October 1, 2014

RMEF: Silver Linings in Wyoming Wolf Management Ruling

Press Release from the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation:

MISSOULA, Mont.-The Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation maintains a ruling that restores federal protections to wolves in Wyoming is basically a technicality that can easily be fixed on Wyoming’s end. The State of Wyoming is in the process of adopting an emergency rule to do so.

U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson ruled out of her Washington D.C. courtroom that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) was wrong to rely on Wyoming’s non-binding promises to maintain a buffer above the FWS minimum of 10 breeding pair and at least 100 wolves outside of Yellowstone Park and the Wind River Indian Reservation. Montana and Idaho initially had the 10 breeding pair and 100 wolf minimum, but a 50 percent “buffer” of 15 breeding pairs and 150 wolves was implemented for those two states.

The plaintiffs argued the following four points about the Wyoming wolf population, and they were denied a favorable ruling by Judge Jackson relative to the first three:

1. Wolves have not recovered.
2. Wolves are at risk because of a lack of genetic connectivity.
3. Wyoming allowing wolves to be treated as a predator in some areas does not meet the Endangered Species Act requirements of protections over a significant part of the species’ range.
4. Wyoming’s current regulatory mechanism to insure a population of more than 10 breeding pair and 100 wolves is inadequate and represents a non-binding promise.

“There are some silver linings within this ruling handed down from Judge Jackson as she ruled against three claims made by the plaintiffs including confirmation of the fact that Wyoming’s wolf population has recovered and is not endangered,” said David Allen, RMEF president and CEO. “We anticipate Wyoming will be able to fix the issue with how its wolf management plan is written to satisfy the court.”

“She held that Wyoming’s plan was not sufficiently formalized to support the Fish and Wildlife Service’s 2012 rule allowing limited take of gray wolves. We believe an emergency rule can remedy this, and I have instructed the Wyoming Game and Fish Department and the Attorney General to proceed accordingly,” said Wyoming Governor Matt Mead.

The State of Wyoming already asked the court to reverse the ruling. Mead also began the process to make the state’s minimum wolf population pledge legally enforceable by signing and filing an emergency rule. In the meantime, it suspended wolf hunting in the northwest part of Wyoming scheduled to begin in October. The judge’s decision also impacts year-round hunting in the rest of the state as well as landowners protecting livestock and pets.

The latest wolf count indicates a minimum of 320 packs and 1,691 wolves in the Northern Rockies as of December 31, 2013, including at least 306 wolves in 43 packs in Wyoming.

“The real shame of this continuing litigation and legal maneuvering by HSUS, Defenders of Wildlife, Center for Biological Diversity and others is the amount of American taxpayer money the judge may award them for their legal fees, all in the name of the Equal Access to Justice Act. This is a continued misuse of taxpayer dollars for an ideological agenda that has little to do with wolves. This is not conservation work,” added Allen.

Mexican Wolf Game Change: To Hiss and Boo or Stand and Cheer?

ArizonaWolfPlanRecently I wrote a book about my life as an Innkeeper/Hotel/Motel/Manager. Included in that book in the last chapter was something that I shared as a means of finding fault with myself in that it took me far too long to understand the mistake I was making in thinking I could remain in the hospitality business that I disliked.

Chapter One
I walk down the street.
There is a deep hole in the sidewalk.
I fall in.
I am lost …. I am helpless.
It isn’t my fault.
It takes forever to find a way out.

Chapter Two
I walk down the street.
There is a deep hole in the sidewalk.
I pretend that I don’t see it.
I fall in again.
I can’t believe I am in this same place.
But it isn’t my fault.
It still takes a long time to get out.

Chapter Three
I walk down the same street.
There is a deep hole in the sidewalk.
I see it is there.
I still fall in … it’s a habit … but, my eyes are open.
I know where I am.
It is my fault.
I get out immediately.

Chapter Four
I walk down the same street.
There is a deep hole in the sidewalk.
I walk around it.

Chapter Five
I walk down another street.

Earlier this summer, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service decided it was going to change up the rules to their rigged game about trying to establish a population of hybrid wolves in the Southwest Region of the U.S. As is required by law, a Draft Environmental Impact pack of lies Statement was released and now a comment period is allowed, in which anyone wishing may offer comments, scientific studies, proof, facts, or maybe just tell a funny story. It really doesn’t matter because the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has already decided what they are going to do and they are just going through the motions to make themselves look good or that they actually care. History proves this point. (Please see street analogy above.)

You see, within the rigged system, much the same way as our rigged Courts use “Arbitrary and Capricious” to justify decisions made, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service uses “Best Available Science.” Best available science is a farce and works well within the rigged system. That’s why it is there. It can mean anything and in the crafting of the rigged Endangered Species Act, the Secretary is granted his “deference” and therefore can utilize, by hand selecting, the “Best Available Science” that best fits an agenda. History proves this point. (Please see street analogy above.)

I am in the process of writing a book. In that book is a great deal of information that comes from the dissecting of the Final Environmental Impact pack of lies Statement. There is not one single bit of information in that FEIS, now 20 years later, that resulted in truth. Not one thing. Everything in that FEIS was based on the fraud of 30 breeding pairs of wolves and 300 wolves, within 3 wolf recovery areas; a “recovered” wolf population.

Dr. Charles Kay sought the “scientific evidence” that supported this fraudulent claim and there exists none – therefore the claim of fraud.

In addition, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, of their own will, chose to completely disregard 15 issues of concern pertaining to wolf (re)introduction. To show how rigged and either corrupt or inept the entire episode of wolf (re)introduction was, as I said, not one promise made by the Feds was upheld and nearly all of the 15 items they deemed to be “insignificant” have now proven to be very significant. Can our wildlife managers be that inept? Evidently because the most recent Draft Environmental Impact Statement, corrects very little of it.

In the Southwest, perhaps a standing ovation should be order for the Arizona fish and game and their supporters, who are trying to hammer out changes, specifics and agreements, that will carry consequences, to be included in a final impact statement.

Some of the specifics include a limit of no more than 300-325 total wolves divided between Arizona and New Mexico and a percentage cap on reductions in elk populations due to wolf predation. I think I read as well that proof of those numbers will fall into the hands of the state fish and game departments and not the “Best Available Science” of the Feds.

On the other hand please stand and offer boos and hisses because there is absolutely no reason to believe that the Feds will adhere to their agreement, as they seldom do and we know for a fact that none of it will stand up in a rigged court system, in which environmentalists can use taxpayer money, hand select an activist judge, who advocates for “arbitrary and capricious,” and force Arizona and New Mexico to watch a seriously depleted elk and deer population turn to ruin. Instead of facing a maximum of 300-325 wolves and a 15% impact on wild ungulates, like the Northern Rockies, there will be 3,000 to 6,000 wolves, disease, unsustainable ungulate herds in places, and ranchers run out of business and it will be business as usual.

I see that there are two issues that might make a difference. Arizona’s plan calls for the state’s withdrawal from the wolf program with all their assets if the Feds violate the agreement. The second is perhaps a half of a difference maker. If Arizona can get what they want in this impact statement, they will at least have a signed agreement. However, it will not matter because the Courts will change the entire plans. They always have and always will. History proves this point! (Please see street analogy above.)

That is why we are slaves within a rigged system. Maybe it’s time to walk a different street but I am not sure I know what street that is.

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

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.

Karen Budd-Falen Speaking At Sheriffs Stand TALL for Constitution

Interesting comments made in this video. Perhaps the first correct statement made is when she says our rights come from God. After making comments about the Constitution, she then speaks briefly about how environmentalists are stealing our money to destroy us. Her comment was (paraphrasing) that we are funding our own destruction.

SHOCK: “New” Wolf Discovered in Canada

Roll out the Endangered Species Act! We have a another fabricated wolf subspecies that needs to be protected!

“According to the results of a study published just two months ago, British Columbia’s mainland wolves and coastal wolves are more distinct than scientists previously thought. What makes this finding even more attention-getting is that not only were empirical scientific methods employed in the research but ecological perspectives gained from indigenous peoples. In fact, the impetus for the research came from common knowledge among First Nation tribes.”<<<Read More>>>


WOW!

And here is the truth of what’s really taking place, found in the article linked-to above:
“What may be even more important than the discovery of this new type of wolf is what the methodology of the study portends for the future of science. It could provide a new model for addressing today’s conservation challenges and opportunities.”

My God! This is equivalent to John Kerry’s claim, as head of the Aspen Institute, that its purpose is “to create NEW knowledge.” And here we have NEW knowledge. How convenient!

But I don’t get it. On Isle Royale, a secluded group of wolves interbred and basically extirpated themselves and yet here in British Columbia, for thousands of years an isolated pack of wolves evolved into a “new” wolf species. I’m just friggin’ blown away!

Minnesota Authorities Warn of Wolf Attacks

Seeing this reminds me of what is written in the 1994 Final Environmental Impact Statement(FEIS) that wolves in the Lower 48 states would not pose any significant threat to human health and safety. Of course I am sure that the authors of the FEIS didn’t think a few human lives was any big deal to lose when it comes to the protection and recovery of a species; one they claim they are required by the law of the Endangered Species Act to follow.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service personnel said the same things about diseases, parasites, worms and infections carried and spread by wolves. We also know that it can take 10-15 years, or more, before Hydatid cysts can show up in humans, if detected at all, so how long before we will be hearing about more Americans inflicted with Hydatidosis?

Certainly the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has learned very little since 1994 as their recent Draft Environmental Impact Statement, in order that the Feds can change the rules of the game in mid-stream, shows their willingness to acknowledge that diseases such as cystic echinococcosis exists but are unwilling to even recognize that as wolves continue to be overprotected and forced into human-settled landscapes, the odds that humans will not be infected shrink. If they did acknowledge this fact, due to human safety they would not be seeking to spread more wolf filth on the land.

GRAND MARAIS, Minn. — Northeastern Minnesota authorities are warning residents about wolves attacking dogs and approaching people in Cook County.<<<Read More>>>

1973 Endangered Species Act: A return of the Dark Centuries?

Prof. Hamburger’s 2014 book “Is Administrative Law Unlawful?” is described by National Review as a “serious work of legal scholarship on the return of the prerogative to our government.”

The professor shows how the unlimited power of the administrative state comes from the King’s prerogative, a special power that the Constitution was designed to prevent.

Published in 1890, Bancroft’s Works* Vol. 38 Essays and Miscellany at page 284 describes the English-American jury trial right as the end to the King’s prerogative.

And that begs the question: Did the Nevada rancher get a jury trial with regard to the taking of his preference grazing rights? Will we get jury trials when the same bureaucrats impose encumbrances through the 1973 Endangered Species Act on private Texas land?

Bancroft: “The right of trial by jury comes to the Englishmen more directly in the form of a victory. During the dark centuries, prerogative or despotism denied such a right.” Bancroft refers to the “… subtleties of the royal prerogative, or the learned malevolence.” Malevolence is defined as a vicious ill will.

“But later, with increase in intellectual strength and material stability, the people intrenched[sic] themselves in their rights, and since the magna charta this privilege has been held the dearest of a progressive people. It was a right guarded with vigilant care, and for which intelligent freemen everywhere would fight and die. To America came this sentiment, and was embodied in the constitutions of several states.”

“The victory originally achieved by the people over the government by the establishment of the jury system was the right of participation in the administration of the law. No man might thenceforth be jeopardized in person or property without appeal to his fellows for redress.”

“It was a sign of the increasing purity of political character and growing love of honesty and fair play.”

Bancroft goes on to state that, “When the government and the people were one the victory was complete.”

But with the lesser prairie chicken land grab, there is no jury trial right. We are called to evening meetings to participate in our own centrally planned and controlled impoverishment, the systematic destruction of American exceptionalism, and are allowed only to make ignorable comments about confiscatory administrative regulations that routinely and stubbornly violate ancient state land law, the US Constitution and our human dignity.

Control equals wealth. State/centralized control equals wealth for a tiny few politically well-connected people who can sometimes be referred to as oligarchs. Decentralized control means decentralized wealth, the same system that allowed my family and many millions of others to prosper in America according to our personal industry, luck, decision-making, risk-taking and more. The wealth from decentralized control created the highest per capita income in the world for Americans since the early 1830’s. On the other hand, centralized control of the modes of production, as Karl Marx puts it, is a proven 180 year loser, not to mention some 100 million deaths, subhuman misery and enslavement.

The politically deadly characteristic of the reborn prerogative is that it can contain and disguise and impose any -ism, if you will, on the American people. The prerogative can harbor the cancer of Communism, fascist Nationalism, environmentalism, worship in Gaia, animal liberation, earth liberation and Satan’s attitude of scarcity, just whatever the King wants. And all the -isms except individualism rob us of our God-given rights as set out in the Constitution.

By keeping us under-educated, a nationalized American educational system can serve to keep us too ignorant to learn how to simply say No and to get things turned around. The idea of personal liability imposed on the errant bureaucrat as discussed by Prof. Hamburger is appealing and might be the exact place to start. Especially on those who turned loose the wolves. In my opinion, it is worth a try.

Livy, sharing thoughts and opinion from a bunkhouse on the southern high plains of Texas.

*Notice that this volume of Bancroft’s Works was once owned about the 1950’s by a Texas public high school.

HubertBancroft

American enslavement to the Endangered Species Act in violation of Equal Protection and 13th Amendment

Antebellum USA: With slavery, we did the plantation owners’ bidding for nothing.
If we did not, we were punished.

21st Century USA: With the Endangered Species Act, we do the bureaucrats’ bidding for nothing.
If we do not, we are punished.

And we get to pick neither our plantation owners nor our bureaucrats.

And they both ignore our wishes, desires, dreams and rights.

Habitatism* is the priority of the habitat (the Marxist commune) over sacred individual Constitutional rights to be free from slavery. It’s a bad idea to get fatalistic and idly wait around to find out if modern slaves to habitatism can withstand $10,000 per day fines any better than 10 lashes per day for not doing the overseers’ bidding.

The time to rein in the Neo-Nazi Progressive Administrative State is now by changing a number of statutes in order to impose an effective two-strikes-and-you’re-out-of-a-government-job-for-life rule. No disbarment from the practice of law for administrative law judges whose decisions are overruled on constitutional grounds. If the judge is incapable of following the conceptually simple oath of office, then it’s time to find a private sector job.

Ayn Rand warned that the concept of the common good leads to enslavement. Now I see how.

*Habitatism is not a word right now, but we’ve been living under this concept for the past 40 years since the 1973 passage of the Endangered Species Act. Even in biblical times, 40 years is a long time. It’s time to find our way out of the wilderness.

Livy, sharing thoughts and opinion from a bunkhouse on the southern high plains of Texas.

Discussion of Habitatism refined

To some, the stupid nonsense of the 1973 Endangered Species Act claims to elevate the habitat needs of the subhuman to the same level of human needs. But experience proves that compromise is not possible, that one or the other wins the irreconcilable conflict, and for the past 40 years the needs of the subhuman win out over the needs of some 315 million Americans.

For example, any one of the some 315 million Americans could own preference grazing rights in Nevada. And a Nevada rancher’s preference grazing rights were superior to any competing grazing rights of all other humans on the face of the earth. But under the ESA, the human rancher’s preference grazing rights were not superior to the needs of the subhuman tortoise in Nevada. In such dehumanizing struggles, it is instructive to note that the victims of the holocaust were also denied their property rights, their dignity, their human rights. While Marx described property as theft, our Founders described property rights as human rights.

Under the ESA, the concept of habitat for subhumans is indistinguishable from the dominance of the greater good of the fascist Communist commune over sacred individual human rights set out in the US Constitution. Those sacred individual rights include the strict forbiddance of the taking of private property without just compensation. A time may well return when bureaucrats who use regulation to violate the law will be held personally liable for conduct deemed unlawful. Such personal liability may well extend also to those who aid, abet, encourage and contribute to causes that promote the dehumanization of the American public. When one person’s rights are trumped by militaristic bureaucratic centralized control, the bell tolls for all 315 million of us.

Readings from “The Federalist and Other Constitutional Papers”, Scott, 1902, make clear that the fundamental law of our Constitutional form of government is based on a humans-first public policy that Congress has no authority to legislatively alter. Congress has no authority to fundamentally change humans-first public policy either by expressly setting out radically new public policy as it purports to do in the Endangered Species Act any more than it has the authority to put fascist Nationalism, the Communist commune, the environment, Mother Earth, Gaia, Martians or mythical characters in priority over our human civil rights.

Livy, sharing thoughts and opinion from a bunkhouse on the southern high plains of Texas.

What is the magic of individualism vs. other -isms? Habitatism?

To begin with, adding -ism to the end of the word can denote the priority of the something.

To the non-law trained person, just exactly what is the expression of individualism of the American revolution referred to in an earlier writing that cited the encyclopedic reference to Hegel? Individualism is the priority of the individual. It is not dangerous egoism or anarchy as Vladimir Putin and his ilk would have you believe.

In fact, consider the peaceful society that we live in pursuant to the Constitution which sets out the individual right to free speech, the individual right to travel, the individual right to worship, the individual right to a jury trial, the individual right to cross-examine our accusers, the individual right to be paid just compensation for property taken for government purposes, the individual right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures, the individual right to be free from the quartering of troops in our homes, the individual right to assemble and so forth.

Consider also that our public officials swear an oath to God to defend (an active verb) our Constitution.

J. Roberts elegantly described the freedom of speech as having benefits to the citizens that outweigh the burden on government in 559 US 460.

Now consider one of the opposite political philosophies, fascist nationalism for example, in which the nation comes first, usually in the form of the greater common good (the same thing that Texas’ own Office of Public Interest Council claims to represent).

The UN was quoted as saying regionalism must precede globalism. Think now of Texas’ own regional planning commissions planning our private property groundwater rights away.

If fascist nationalism is the priority of the nation, communism the commune, environmentalism the environment, then habitatism is the priority of the habitat over individual rights. In other words, habitatism rejects our sacred individual human rights. Those rights to privately control property make America the exception to the claimed inevitability of world-wide Communism.

Habitatism is functionally indistinguishable from regionalism, globalism, environmentalism, communism, fascist nationalism in that all of these -isms lead to the use of militaristic actions we saw in the 1980’s in Poland and in 2014 in the Nevada Ranch standoff.

If not for our watered-down constitutional law education, lawyers would have figured this out long ago. If not for my further self-education after law school I would not know that our Founders considered our individualism, our individual rights, to be sacred, and to be from our Maker, thereby establishing in the US Constitution a humans-first public policy that Congress has no authority to alter through the Endangered Species Act for as the Texas Supreme Court similarly found in 1943 in 173 S.W.2d 1022, 1024, “It is fundamental that the Constitution is the paramount law of the state and cannot be altered by legislative amendments.”

Habitatism attempts to create through extralegal, supra legal and in an unlimited way through the increasingly questioned Administrative State, encumbrances that unlawfully subordinate all manner of legal rights including without limitation first lien mortgages (Deeds of Trust) on privately owned land otherwise held in fee simple title in Texas according to, and governed exclusively, by ancient land title law.

In my opinion, by approving the Endangered Species Act, President Nixon capitulated more than Vietnam to the cancer of Communist ideology in 1973.

Livy, sharing thoughts and opinion from a bunkhouse on the southern high plains of Texas.