December 12, 2019

Expanded US habitat protection ordered for rare lynx

*Editor’s Note* – Here is a prime example of what is wrong with everything involved in government. This includes the Court System. Nobody knows what the Canada lynx population is…anywhere. Nobody knows what the lynx population used to be or ever was. However, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, kow-towing to their Environmentalists buddies, list the species as needing protecting, and along with it designating “critical habitat.” In Maine, this designation is beginning to upset the entire managed wildlife structure.

In addition, the judge, who shouldn’t be ruling on such matters, according to this report, ordered the USFWS to designate MORE critical habitat because they didn’t do it five years ago. Make a lot of sense?

For those interested, a copy of the Court’s decision can be found here.

SALMON, Idaho — A federal judge ordered U.S. wildlife managers on Wednesday to enlarge habitat protections in Idaho, Montana and Colorado for the Canada lynx, a rare wild cat that roams the Rockies and mountain forests of several other states.

Chief U.S. District Judge Dana Christensen in Missoula, Montana, ruled that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service erred in 2014 when it revised its critical habitat designations for the lynx with little or no expansion beyond the original plan issued five years earlier.

The Canada lynx, whose large paws make it well adapted to hunting in deep, mountain snows, was listed in 2000 as threatened under the U.S. Endangered Species Act.

The lynx is not considered imperiled in Alaska or Canada, where it ranges widely in forest areas, but its population in the Lower 48 states is believed to be small, though actual numbers are unknown, according to government scientists. (emboldening added)<<<Read More>>>

Share

Removing the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem Population of Grizzly Bears From the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce the reopening of the public comment period on our March 11, 2016, proposed rule to revise the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife, under the authority of the Endangered Species Act, by removing the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem population of grizzly bears (Ursus arctos horribilis). In our proposed rule, we emphasized that the governments of Montana, Wyoming, and Idaho needed to promulgate regulations managing human-caused mortality of grizzly bears before we would proceed with a final rule. Montana, Wyoming, and Idaho recently finalized such mechanisms. We are also announcing the receipt of five independent peer reviews of the proposed rule. We are reopening the comment period for the proposed rule to allow all interested parties an additional opportunity to comment on the proposed rule in light of these documents. If you submitted comments previously, you do not need to resubmit them because we have already incorporated them into the public record and will fully consider them in preparing the final rule.<<<Read More>>>

Share

INSANITY: Contrasting Principles of Wolf Management

Check out this statement from the Idaho Statesman: “They’re asking a federal judge to force the agency to prepare an environmental impact statement, a lengthy process, and issue a temporary restraining order preventing the agency from killing wolves in Idaho until the updated analysis complying with federal environmental law is complete.”

Odd and ironic, that in Arizona and New Mexico, state agencies there are trying to force the Federal Government to devise an up-to-date environmental impact plan for increased introduction of Mexican wolves, where the environmentalists are protesting the move by the states to do this. And yet, here in Idaho, the environmentalists are demanding the same creation of a new environmental impact plan from the Federal Government, so wolves can’t be killed.

You can’t make this stuff up! It’s always a baffling of the mind when dealing with insanity.

Share

Evidently Global Warming is Causing More Moose in Connecticut

…Or something.

Ridgefield, Connecticut, where I have heard that at Trick or Treat time, butlers, dressed in black tie and tails, answer the door presenting the greedy little monsters with one-pound Hershey bars on a silver platter, is considering difficulties in what to do with a growing moose population.

Oh, the confusion!

Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive…or maybe it’s partly due to the lack of an honest education and the failure to gain truthful understanding. But, that doesn’t sell copies much.

The Ridgefield Press runs a story that first claims that in history regarding the moose, “the natives killed only what they absolutely needed.” Such conservationist purists those Native Americans were…in our garbage-filled minds. Were these the same conservationist purists natives that ran buffalo over cliffs just for the fun of it? No, I guess there were no buffalo in Connecticut back when, in our ignorant eyes, everything was perfect, meticulously cared for, i.e. the ultimate in “sustainability.” The natives must have called it Agenda 17?

I don’t want to miss the bigger false picture here. Moose are commonly found today in places like Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, New York, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Idaho, and yes, I’m sure I’ve offended somebody because I didn’t mention their state. In all of those states, we are told that moose are dying due to global warming climate change.

Today, we learned that the Constitution State – Connecticut – has a moose herd numbering 120 and growing. Some of those moose have wandered into the town of Ridgefield.

The article seems to attribute the regrowth of moose in Connecticut to an end of farming and logging. That there are now dense forests in parts of Connecticut, seems to be the reason given that moose are returning – no thought about the actual habitat and whether it is conducive to growing moose. Nope, if there are trees all animals will live and thrive. It’s in a book somewhere.

In just about every state that has moose in them – these are all northern states -, officials say that moose are on the very southern fringe of their range and that because of global warming (they like to hide behind the term climate change now) the moose are dying out and/or moving north to colder climes. In addition, some of these same northern states, in order to take full advantage of free money (wink, wink). research is being conducted on the moose and how winter ticks contribute to their demise. Of course, an upsurge in winter ticks is caused by…you guessed it, global warming climate change.

I suppose that biologists steer clear of any consideration of loss of moose due to predators, because there’s no money in it and they have yet to make a global warming climate change connection between predators and the killing of moose. It will come though. It’s only a matter of time.

Global warming Climate change, we are told, is killing our moose, partly because, we are told, the moose in the Lower 48 are at their southern fringe of existence. The same biologists tell us that the whitetail deer in places like Maine, are at their northern fringe of suitable habitat. Water in a river can’t run in both directions, no more that global warming climate change can be responsible for killing moose, while at the same time not causing the deer herd to thrive. It’s only common sense.

Moose in Connecticut, according to the experts, are far south of their “southern fringe.” According to information in this article, environmentalists drove out all the farmers and put an end to logging, and the result is more moose – apparently with no consideration for global warming climate change.

Now just how can that be?

CtGlobalWarming

RidgefieldCT

Share

Six dogs killed by wolves in east Idaho

There is no open wolf season right now in Unit 62, but the hunters would have been in their legal right to shoot the wolves if they had seen them harm their hounds. It is rare for multiple dogs to be killed by wolves in such a short amount of time in the same area. But Losinski said that’s one of the risks of hunting with hounds in an area that’s populated with at least one wolf pack, as well as black and grizzly bears.

“Wolves consider any other canines as rival wolves, and in their world, it’s kill or be killed,” Losinski said.

Source: Six dogs killed by wolves in east Idaho | News | idahostatejournal.com

Share

New Mexico Plans Lawsuit to Stop USFWS From Releasing More Mongrel Dogs

GOOD LUCK WITH THAT!

Last October I shared with readers that the State of New Mexico was going to fight the Federal Government – the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service(USFWS) – if the USFWS made plans to introduce more federally protected Mexican gray wolves in that state.

Because of the very clear and precise history of the USFWS, to do just as they please, regardless of what anybody, state or individual, thinks, it’s a no-brainer to understand what the Feds will do and what that outcome will be. In October, I wrote: “No, there shouldn’t be any questions about what the Feds are going to do in New Mexico or anywhere else they decide to force people to live with wolves. If it destroys the American Heritage, including the freedom to pursue life, liberty and happiness, these fascists have and will continue to carry on with business as usual.”

Today we learn that the State of New Mexico plans to file a lawsuit to stop the USFWS from dropping more mongrel dogs onto lands within that state. New Mexico officials say that the Fed’s plans are “unpermitted and illegal,” claiming the USFWS needs permission from New Mexico to release its GI Wolves.

The USFWS says it doesn’t need any permission and it is not illegal to do what they are doing. Let it be known, again, that the Feds will do as they damned well please, because they always have and they know that the Courts are on their side, while the environmental subsidiaries of the U.S. Government will do their bidding for them.

Consider Idaho as an example. The State of Idaho crafted a wolf management plan and expressly wrote into that plan that the Fish and Game Department could not vary from that plan without approval by the state’s legislators. No official permit or permission was ever granted to the Feds for wolf introduction and the Fish and Game changed the wolf management plan to fit the desires of the USFWS – without approval by the legislature. Why does New Mexico think the USFWS gives a rat’s petooty whether the state approves of their actions or not? They will do as they please! And the Courts are all in on wolf introduction.

But has anybody even considered questioning whether New Mexico is actually interested in stopping the Feds from introducing more mongrel mutts? I doubt it. I am of the opinion that New Mexico knows they can’t win such a proposed lawsuit and are only doing it to placate a few. Otherwise, you would think the smart lawyers for the State of New Mexico would use the weapons of the USFWS and the Environmentalists against them and file a suit challenging their claimed science, against the Endangered Species Act, rather than whether of not the USFWS needs permission from the state to release more wolves.

Everyone knows, but few will willingly admit, that these fake Mexican Wolves are mongrel, captive-bred, hybridized canines. The USFWS, in their exclamation that they are required by law to “recover” the Mexican wolf, state that the introduction of even more mongrel dogs is necessary to “improve the genetic diversity and reduce the kinship of the Mexican wolves in the wild to achieve recovery.”

It would seem to me that New Mexico, if they were sincerely interested in stopping the release of more dogs, would approach this from the position of whether or not these released wolves are, in fact wolves, and whether or not they meet the requirements of the Endangered Species Act as a “Distinct Population Segment” of a threatened wolf species.

How does the USFWS intend to “improve the genetic diversity” if all they have is genetically inferior DNA to mix with already genetically inferior fake, wild dogs? The USFWS will have to implement a continual process of captive breeding more mutts to dump in the woods because the inferior genetics is partly to blame for the failure of the species to grow on its own.

BUT DON’T GO LOOK!

New Mexico has a zero percent chance of stopping the Feds with the approach they are using, which makes me believe they don’t really intend to.

But what do I know?

Share

Peasant Brooders Available From Gamebird Foundation

Hi All.
The Gamebird Foundation has a couple of Brooders for raising baby pheasant chicks.  One is a 6 foot brooder with an 8 foot enclosed run.
The other is a 8 foot brooder with an 8 foot enclosed run.  Both have either electric heat or we have propane heaters and tanks.  They also come with automatic waters so you only fill every couple days.  The 6 foot will handle 100 baby chicks and the 8 foot will handle 150 baby chicks.  The Gamebird foundation will lone the brooder and we will furnish you with baby pheasant chicks.  We have starter feed for the chicks.  We pay $20.00 a bag. It takes 5 bags to get the birds to 4 weeks old.  If you need help with the cost of the feed the Gamebird Foundation can help.  We will give you all the help with what knowledge we have to get you started.  We have some large soft release pens that you can put them in after 4 weeks to keep till they are another 2 to 4 weeks old.  You can contact me at 208-883-3423, or email me at jhag1@frontier.com.
The Gamebird foundation needs a feed grinder.  We are a 501©3 Corp.  If you have or know of some one that has one we could give a tax right of for it.  If you want to donate some cash for feed we can give a tax right off for your donation.  It looks like this year we will raise and release about 6000 birds.  Some of the birds you are seeing now are birds that have been raised and released.  If you notice the roosters are much darker.  The birds we release are what are called the Kansas Hybrid.  The ring around their neck is wider than the roosters of old.  Baby chicks started coming from the incubators this week.  We will wait a couple more weeks here in the Palouse.  Down in the valley you can start any time.
Share

Cute, Cuddly Little Puppy

Reports are this wolf was trapped in Idaho.

IdahoWolf

Share

I Thought Wolf Delisting Law Prohibited Judicial Review

wolfutahIn March of 2011, I told readers that the Baucus/Tester rider bill on a federal budget continuing resolution was a fraud, corrupt, designed to exhort money and destroy urban America, deceptive, dishonest, political regurgitation, crooked, destructive, inequitable, preferential, and unconstitutional. I think I got all the bases covered. In short, I did not like it very much. I do recall on more than occasion saying that passage of this bill would come back and bite us all on the ass. The chickens have come home to roost.

First, a little history. Efforts by a small group of concerned citizens believing in the need for sensible wolf management and control, spent a great deal of time to get someone in Congress to work toward getting the Endangered Species Act amended, that would yield real results aimed at limiting the ability of environmental groups to bring frivolous lawsuits and managing wildlife through the court system.

Good and positive progress was made in Washington until another group of so-called sportsmen, decided their politics were more important than productive and equitable wildlife management. Having access to lots of money, they were successful in destroying the years of effort many of us had put in and in it’s place was born the rider bill to a budget continuing resolution brought by Senators Baucus and Tester.

*Note* – More information on the rider bill and the political shenanigans can be found here and here.

The “rider,” attached to the continuing resolution, reads as follows:

SEC. 1713. Before the end of the 60-day period beginning on the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the Interior shall reissue the final rule published on April 2, 2009 (74 Fed. Reg. 15123 et seq.) without regard to any other provision of statute or regulation that applies to issuance of such rule. Such reissuance (including this section) shall not be subject to judicial review and shall not abrogate or otherwise have any effect on the order and judgment issued by the United States District Court for the District of Wyoming in Case Numbers 09–CV–118J and 09–CV–138J on November 18, 2010.

*Note* – I added the links in this rider bill text for truth seekers interested in research. I also emboldened parts of the text.

On April 2, 2009, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) published in the Federal Register the plan to delist wolves in the Northern Rocky Mountains. This was challenged in the Courts and wolf delisting was repealed and wolves were placed back under protection of the Endangered Species Act. Subsequent attempts to delist, were, once again, met with lawsuits, until, out of frustration with trying to deal with a serious issue through normal channels, we ended up with passage of the rider bill shown above.

But did we then and do we now understand what that bill actually says? It is typical politician and lawyer mumbo-jumbo B.S., designed to deceive and leave wide open the door for further litigation and interpretation. (Defined as a way to make gobs more money.)

Dr. Charles Kay, wildlife ecology, Utah State University had said from the time of passage of the Baucus/Tester bill, that the wording of the bill is such that it ends the prohibition of litigation at the end of the mandated, 5-year monitoring period, which is found in 74 Fed. Reg. 15123 et seq. Upon hearing that environmental groups intended to sue the USFWS when the 5-year monitoring ended, Kay said, ““Congress said that the 2009 delisting regulations were the law of the land and that there was to be no more litigation regarding the 2009 regulations, which include a provision that the Feds monitor state management for 5 years before fully removing wolves from federal control……..Congress did not say that final removal of federal oversight could not be litigated.

What do you think the text means?

First we read that the Secretary of Interior must reissue the 2009 Final Rule to delist wolves. Simple enough. The text clearly states that the Final Rule has precedence or authority over any “statutes or regulations” that have been issued in this case. In other words, all previous court rulings from lawsuits brought after the initial filing of the 2009 Final Rule, are void.

Now comes the confusing words – I believe added by design (political bantering and corrupt back-scratching). Such reissuance (including this section) shall not be subject to judicial review … Assuming that “including this section” means Sec. 1713 (shown above) then it must be interpreted to  mean that the passage of the continuing resolution, including Sec. 1713, cannot be challenged in a court of law.

I read the rest to mean that the “reissuance” of the 2009 Final Rule cannot be challenged in a court of law. What isn’t clear is whether or not the reissuance of the 2009 Final Rule can ever be challenged in a court of law. I see nothing in the above text that even prohibits lawsuits after the reissuance. All I read is that the act of reissuing a Final Rule cannot be challenged.

Perhaps a closer look at the actual Final Rule will shed more light. The Endangered Species Act requires that from the time of issuance of a Final Rule to remove a species from ESA protection, a period of, no less than, 5 years must be set aside for the USFWS to monitor the species and the actions of a state’s management plans and results. Inside that 5-year monitoring, the USFWS has authority to intervene and place a species back under federal protection if they so deem appropriate. In other words, the Feds have authority over the wolf management plan. After the 5-years, then what. Is the Final Rule null and void? If after the 5 years and the USFWS sees no further need to monitor the wolf, then isn’t it probable that from then into the future should the USFWS want to put wolves back under protection of the Endangered Species Act, they would have to begin the process all over again? Which would include no restrictions on lawsuits.

One might assume that under “normal” administration of the ESA and a final rule, that anyone would be free to petition and ultimately file a lawsuit intended to force the USFWS to continue monitoring of a species, should such a suit provide evidence to show a species may be in peril under existing circumstances. Because in this case, it is not normal, do environmentalist groups have freedom to challenge any part of the “reissuance” of the 2009 Final Rule?

Sec. 1713 of the Continuing Resolution says that the “reissuance” cannot be challenged. Now that the Final Rule has been reissued and the 5-year monitoring is near complete, can wolf delisting in Montana and Idaho be challenged?

I would assume that if it can, then any part of the delisting of wolves in Montana, Idaho or anywhere else in the United States can be challenged in a court of law. That being the case, then we should expect that with the past history of wolf litigation, along with the mostly bought-and-paid-for judges, wolves will systematically be declared endangered and will be federally protected anywhere the environmentalists would like for them to be, along with the help of the Courts.

Therefore, I return to my original anger when certain “sportsmen” groups used their own political agendas to destroy an effort in Congress that would have prevented such lawsuit nonsense. Instead, we are right back to square one where management of wolves is fully in the hands of the Courts.

In an email just the other day, I shared with a few recipients to remind them that the USFWS has never won a wolf lawsuit brought by environmentalists. As a matter of fact, I don’t think they have even challenged a court ruling on wolves.

Partisan politics, rooted in power hungry greed, destroys everything. That is why Washington is a dysfunctional cesspool of corruption and criminal activity.

 

Share

Rational Predator Control for Sensible Wildlife Management

Steve Alder, executive director of Idaho for Wildlife, was quoted in the Lewiston Tribune:

Steve Alder of Lewiston, executive director of Idaho For Wildlife, said elk have no other relief from wolves in remote areas such as the Lolo zone. He contends wolves in areas closer to rural populations are exposed to higher hunting pressure and are also killed when they prey on livestock.

“Anywhere in the state we have backcountry areas, the elk numbers have plummeted,” he said. “We can have a lot of nothing, or we can do control measures to have a few elk and a few wolves.”

Share