January 16, 2018

Oregon Court Accepts RMEF’s Brief in Wolf Lawsuit

*Editor’s Note* – It is not clear from RMEF’s quote by CEO and President David Allen, “We stand shoulder-to-shoulder with the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, its professional biologists and wildlife managers, and the Fish and Wildlife Commission in carrying out their duty of managing all of Oregon’s wildlife,” precisely what this means. Certainly, one should not expect that the RMEF would blindly and willingly support and approve every action of the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW). So, I am assuming this statement is in reference ONLY to supporting the ODFW in thwarting the lawsuit brought on by environmentalists.

However, the presser below further describes the State of Oregon’s management plan for wolves offering protections of wolves that obviously involve promoting them within settled landscapes.

In a recent article I was reading on the Wolf Education International website, the world organization posted it’s position specifically about the perpetuation and protection of wild or semi-wild hybrid canines and in general concerning doing so in settled landscapes, which essentially encourages conflicts with people, as well as property destruction, and the encouragement of further hybridization of the canine species.  Here is that WEI position statement: It is the position of the majority members of Wolf Education International that the breeding, perpetuation and protection of hybrid, and/or canine mixtures, in the wild and under the claim of sustaining a wolf species or subspecies, is wrong scientifically as well as poses a direct threat to public safety, health, and private property. WEI supports sustaining real wolves in wild places, where they are acceptable to those communities asked to live with them not in settled landscapes where conflicts with the full range of human presence, human activities, and the costs of managing wolves and their impacts are not acceptable and sensibly judged to be prohibitive.”

I would at least encourage the RMEF, if they don’t already, to consider publicly supporting (and making a statement) this position of the members of Wolf Education International to stop forcing any wild canines into settled landscapes. Showing support for this continued action not only perpetuates a continued threat to human safety and health, and the destruction of property, but is just as seriously is destroying the very wolf species they are trying to protect. It makes little sense at all.

Press Release from the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation:

MISSOULA, Mont.—The Oregon Court of Appeals granted the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation’s application to file a friend-of-the-Court brief in a lawsuit by animal rights groups seeking to eliminate state wildlife management in Oregon.

“We stand shoulder-to-shoulder with the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, its professional biologists and wildlife managers, and the Fish and Wildlife Commission in carrying out their duty of managing all of Oregon’s wildlife,” said David Allen, RMEF president and CEO. “Oregon’s science-based wolf plan indicates wolves reached delisting criteria five years ago.”

As of December 31, 2015, Oregon’s minimum wolf population estimate numbered 110, marking a 26 percent increase over the 2014 population and a 42 percent increase since 2013. Biologists also indicate the actual number of wolves currently in Oregon is likely greater than the minimum estimate.

The Oregon Fish and Wildlife Commission voted to delist wolves from the state Endangered Species Act (ESA) in November of 2015. The Oregon legislature ratified the commission’s decision by passing a bill, which was later signed into law, removing wolves from the state’s endangered species list. Those moves had no immediate effect on wolf management yet animal rights groups still filed suit seeking to reverse the delisting.

The state’s Wolf Conservation and Management Plan continues to guide management of the population in the western two-thirds of Oregon with ESA-like protections that prohibit the killing of any wolf. In northeast Oregon, where most of the wolves are found, the plan emphasizes non-lethal deterrence measures to resolve livestock conflicts but allows ranchers to shoot wolves caught in the act.

Share

Can non-native wolves receive protections reserved for native species in Oregon?

“Later this year the Oregon Court of Appeals will consider whether it was lawful for the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife and the Oregon Fish and Wildlife Commission to remove the gray wolf from the state’s endangered species list in late 2015. Disagreeing with the wolf’s delisting, three environmentalist groups challenged it last year. PLF represents the Oregon Cattlemen’s Association and the Oregon Farm Bureau Federation as intervenors defending the delisting, and today we filed a brief responding to the environmentalist groups’ challenge to the delisting.

Our brief focuses on two primary arguments: Oregon was legally compelled to delist the wolf because the only wolves present in the state are members of a non-native wolf subspecies, but the Oregon Endangered Species Act (ESA) only protects species native to Oregon; and when analyzing the status of species under the Oregon ESA, the state must consider a species’ current range, not its historical range.”<<<Read More>>>

Share

Oregon case jury delivers blow to government in lands fight

Theater

“A jury delivered an extraordinary blow to the government in a long-running battle over the use of public lands when it acquitted all seven defendants involved in the armed occupation of a national wildlife refuge in rural southeastern Oregon.

Tumult erupted in the courtroom Thursday after the verdicts were read when an attorney for group leader Ammon Bundy demanded his client be immediately released and repeatedly yelled at the judge. U.S. marshals tackled attorney Marcus Mumford to the ground, used a stun gun on him several times and arrested him.”<<<Read More>>>

Share

Question 3 And Collateral Damage – It’s Real

Many say that the newly-passed gun control law in Oregon is a clone to the one fascist Michael Bloomberg is trying to buy in Maine with his Question 3 referendum. Blind followers refuse or don’t care the real implications of such a draconian law, and to somehow justify their positions they simply deny any suggestion that Question 3 poses multiple issues at many levels and is impossible to enforce, short of all out gun registration and confiscation.

However, we now see that in Oregon, a church pastor won a rifle in a raffle. He gave it to a friend for safe keeping. As I understand it, he didn’t sell him the gun, he didn’t give him the gun and he didn’t loan him the gun. He asked his friend to store it for him.

In the end, this pastor (it doesn’t matter if he was the boogie man) broke the law, but administrators of the police state opted not to “charge” the man for breaking their fascist laws.

Those that

DON’T GO LOOK

don’t want to go look because they are not interested in the rights of others. It is time that we begin a systematic destruction of all rights the same way these totalitarians are dismantling the right to self protection because they don’t like it. There’s a lot of so-called “rights” that I don’t like, but I don’t feel the need to destroy someone else’s rights in order to promote mine. But that may soon change. Maybe these blinded clowns will realize their friends are their enemies when, one day, they discover – if at all possible – there is nothing left except their complete slavery to government fascists – if they are allowed to live long enough to see it.

Share

When Government Comes Up Against Itself

This is so precious! You may have to click the imagine to enlarge it.

OregonLetterOne

OregonLetter2

Share

Michael Finley: Recipient of the Golden Horse Excrement Award

horsepoopsmallMichael Finley, chair of the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife Commission, and former superintendent of Yellowstone National Park when illegal “GI” wolves were dumped there, receives my never coveted Golden Horse Excrement Award for the following statements.

“No one took any joy in this action,” said Finley, who retired from the National Park Service in 2001 and moved back to Medford, Ore., where he grew up.

“No one I know on the commission or on the professional staff wants to see wolves killed, period,” Finley said. “There are just places wolves can’t be and times they can’t be there. It’s a simple fact of wolf management.”

Aside from the utter nonsense printed in an online media outlet about “Trophic Cascades” I call out Finley on making such BS statements. It’s very easy, now that wolves were criminally introduced in the Greater Yellowstone Area, of which he was a part of, to state that “no one took any joy” killing wolves that were destroying private property, as well as making statements he doesn’t believe in that, “There are just places wolves can’t be,” calling it a “simple fact of wolf management.”

When you consider the pages and pages of lies fed to the public in the Environmental Impact Statement and the repeated lies given to the public at meetings and spread through fervent propaganda blitzes, by this criminal act, THEY got their damned wolves. They promised everybody that there would be no more than 300 wolves and/or 30 breeding pairs and with that number of wolves there would be no impact on game, i.e. elk, deer, and moose. And we mustn’t forget the complicit Congress told the wolf pimps that there can be no impact on ranchers, residents, etc.

Now they have thousands of them and they know that not only have they got their wolves but they also own everything about wolf reintroduction and the ongoing protection of them – including the USFWS, environmentalist groups, Congress and the media. They now are comfortable in the fact that nothing is going to harm their precious, nasty, diseased wild dogs and so, it takes a very brave man to step up to the press and say, “no one took any joy” in killing four wolves and that it’s a “simple fact of wolf management.” HS!!

Incorrectly stated at the beginning of the article, Finley don’t know squat about wolves. All he knows is how to play the political environmentalist game of power control over people.

The entire act of wolf introduction was criminal….PERIOD. Anyone involved in the act were criminals…PERIOD. They should be charged for the criminal actions. Wolf introduction has been nothing short of a disaster, regardless of the lies fed to us by environmentalists and the media they own and control. Now that they got away with it, the lying bastards are presenting themselves as some kind of heroes.

Share

UPDATE: Three attacks by Oregon wolf pack could spur lethal action

*Editor’s Note* – Isn’t this more proof that once a PACK has learned to get its food by killing livestock, the entire PACK should be removed/killed? GASP!

Three attacks on livestock by a wolf pack in northeast Oregon this month could lead to lethal action against the Imnaha Pack.

Source: UPDATE: Three attacks by Oregon wolf pack could spur lethal action

Share

Evidently FBI Botched the Staged Finicum Murder

Share

Woman charged in Oregon standoff seeks $666bn from government

Shawna Cox, a key figure in the Oregon militia standoff who is accused of conspiring against the government, says she “suffered damages from the works of the devil” and wants federal officials to award her $666bn.

Cox, a 59-year-old Kanab, Utah woman facing federal charges for her role in the armed occupation of a wildlife refuge, has filed a “counter criminal complaint” against “federal employees” seeking “six hundred sixty six billion, six hundred sixty six million, six hundred sixty six thousand, six hundred sixty six dollars and sixty six cents”.

Source: Woman charged in Oregon standoff seeks $666bn from government | US news | The Guardian

Share

The Biggest Question We’re Still Asking About the Oregon ‘Occupation’: What’s Happening to Our Country

Regardless of whether you believe the occupiers were there legally or not, whether you think they are “militants” or “patriots” or whether you believe LaVoy Finnicum was “murdered in an ambush” or a “killed in a shoot-out at a traffic stop” there is one thing we can all agree on—our country is in trouble.

Many of us are feeling it but we just don’t know what to do about it. To a lot of us it’s very personal. It is hard to explain or articulate our frustrations and those who try often get labeled as “anti-government” or “radicals.”

I find it interesting that the occupiers of the refuge were labeled as militants while the occupiers of Wall Street were simply “protestors.” Why is it that the riots in Baltimore and Ferguson were reported as “unrest” and condoned by the government when the peaceful protests of those in Oregon were reported as if it was an act of terrorism? You can’t it both ways. We have got to stop allowing the government to use us as pawns in their political game.

Source: The Biggest Question We’re Still Asking About the Oregon ‘Occupation’: What’s Happening to Our Country | TheBlaze.com

Share