September 19, 2018

Money Talks and Bears Get Shot

Transplanting “problem” bears to another location sets the stage for a negligence lawsuit that could cost governments, universities and private entities millions of dollars.<<<Read the Story>>>

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

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

Predator control in the North

Wolf experts agreed that wolf numbers have fully recovered and they are reestablishing farther south near cities where they were never intended to be. Wolves at present cannot be controlled because of lawsuits filed by the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS). This lawsuit takes away the states’ (DNR) right to manage our wolf population. Wolf numbers are at record levels, we should be celebrating the successful wolf reestablishment under the Endangered Species Act, but no, HSUS is spending its funds through litigation to take away our state’s rights to manage our wolf population.

Source: Predator control in the North – The Lakeland Times – Minocqua, Wisc.

Share

Are Lawsuits In The Works Where Congress “Delisted” Wolves?

We find in the news that certain environmental groups who make their living filing lawsuits, have petitioned the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to continue monitoring state wolf management even after the five-year mandate, as part of the plan that approved wolf delisting in Montana and Idaho, which expires this year. The petition claims that management plans in place now are leading to the destruction of the wolf packs in Montana.

If readers will recall, it took an act of Congress to finally remove wolves from Federal protection under the Endangered Species Act. That action called for an immediate relisting in the Federal Register of the 2009 plan to delist wolves, along with a statement that nobody could bring lawsuits against the action.

That action took place in 2011 and this year’s part of that plan states that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service no longer is required to fully monitor the actions of state fish and wildlife agencies in managing gray wolves.

The question becomes one of whether or not anyone can file a lawsuit against the USFWS to force the Service to continue full monitoring. History should have taught us that if anyone can get their case to court, a hand-picked judge will more than likely agree with the environmentalists. Now that the five-year requirement is about to expire, does the actions of Congress in 2011 prevent lawsuits against five-year monitoring? Not everyone thinks so.

In an email received from Dr. Charles Kay, wildlife ecology, Utah State University, he states: “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.

Kay suggests that a lawsuit could put the case back in the Courts, at which time, “they will sue and their favorite judge will put wolves BACK on the ESA list!”

If lawyers and the Courts manipulate the 2011 action by Congress that would allow for litigation over Federal monitoring of wolves after the five-year mandatory monitoring, then what is to stop full litigation to claim that management is not allowing for the full recovery of wolves, i.e. the USFWS and states are not properly managing wolves as required by the Endangered Species Act and Wolf Recovery Plan?

I agree with Dr. Kay. This isn’t over. If readers will recall, I was one of few advocates for proper wildlife management who disagreed with the Congressional action – action that was part of an omnibus spending bill – to delist wolves. I said it was not a long-term solution to a more serious problem and that such action would come back and bite the hind end of those pushing for the measure.

Share

PLF sues Corps of Engineers for First Amendment retaliation against Duarte Nursery

Today, after the federal court granted leave to file an amended pleading, Duarte Nursery, Inc., and its president, John Duarte, filed this amended complaint against the United States and the Corps of Engineers, to add a claim for First Amendment … Continue reading ?

Source: PLF sues Corps of Engineers for First Amendment retaliation against Duarte Nursery – PLF Liberty Blog

Share

Washington State Considers Criminalizing Holding Whales and Dolphins in Aquariums

Strategy Follows PETA’s Failed Litigation Campaign to Free Whales from “Bondage”

New York, NY/Washington DC – Washington state Senator Kevin Ranker introduced a bill last week to make it a crime, punishable by up to 6 months in jail and a $100,000 fine, to hold whales, dolphins or porpoises, known as cetaceans, in aquariums.

The following is a statement by Jeff Stier, head of the National Center for Public Policy Research’s Risk Analysis Division:

Radical animal activists don’t believe that humans should own animals or keep them in captivity, even for public educational purposes, even in tremendously large habitats.

When SeaWorld announced last year that it would double the size of its orca tanks to 10 million gallons, PETA attorney Jared Goodman issued a statement opposing the move, saying “A bigger prison is still a prison.” To Mr. Goodman and his anti-aquarium allies, all orcas, even those bred in captivity, should be “reunited” with their families in the open ocean.

PETA’s 2015 legislative approach, radical as it is, is certainly gaining more traction than its 2011 litigation strategy. Then, PETA filed suit in federal court in Southern California seeking to declare that SeaWorld’s whales are being held in slavery in violation of the 13th Amendment. The failed litigation sought a court-ordered release of the whales “from bondage.” CNN reported that the suit sought ‘a permanent order against holding them in slavery, as well as appointment of a legal guardian to carry out the transfer of the whales to a suitable habitat.’

Much of the impetus for the Washington state legislation under consideration, and similar bans that passed last year in New York state and San Francisco, was the advocacy film “Blackfish,” which aired nearly thirty times on CNN. CNN’s director of public relations, Jennifer Dargan, conceded to me that the film was “acquired” by the news organization and did not adhere to any of CNN’s journalistic standards.

Activists have recently blamed Walmart for obesity, SeaWorld for animal suffering and Uber for high transportation costs. The truth is, those who oppose the private sector economy and consumer choice will find villains regardless of the facts.

Jeffrey Ventre, who was fired from his job as a whale trainer at SeaWorld and has since enjoyed the limelight from his appearance in “Blackfish,” crowed that the recent legislation is the “proverbial writing on the wall” for an end to cetaceans in aquariums.

Ultimately, the radical animal activist agenda goes well beyond ending human interaction with animals outside of the wild – and zoos and aquariums as we know them. Some of these activists, who hold that animals aren’t property to be owned by humans, argue that we shouldn’t be allowed to own pets.

As one commenter on Twitter put it, “I see a Pixar’s ‘WALL-E’-type world looming in the near future.”
The National Center for Public Policy Research, founded in 1982, is a non- partisan, free-market, independent conservative think-tank. Ninety-four percent of its support comes from individuals, less than four percent from foundations, and less than two percent from corporations. It receives over 350,000 individual contributions a year from over 96,000 active recent contributors.

Contributions are tax-deductible and greatly appreciated.

Share

HSUS Will “Accept” a “Threatened” Classification for Wolves

This is the leading paragraph in a news story found in the Star Tribune:

Animal protection and environmental advocates in Minnesota and nationally have informed federal regulators that they would accept a reduced level of protection for wolves in order to avert a congressional effort to remove all protections for the species.

<<<Read More>>>

I do understand that these are words of the reporter and author of the article and not directly those of the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) or any other environmentalist group. However, the question I would like to ask is who in the hell does the HSUS think they are that they can TELL federal regulators what they will and will not accept? Who died and left them in charge of all things environmental.

The message I would have for HSUS I will not put to print…thank you.

Isn’t it just a bit too late? This move is an obvious sign that the environmentalists are running scared envisioning an act of Congress that would spoil their party. Too bad and too late! You pushed and you pushed and you pushed. Always demanding and taking more. NEVER GIVING! Now it is time to pay the fiddler.

I am not an advocate of managing wildlife with politics but I am hoping that Congress comes down hard on this issue and not only prevents wolves from any longer being needlessly protected but takes away their gravy train of lawsuits. Color me vindictive.

Perhaps the chickens are headed toward the roost in the hen house.

Share

Politicians Make Plans to Circumvent Environmental Lawsuits and Activist Judges

Once again we are seeing and hearing of efforts to introduce legislation to manage and control wolves. It appears four members of the U.S. House of Representatives from Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan and Wyoming are proposing a bill that would: “…allow the Great Lakes states to continue the effective work they are doing in managing wolf populations without tying the hands of the Fish and Wildlife Service or undermining the Endangered Species Act.”

There is no text of this proposed bill and people should hold their applause until they see it. This is nothing more than a direct result of environmentalist’s demand for predator protection going too far. When one studies the entire history of what led up to the writing of the Endangered Species Act (ESA), they discover that the intent was to protect and save species that were recklessly being threatened. All attempts at protecting those species intended to be grounded in reasonable administration, with little or no effect on local economies, private property, human safety or, in general, that no plant or animal would take precedence over the welfare of human beings. This nonsense of ESA abuse and corruption has driven more and more people to their edges and now we are witnessing the push back.

Idaho and Montana got wolves removed from federal protection as well as a ban on any further litigation to stop the delisting. This was achieved by attaching a rider to an omnibus budget bill. Doubts are it would have stood alone as a separate bill. Wyoming, said to have been “thrown under the bus” during the Idaho and Montana event, eventually achieved delisting but subsequent activist court rulings have placed the wolf back on the ESA list.

The Western Great Lakes wolf population was removed from ESA protection but another activist judge in Washington, D.C. placed wolves back under ESA protection because she believed in the all or nothing principle that no species listed as threatened or endangered should be removed from protection anywhere until that species is fully recovered throughout its entire historic range.

And so, the nonsense continues!

What is puzzling is that in the article linked to above, Rep. Reid Ribble of Wisconsin seems concerned that his proposal wouldn’t “undermining the Endangered Species Act.” Well, why not. We already have one act of Congress to get around the draconian laws of the Endangered Species Act and endless lawsuits that have, because of abuse and corruption, gotten out of control, and another end around planned. This should speak volumes to any sane person that there is something seriously wrong with any law that when administered, fosters the results of rights intrusion and usurpation, public health and safety and the ability of local governments to take care of their own business without subversive actions by governmental and non governmental agencies.

So, one has to ask why the need to tip-toe around the ESA? If it is prohibiting sensible wildlife management while destroying the life, liberty and pursuit of happiness of individuals, one can only hope that the end around bill proposal is more of a stop gap effort to be followed by permanent and effective amendments to or the complete overturning of the ESA.

And so, the nonsense continues!

ESALegalFees

Share

A Revelation of Really Ignorant Newspaper Editorial Boards

Still whining like spoiled brat children, the Editorial Board of the Portland Press Herald Newspaper continues to moan about how unfair it was that members of the Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW) and the Maine Warden Service (MWS) participated in the recent anti human, bear referendum as a means of providing facts and data about what bear management was like. They lost and so they want to change the rules. What else is knew. God forbid that we should have informed voters.

Aside from the fact that the written text of the editorial makes little sense, on the one hand complains that it wasn’t right for employees to do this while in the next breath vows that little should be done to stop this unfair, in their eyes, practice. Fake compromise.

Utilizing the old and worn out technique of “comparison” shopping, the paper first attempts to equate the participation of state employees – in uniform…gasp – to pornography. If you call them out on it they will simply say they were making a point that a judge, who has nothing to do with the bear referendum, claimed they would recognize pornography when they saw it. Consider that for a moment. This reveals a poor judge and one that seems to be part of a promotion campaign by the Press Herald as being a good thing that a judge administers justice, via the judicial branch, by his or her perception of what should and shouldn’t be, based on their own moral standards.

Whether it is right or wrong, in your opinion, that the Editorial Board invoked the comparison of pornography, matters very little because the words are written and the damage done. The state of Maine now employees pornographic professionals according to the Portland Press Herald.

Equating the recognition of pornography by a judge in 1964 to actions by members of the MDIFW and MWS to provide facts about bear management, the Board says that they see no difference in that any judge should be able to see the two issues as the same.

We feel the same way about the involvement of state agencies and their employees in political campaigns. Sometimes it doesn’t bother us; other times it does. When does it go too far? It’s hard to know exactly where to draw the line, but we know it when we see it.

Evidently the Editorial Board has recognized pornographic equivalencies between one judge’s moral or immoral perception of pornography and one judge’s interpretation of Maine law that it is not illegal for the MDIFW to do what it did during this bear referendum. Voters need to be informed but those promoting the referendum wanted to censor MDFIW and MWS because the facts didn’t agree with their propaganda.

Other than having their own media platform to preach from, what is it the Editorial Board wants? I think they want their cake and eat it too.

We think officials should give their expert opinion and individuals should exercise their free speech rights. But as Justice Stewart said, this was not that – or at least it didn’t look like that.

What we saw appeared to be the enormous power of state government wielded against a group of citizens who were calling for a change in state law.

This is nothing but sour grapes from a bunch of misinformed and not informed losers who want to be able to exercise their rights so long as they can win with them. If they can’t, then they want to change the rules.

Surely if the Department of Environmental Protection was challenged through referendum by an out of state group with no interest in Maine government affairs, voters would want to know facts about the issue and whether or not the current administration supports or opposes the effort and why.

I see it as typical childish behavior, the result of not getting your way. It’s also irresponsible and unprofessional to attempt to smear the reputations of the MDIFW and the MWS by equating their activities to that of the promoters of pornography. Then, after accomplishing what they really set out to do, they attempted to paint themselves as some sort of reasonable and moderate compromisers; above the common fray.

But because what they did was so far from the norm, we think the Legislature should not go too far in its reaction. Just as we don’t want to see state employees getting too involved in political campaigns, we also don’t want them to be barred from participating. There is room for a happy medium, and the fact that this has not been a problem in the past should remind people that it might not need such a stringent solution.

The real issue here is that animal rights and environmental left-wing perverts lost their attempt to destroy all things normal. This began to reveal itself when the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) sued the state in the middle of the campaign in order to stop MDIFW and the MWS from doing what they should have been doing – educating the public.

Some attempted to hide behind the issue of transparency in costs to the state but that proved itself to not be the driving force in the lawsuit, nor is it the driving force behind efforts such as the Press Herald smearing the MDIFW and MWS. They don’t want transparency. They want an end to hunting, trapping and fishing. They will persist until they get it. After all, if a brat bangs his head on the floor until blood is drawn, any parent will give in.

Share