January 17, 2018

Federal Judge in Washington, D.C. Puts GI Wolves Back Under GI Protection

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

I could say I told you so but that wouldn’t amount to anything.

This move, believable within the rigged system we are all a slave to, should come as no surprise. Perhaps, and there’s a reason to use the word “perhaps,” had the slimy politics of some, joining forces with Harry Reid and his rigged system, included Wyoming in their corrupt politics of dealing with wolves through budget bill riders, this lawsuit would not have happened. But I suppose, for some, when in Rome, they must do what Romans do.

Regardless, there is no cure. The only possible cure is a dismantling and rewriting of the Endangered Species Act, along with the Equal Access to Justice Act, but then again, within this corrupt totalitarian socialist state of slavery that we have all eagerly entered into, a rewriting would never solve the problem and would only make matters worse.

Perhaps the best solution is no solution at all. Let those who think they are protecting wolves have their way and then we will see.

I have not had time to read and study the ruling of Judge Amy Berman Jackson, but I will provide a link to the ruling and the order, along with a summary of the judgement.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This case concerns the government’s decision to remove the gray wolf in Wyoming from the endangered species list. Plaintiffs Center for Biological Diversity, Defenders of Wildlife, Fund for Animals, Humane Society of the United States, Natural Resources Defense Council, and Sierra Club, in this consolidated case, challenge the September 30, 2012 decision of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (“FWS” or “the Service”) to remove the wolves from the list under the Endangered Species Act (“ESA” or “the Act”). See Final Rule: Removal of the Gray Wolf in Wyoming from the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife, 77 Fed.Reg. 55,530 (Sept. 10, 2012) (“the 2012 rule”). The 2012 rule transferred management of the gray wolf in Wyoming from federal control to state control. Id.

Plaintiffs have moved for summary judgment, and they maintain that the decision was arbitrary and capricious because Wyoming’s regulatory mechanisms are inadequate to protect the species, the level of genetic exchange shown in the record does not warrant delisting, and the gray wolf is endangered within a significant portion of its range. Pls.’ Mot. for Summ. J. [Dkt. # 48] (“Pls.’ Mot.”) and Pls.’ Mem. of P. & A. in Supp. of Mot. for Summ. J. [Dkt. # 48-1] (“Pls.’ Mem.”).

The Court will grant plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment in part and deny it in part and remand the matter back to the agency because it finds that the Service could not reasonably rely on unenforceable representations when it deemed Wyoming’s regulatory mechanisms to be adequate. Given the level of genetic exchange reflected in the record, the Court will not disturb the finding that the species has recovered, and it will not overturn the agency’s determination that the species is not endangered or threatened within a significant portion of its range. But the Court concludes that it was arbitrary and capricious for the Service to rely on the state’s nonbinding promises to maintain a particular number of wolves when the availability of that specific numerical buffer was such a critical aspect of the delisting decision.

Share
  • GoldDust

    So the federal agency known as USFWS has been accused of being ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS… But but but I thought they were professional scientists at Wildlife or endangered species preservation. Oh now the lawyers are professionals at wildlife science and endangered species preservation, oh wait conservation, oh wait, 125,000 or more wolves on this continent, oops, now every farm and ranch has got to have a pack or two…Oh wait, did the feds just contradict themselves again, Oh wait, who’s being ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS??? This is the U.S. corporate ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS gooberment of fools..

    Absence of a rational connection between the facts found and the choice made. Natural Resources. v. U.S., 966 F.2d 1292, 97, (9th Cir.’92). A clear error of judgment; an action not based upon consideration of relevant factors and so is arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion or otherwise not in accordance with law or if it was taken without observance of procedure required by law. 5 USC. 706(2)(A) (1988).

    Establishing scarcity, claiming our forests need less elk and more wolves is a clear error in judgement.. Only fools would make such a request..

    When a judge makes a decision without reasonable grounds or adequate consideration of the circumstances, it is said to be arbitrary and capricious and can be invalidated by an appellate court on that ground. There is, however, no set standard for what constitutes an arbitrary and capricious decision; what appears arbitrary to one judge may seem perfectly reasonable to another.

    • TRemington

      Ahha! And so, as us slaves have been subjected to, we must look back a bit to the term “best available science.” In the case of wolf (re)introduction the wolf recovery team (USFWS) could and did claim ANYTHING that they deemed a necessary tool for wolf (re)introduction, became “best available science.”

      So too, we have come to recognized that “arbitrary and capricious” is void of any actual solid meaning and over time has become a catch-all term for justification of any court ruling.

      What fools fail to realize is that whatever they decide for themselves for these definitions, and the employment of the terms, don’t work so good when they are used against them.

      But I would suppose that is too high a level of thinking.

  • Chandie Bartell

    They want Idaho back on the ESA list too.

  • GoldDust

    “These lawsuits and those who bring them, use the Endangered Species Act as a club to beat down state management plans that have been worked on and developed with input by all stakeholders. It’s an abuse of the law and another clear example for why the Endangered Species Act needs to be fixed,”
    MIKE ENZI

    Delegation response to reinstatement of federal management of wolves http://www.enzi.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2014/9/delegation-response-to-reinstatement-of-federal-management-of-wolves

  • somsai

    Wyoming might miss a hunting season, certainly not more, maybe only a month or two. Things don’t usually get busy until after the rifle elk seasons anyway. Plus she struck down two out of three of the things they brought to court.

    Wyoming needs to make a document and call it a “wolf plan”. Then the judge stamps “done” on the case and we’re back to where we were.

    What it does do more importantly is get everyones britches in a twist. Making ESA “reform” closer to the top of the agenda if the team you all root for wins the senate. Plus now everyone in Wyoming is pissed again at pro wolf types.

    RMEF had a good summation this morning. I’m waiting to hear WM at Wildlife News but he might well be elk hunting. WM is pretty good on legal stuff.

    • Chandie Bartell

      Speaking to Outfitters and Sportsmen from Wyoming today they had this to say. What is ridiculous about this “rule” is that the 80% of Wyoming the NGO extremist groups like DOW, CBD, Sierra Club, Humane Society United States, etc., is that there are “few” wolves in that part of Wyoming.

      The wolves are bunched up in to 23 packs along the Montana border. An area that has major elk and moose predation by wolves.

    • GoldDust

      Their hope is dispersal into Utah and likely Colorado.. One motive amongst many. Wolves don’t seem to be moving south through Idaho and into Utah then Colorado. Off the Winds via Sinks Canyon, Great Divide Basin, Medicine Bow.. Flaming Gorge Reservoir, Duchesne Utah.. No doubt the know it all wolf cult believe those regions could sustain wolves and support dispersal. Everybody in America gets a wolf pack bubba, it;s socialism.. This stoppage as you say will be short lived..

  • somsai

    Sounds like it’s the lack of specificity on how many more than ten packs. Judge feels a buffer number is warranted. Sounds like pretty good food for appeal to me. If populations are secure and the species is fully recovered in WY with genetic blah blah blah then 10 breeding pair if fine.
    http://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/court-holds-lack-of-specificity-dooms-wy-32612/

  • GoldDust

    This is a guess, an estimation, a maybe, a possibility, it is not factual; There is no solid evidence of this claim thus it is not worthy of being claimed.

    “Wolf poaching, on average, will remove about 10% of wolves from the population. This has been shared with me by two MN DNR agents, and I believe, somewhere in recent TWN annals about same % has been documented in either Idaho or Montana.”—Immer Treue

    Anyone that knows me knows I read everything. They know i also spend a lot of time out on the front lines of the elk wolf disaster here in Idaho looking at the ground, the wintering ranges where I used to shed antler hunt, the elk calving grounds, the summer ranges, forests outside of the Wilderness and in Wilderness. What these people are saying, based off of papers they’re relying upon, they’re very misinformed. And as I stated recently anyone speaking on any region from long distance with no time on the ground in that region, have no credibility. NONE.

    Now this guy responsible for the above quote on poaching often ridicules those of us that speak of pre introduction wolves being in Idaho. In “The 1984 Wolves of Central Idaho Report” in multiple seasons 10% of hunters, trappers outfitters, who answered questionnaires sent out to that community responded claiming wolf sightings. Study cooperators were FWS, Endangered Species Program Boise Field office Montana Cooperative Wildlife Research Unit, University Montana. Idaho Department of Fish and Game..

    Immer holds up false data as factual and poo poos actual observations from experienced locals countering so called factual data put forth as solid by their side, and its always their sides opinions that are true, according to them..

    This Immer Treue, and various other clowns that post at Maughan’s web site, the Incomplete Wildlife News have no more credibility than that fool Toby Bridges.

    Over the years observing Wyoming’s stance on wolf management, I’ve always realized Wyoming has more experience dealing with the USFWS when it comes to the ESA than Idaho and Montana. The USFWS personnel has no integrity, morals, nor credibility. Less than the enviro cult that consistently sues them and the state game agencies these same enviros have been infiltrating intending to take over and force a tax upon every citizen thus taking the decision process of management away from the consumptive user and dropping it in the lap of the anti consumptive users in order to once and for all end hunting. While we definitely need new personnel managing the wildlife in Idaho, the federal government, and the enviro-cult faux conservationists are definitely NOT FIT to assume that control nor share a seat at the management table.

    According to the “science” of Soviet Sustainable Bio-Perversity Development meat consumption is unsustainable.. Which is one of the founding principles underlying all of this “save the environment” madness..

  • GoldDust

    Here’s another wolf pimp shill that doesn’t know shit;

    “A cousin of mine has spent a lot of time in the Clearwater and Salmon river areas of Idaho as a cattleman, hunter, hiker, and river boatmen since the 1950’s. He has kept a daily diary during that time. He never recorded this “native wolf” that so many Idaho residents now claim to have seen. Nor has he had any problems with the reintroduced wolves on his property or leased BLM land in the Clearwater area.”—Barb Rupers

    Notice the age of this ” cousin.” Probably back packs with a walker.

    I know people in Idaho that spend time outdoors and they’ve not seen a wolf. I know countless people that have never seen a cougar in the Wild, even a bear. More people have never observed a wolverine.