May 25, 2019

Lupus Mathematica

Observe! What you see is nothing but a plain, ordinary, black, top hat. Look inside! Nothing in it. I’m going to wave my magical wand and a wolf puppy will pop out of my hat. Or some such nonsense. Here’s an example of voodoo Lupus Mathematica when it comes to an all out effort to protect the disease-carrying varmints – regardless of the cost to humans.

The other day I read in a few Online news accounts where one headline read: “Panel Rejects Tripling Wolf Harvest Near Yellowstone.” (emphasis added) What a frightening proposition that anyone would even suggest the idea of needlessly slaughtering three times the number of wolves that are already taken by hunters and government agents. Isn’t that the reaction sought by the media? Did you swallow the bait?

“OMG! I heard that Montana has at least 700 or 800 wolves and that last year evil, mentally ill, hunters and government agents killed 200 wolves. OMG! If Montana had planned to triple the wolf harvest…OMG! That’s over 600 wolves!” as some ignorant environmentalist would exclaim. Isn’t that the reaction sought by the media?

However, that’s not true but it’s how people emotionally react and part of that training comes from irresponsible headlines that read that Montana decides not to TRIPLE the wolf harvest – Oh, did anybody seriously mention that harvest was only NEAR Yellowstone? In an area with more than enough wolves to go around?

A more honest approach to this non issue news story would be to first present how many wolves government officials allowed to be harvested last year in this same region NEAR Yellowstone – that would be TWO WOLVES!

Officials had recommended increasing that quota to SIX WOLVES! However, that figure just doesn’t sound so threatening to wolves as does a statement to TRIPLE the wolf harvest.

Get a life!

Share

National Access Funding Cements Montana Elk Habitat, Public Access Project

Press Release from the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation:

MISSOULA, Mont.—The Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, U.S. Forest Service and other partners permanently protected 800 acres of prime elk habitat while also improving access to approximately 5,500 acres of surrounding public land in southwest Montana.

“The Land and Water Conservation Fund has been instrumental in our ability to secure recreational access to Montana’s public lands,” said Leanne Marten, Regional Forester of the Forest Service’s Northern Region. “Recreation is a major component of Montana’s economy and access to our forests is so important. We are proud that Zekes Meadow was the first use of the 2016 LWCF’s Priority Recreation Access appropriations in the National Forest System.”

“We are grateful to our partners for recognizing the conservation values of this particular project and its benefits for wildlife and public access,” said Blake Henning, RMEF vice president of Lands and Conservation. “We also thank our congressional lawmakers for supporting LWCF funding and urge them to fully reauthorize this vital program currently set to expire in 2018.”

Located in Granite County west of Georgetown Lake within the Rock Creek watershed, including its headwaters, the property consists of two inholdings on the Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest. The southernmost portion features aspen-lined meadows and riparian habitat including Moose Meadow Creek which provides spawning grounds for westslope cutthroat trout and bull trout. The northern section includes a ponderosa pine-dominated forest, springs, wetlands and streams that are home to nearly 500 elk as well as moose, deer, grizzly bear, mountain lion and wolverine.

As part of the transaction, RMEF conveyed the land to the USFS for management purposes. The project connected more than 15 miles of public trails on land that was previously difficult to reach. Hunters, hikers, anglers and others now have access to the trailhead and can park on the USFS property.

“The landowners were willing to sell the entire property in order for the Forest Service to be able to extend public access across the land,” said Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest, Pintler District Ranger Charlene Bucha. “This access connects to an extensive system of trails within the Sapphire Wilderness Study Area and secures backcountry recreation for horseback riding, hiking, fishing, camping, and hunting.”

LWCF Recreational Access Funding is used by federal agencies to secure access for the American public to its federal lands. Agencies work with willing landowners to secure rights-of-ways, easements or fee simple lands that provide public access, or consolidate federal ownership so that the public has intact places to hike, hunt and fish.

In addition to LWCF Recreational Access Funding via the USFS, other funding partners include RMEF’s Torstenson Family Endowment (TFE) and the Montana Fish and Wildlife Conservation Trust.

RMEF uses TFE funding solely to further its core mission programs of permanent land protection, habitat stewardship, elk restoration and hunting heritage.

Share

Wolves kill cattle in Absarokee area; Wildlife Services looks to eradicate pack

Two yearling heifers were killed by wolves near Absarokee on March 25, prompting Wildlife Services to set leg-hold snares near the cattle carcasses.The same Rosebud pack killed a yearling on a neighboring ranch along Fiddler Creek at the base of the Beartooth Front two months ago, according to John Steuber, state director of Montana Wildlife Services. The pack was also blamed for killing two calves last year — one in May and one in July.

Source: Wolves kill cattle in Absarokee area; Wildlife Services looks to eradicate pack | Outdoors | billingsgazette.com

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

If It Acts and Looks Like a Wolf Chasing Elk…it’s a Dog

Brian Nostrant took a photo from his home on Thursday of what appeared to be a wolf chasing elk on Mount Jumbo. He said he was looking out his window when he noticed the elk in an absolute panic.

Vivica Crowser with Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks said a wildlife biologist investigated the tracks, which lead back to the L- Trail, and determined they were a dog’s tracks.

Source: KTVH | Helena News | Great Falls News

Share

Wolf sighting prompts warning to school kids in Three Forks, Montana

The sighting was reported in an area north of Three Forks off of U.S. Highway 287 in the area of Wheatland Drive and Rolling Glenn.

Because of the sighting the three forks School District posted a warning to parents in the area – not to leave their kids unattended at nearby bus stops.

Source: Wolf sighting prompts warning in Three Forks – KRTV.com | Great Falls, Montana

Share

Anti – Immigration Rally Crowds Montana Courthouse Sidewalk

“Amarillo is overrun with refugees,” Sherman said. “Our city is failing because of the refugees. We have 22 different languages spoken in our schools, We’ve got 42 different languages being fielded by our 9-1-1 call centers, and crime is just through the roof. We need to exercise caution, especially for the sake of our children. In the city of Rotherton in the northern UK, 1,400 children have been beaten, raped and trafficked, and I’m not willing to subject my kids to that.”

Source: Anti – Immigration Rally Crowds Courthouse Sidewalk

Share

100-Plus Years to Realize What Settlers Learned in an Instant

*Editor’s Note* – I’ll never cease to be amazed at ignorance and how deeply ingrained into our society it is….or, this is simply a good money-making, job-security undertaking – “managing” wolves and acting stupid.

As settlers moved West, it was only a matter of hours before they figured out wolves were a problem. Add a few days to that and they soon realized killing one wolf caught with its paw in the cookie jar, didn’t stop wolves from attacking and killing more livestock…and sometimes people.

Push the clock ahead around over a hundred years, and brilliant, well-indoctrinated wildlife biologists, through ten years worth of data collection, are beginning to come to the conclusion that killing a problem wolf here and there, solves nothing.

But, just in case you’ve been asleep the past 20 years, the American people were lied to about wolves, wolf behavior and what kind of an impact (re)introducing wolves would have on people and livestock – THEY LIED!

Refusing to consider history, both in the United States and around the world, lying wolf pimps pushed for a (re)introduction – it meant millions of dollars. Ignorant Americans bought the lie. Most were just psychopaths in love with nasty wild dogs.

The history is clear! Wolves and human-settlement will not work. Settlers knew it in an instance. It didn’t take millions of dollars and illegal introductions, along with gobs of time and money spent on trying to figure out what a wolf would do if it found itself living just a short jog to a well-stocked ranch. The wolves attacked and the settlers killed them. And don’t buy into the lie that people killed wolves just because they were afraid of the boogie man. If you consider the intestinal fortitude it took to board a wagon and head into basically wilderness, I don’t think being afraid of wolves was first and foremost on their minds.

After the lies, illegal introductions of diseased wolves were let go, with no consideration of the Endangered Species Act of which is their cash cow.

Twenty years later, Montana wildlife officials think they have a better understanding of how to deal with wolves that become a problem for ranchers and their livestock. PROFOUND ISN’T IT?

Pick up a damned history book! It’s a no-brainer! Cheap too.

Ten years of data looking at how wolf-pack size and distribution predict livestock attacks has helped wolf managers improve their tools for protecting cattle and sheep. Livestock deaths have shown a steady decline in the past several years.

“When wolves were just starting to come back – when they were still federally protected – the goal was get them recovered and off the endangered species list,” Bradley said. “Sometimes those removals were conservative – one here and one there, to see if that would work. What we found was those small removals weren’t effective.

”In a cursory view, Bradley’s results seem obvious: Remove a wolf pack, remove a livestock problem.

Source: Wolf management reaching new levels of success in region | Local | missoulian.com

Share

Cuddling Up With a Wolf

MontanaWolf

Share

Highly Questionable Turkey, Open Border & Greater Tribal Sovereignty Policies Together Undermine U.S. National Security

*Editor’s Comment* – The linked-to “Working Paper” is an interesting read and one that should challenge readers to get to work to discover the real Truth in what is being discussed. As always, to me it is interesting when someone, innocent or otherwise, begins to discover things that raise eyebrows, the result being a compilation of interesting information presented as “facts” and “public information.” The difficulty with this, and I certainly am not questioning the author’s work, is that for Truth Seekers, we know that much of the “facts” and “public information” are lies and full of distractions. It becomes necessary to sort over what tidbits are the truth and which parts are lies intended to distract. For this reason readers need to get to work to discover what is truth based on real events and not based on media presentations, or even what the Government tells us.

I have not taken the time to research this entire paper, and I’m not sure I will, at least not immediately, as my time is usually focused on other matters, albeit matters that ultimately link to a common source. Which brings me to my only comment about the Working Paper that I will offer readers who are truly interested.

In part of the information, the authors mention that ISIS gets most of their funding from the “illegal” sale of crude oil – the sale of which is mostly handled by Turkey and then re-marketed to other clients. This has been offered many times and treated as common knowledge in the Press and elsewhere, even though it shouldn’t be. If nothing else and before anyone can begin to comprehend the depth of power and complexity of this, of which the Working Paper, in my opinion, has only scratched the surface, you have to understand that the ONLY way that ISIS could be selling oil to Turkey and then getting resold on the open market to fund ISIS, is because it is ALLOWED to do so.

Keep that in mind when reading this Paper and any subsequent research you might intend to do. If you also are one that chooses to trust the United States Government and their partners, unwilling to think otherwise, my recommendation for you is to not read the rest of this page or the working paper.

Abstract:

On September 4, and 9, 2015, the Associated Press released an article that dismissed and effectively ridiculed national security allegations contained in the previous lawsuit my co-counsel and I had filed on September 2, 2015, on behalf of two Montana State Senators and a Montana-based recreational enterprise. The AP article authored by journalist Matthew Volz was distributed over domestic and international newswires and appeared in web media as far away as Europe, the Middle East and Singapore. Mr. Volz and the AP were ostensibly offended that our lawsuit challenged the U.S. government’s approval of the virtually condition-free transfer of a “black start,” “category 3 hazard” hydroelectric powered dam (the Kerr Dam) to a “federally recognized” Native American tribe – the Confederated Salish & Kootenai Tribes (CSKT) of the Flathead Indian Reservation located in northwestern, Montana.

As the direct result of this reporting, we counsels and our clients had been castigated by the U.S. State Department and by the local liberal press as racially biased and conspiracy minded. This eventually caused our clients to seek voluntary withdrawal of this action. However, as subsequent publicly available facts have come to light, it has become more apparent that our lawsuit had actually struck a sensitive chord within the Obama administration by publicly exposing highly questionable policies that officials preferred remained covered up.

This Working Paper endeavors to relate the national security-oriented facts and allegations contained in our prior lawsuit to subsequently discovered publicly available information concerning the administration’s Turkey, open borders, and greater tribal sovereignty policies and initiatives. It then cross-analyzes these otherwise distinct and separate policy areas to show how their implementation together serves to undermine U.S. national security and the security of Montanans.

Given Turkey nuclear ambitions and Obama administration support therefor, Erdogan and Obama administration support of the Muslim Brotherhood and ISIS, Obama administration open border policies benefiting Middle Eastern refugees, Mexican drug cartels and Latin American migrants, and Obama administration federal Indian policies promoting expansive tribal sovereignty at the expense of U.S. constitutional protections and federal and state laws, reasonable persons can conclude that our prior lawsuit’s allegations against Turkey were rather prescient, and that, consequently, U.S. national security and the security of Montanans are being greatly undermined. Moreover, reasonable persons can conclude that failure to act to protect Montanans’ rights may imply for those who we oppose, that we are complicit in their objectives. For this reason, we are currently drafting a new lawsuit that seeks redress for the harms our new clients continue to suffer as the result of these and other questionable administration policies.<<<To the Working Paper>>>

 

Share