.safety-brite.net/

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. playing with a camcorder
    By vraev in forum General Discussions
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 06-01-2009, 07:58 AM
  2. Playing with my camera some more...
    By Ant in forum General Discussions
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 05-01-2009, 05:39 PM
  3. playing with Photoshop CS4
    By rattler in forum General Discussions
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 01-22-2009, 02:25 PM
  4. anyone here playing with Maya?
    By rattler in forum General Discussions
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 01-08-2006, 06:02 PM
  5. Playing Hookie
    By monkeyman in forum General Discussions
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 10-21-2003, 01:00 PM

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •