August 15, 2020

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

Wildlife officials to kill wolves in remote Idaho region

Federal wildlife services and Idaho Department of Fish and Game officials have joined forces to kill wolves in the Clearwater Region for the third year in a row. The Lewiston Tribune reports (http://bit.ly/1Se4srO ) that elk herds have been struggling in the remote country for nearly two decades.

Source: Wildlife officials to kill wolves in remote Idaho region | KSL.com

Share

Idaho Wolf Management A Success

 But Don’t Go LOOK!

The bottom line is Idaho has a healthy, sustainable wolf population that is over seven times higher than the federal recovery goal. Idaho Fish and Game has proven we can responsibly manage wolves, provide regulated hunting and trapping opportunity, and reduce conflict. That is good both for the people of Idaho and our wildlife, including wolves.

Source: Idaho Wolf Management A Success : The Outdoor Wire

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

Mountain Lion Killed With Extra Set of Teeth … In Its Forehead!

Theoretically, it shouldn’t have been able to survive past birth. The extra teeth growing out of the mountain lion’s forehead looked like something out of a Ridley Scott film, but somehow it made it a whole year in the wilds of southastern Idaho before a hunter killed it last week.

Source: Mountain Lion Killed With Extra Set of Teeth … In Its Forehead! | | SportingClassicsDaily

Share

Congress: Gray wolves still endangered in Michigan

*Editor’s Note* – I remember very well a few years back, when efforts, of which I was a part of, to go to the source of the problem and amend the Endangered Species Act, were derailed by corrupt politics. I said back then that abandoning this effort, of which many people had worked many years on, in favor of attaching a rider to a budget omnibus bill to delist wolves in Idaho and Montana, would not solve any of the real problems and would eventually come back and bite us all in the ass. The corrupt politicians, using their phony outdoor sportsmen groups (most also eager to play corrupt politics) destroyed our efforts. And, where are we now?

Am I bitter? Yes, I am. Wouldn’t you be? The Endangered Species Act is almost 43 years old and is in need of revamping or repealing. It is NOT working to “save” endangered species. It IS working to put money in Environmentalist’s bank accounts and to promote scarcity and corruption.

There is little hope for anything good when both sides approach politics with different words to achieve the same result of corruption.

Expect nothing to change!

Some lawmakers from the affected states had hoped to attach a rider to return management of wolves in Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan and Wyoming to the states, which could have opened the door to a resumption of wolf hunting in those places. The provision would have undone federal court decisions that restored the animals’ protected status in the four states despite repeated efforts by the federal government to remove them from the list.

Source: Congress: Gray wolves still endangered in Michigan

Share

Perverted Environmentalists Sue Over Wolf Hunts Where No Wolves Were Harmed

*Editor’s Note*I told you so! If it wasn’t for the fact that the greatest interest of the Environmentalists is making money, one would have to wonder what all the fuss is about. An Idaho sportsman’s organization held two wolf hunting derbies for two consecutive years and manage to kill no wolves. Yet, insane and money-grubbing, environMENTAL, fake animal rights groups are suing the U.S. Government to stop the killing…er, or maybe they are suing to get more money and use the cause to lie, cheat and steal by playing on the emotions of brain dead “humans” to get their money.

Steve Alder of Idaho for Wildlife said the group isn’t holding its Predator Hunting Contest this winter because hunters were unable to kill any wolves the previous two winters.”We don’t care about lawsuits, but we failed miserably at harvesting a wolf,” Alder said. “There’s no point getting sponsorships and doing this and that and not being able to get a wolf.”The group overcame lawsuits to hold the events on private land and U.S. Forest Service land the past two winters.

Source: Feds face lawsuits over Idaho wolf-killing derby | Local & Regional | Boise, Meridian, Nampa, Caldwell, Idaho News, Weather, Sports and Breaking News – KBOI 2

Share

Body of missing hiker found

CUSTER COUNTY — The Custer County Sheriff’s Office confirms the body of 25-year-old Luke Richardson has been found.

Source: Body of missing hiker found

Share

BLM Posts Land for the Sage Grouse?

Following this story, hidden behind claims of protecting the sage grouse, I have come to ask myself what it is that the Federal Government is really doing behind to “Off Limit” signs. It makes little sense that instead of attempting to “save” the sage grouse by utilizing the fascist Endangered Species Act, instead the government opts to “close the land down” for a period of two years while they think about it.

So what is the real reason Government wants this land “Off Limits?”

Following last month’s milestone decision to keep the beleaguered greater sage grouse off the endangered species listing, federal agencies in Utah have temporarily closed more than 233,000 acres of public and national forest lands for up to two years while they determine if the lands’ importance to the ground-based bird habitat is such that they should be made off limits for a longer period.<<<Read More>>>

Share