Judge sides with Wyoming in wolf case

[jodywy]

http://trib.com/news/state-and-regional/article_805da554-f358-11df-9afa-001cc4c03286.html
Updated: Judge sides with Wyoming in wolf case
Story Discussion Updated: Judge sides with Wyoming in wolf case
By JEREMY PELZER Star-Tribune capital bureau trib.com | Posted: Thursday, November 18, 2010 2:45 pm | (3) Comments


CHEYENNE -- A federal judge ruled Thursday that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service wasn't justified in rejecting Wyoming's wolf management plan.

In his decision, U.S. District Judge Alan Johnson didn't require the FWS to accept Wyoming's plan. However, he stated that the FWS' insistence that Wyoming list wolves as a trophy games species throughout the entire state was "arbitrary and capricious" and should be set aside.

The state of Wyoming sued the FWS after the federal agency refused to accept the state's plan, which would allow unregulated killing of the animals over all but the northwest part of the state. Currently, all of Wyoming's wolves are listed as a federally endangered species, meaning it's unlawful to kill wolves anywhere in the state.

Johnson ruled that FWS should revisit whether Wyoming's proposed trophy game management area in the state's northwest corner is sufficient to ensure wolf populations are maintained and protected, or whether the state's proposed boundaries should be expanded.

Since being reintroduced to Yellowstone National Park in 1995, wolf populations in Wyoming, Idaho and Montana have grown to about 1,700. Wyoming had about 320 wolves at the end of 2009, with 224 of those outside Yellowstone National Park.

FWS spokesman Leith Edgar said the agency is reviewing the ruling. Edgar said "it's too soon to tell" whether they will appeal the case.

"At this point, the lawyers are looking at it, and they'll make a decision," he said.

Wyoming Attorney General Bruce Salzburg said while he was happy with the decision, he expected the FWS to appeal the case.

"With the history of wolf litigation in Wyoming, it's silly to think that this is the end of it," he said.

The ruling comes in the wake of an August federal court ruling in Montana that overturned wolf management plans in Montana and Idaho on the grounds that protections for the same population can't vary by state.

Salzburg said he didn't see any conflict between the Montana ruling and the Wyoming ruling.

"The two decisions can co-exist," he said.

Read more about this story in Friday's Star-Tribune.

 

[Ben H]

Where does the federal government get the power to protect any species? I don't recall that part in the constitution?

 

[Anonymous]

The Federal Govt is the new 'Golden OX' worshipped by the God-less Masses...did'nt you get the memo ? lol

 

[jodywy]

Where does the federal government get the power to protect any species? I don't recall that part in the constitution?

Since the 70 when Nixon signed the ESA, endangered species act. Since then logging has been shut down in the North West for the spotted owl, haying and housing projects along the Front Range in Colorado and Wyoming, the list can go on and on. It the enviros bank they sue for an animal and we pay when the government settles.

 

[Ben H]

In other words, the endangered species act is illegal, it is not one of the powers granted to the federal government by the constitution.

 

[Dylan Biggs]

In other words, the endangered species act is illegal, it is not one of the powers granted to the federal government by the constitution.

Ben I guess you can use that logic if it suits you and citizens could use their own discretion on what gets to live and die and we could all enjoy the results of an ad lib anarchy wildlife act, at least we may have museums and photos to enjoy those species which for whatever reason didn't find favor with people.

Ah heck just exterminate everything and then it will be resolved once and for all. :lol: :lol:

 

[gcreekrch]

In other words, the endangered species act is illegal, it is not one of the powers granted to the federal government by the constitution.

Ben I guess you can use that logic if it suits you and citizens could use their own discretion on what gets to live and die and we could all enjoy the results of an ad lib anarchy wildlife act, at least we may have museums and photos to enjoy those species which for whatever reason didn't find favor with people.

Ah heck just exterminate everything and then it will be resolved once and for all. :lol: :lol:

Dylan, I agree with your philosophy to a degree. Having experienced what an over-abundance of predators can do to game populations and domestic stock if left unchecked.... there is a limit.
It was absolute stupidity what the US govt. did in reintroducing wolves to Yellowstone and not controlling the population within the park. Whether US cattle producers realize it or not, they now have a problem comarable to our BSE.

Their's will just last a lot longer.

I have witnessed our local cariboo herd calve an 85% calf crop and seen a 3% survival rate by fall due to wolves. 10% first year survival on moose calves has been the norm here for several years since BC put a moritorium on the use of 1080.
Losses on our ranch alone are in excess of 150 cattle and 50 sheep and lambs in the last 25 years. There are another 15 operations in our area that have sustained similar or worse losses.

Wolves are getting closer to you, maybe we'll see if your opinion changes a bit after you have fed them for a while. :wink:

 

[Dylan Biggs]

In other words, the endangered species act is illegal, it is not one of the powers granted to the federal government by the constitution.

Ben I guess you can use that logic if it suits you and citizens could use their own discretion on what gets to live and die and we could all enjoy the results of an ad lib anarchy wildlife act, at least we may have museums and photos to enjoy those species which for whatever reason didn't find favor with people.

Ah heck just exterminate everything and then it will be resolved once and for all. :lol: :lol:

Dylan, I agree with your philosophy to a degree. Having experienced what an over-abundance of predators can do to game populations and domestic stock if left unchecked.... there is a limit.
It was absolute stupidity what the US govt. did in reintroducing wolves to Yellowstone and not controlling the population within the park. Whether US cattle producers realize it or not, they now have a problem comarable to our BSE.

Their's will just last a lot longer.

I have witnessed our local cariboo herd calve an 85% calf crop and seen a 3% survival rate by fall due to wolves. 10% first year survival on moose calves has been the norm here for several years since BC put a moritorium on the use of 1080.
Losses on our ranch alone are in excess of 150 cattle and 50 sheep and lambs in the last 25 years. There are another 15 operations in our area that have sustained similar or worse losses.

Wolves are getting closer to you, maybe we'll see if your opinion changes a bit after you have fed them for a while. :wink:

Good points Gcreek, my basic point was that defining legality by omission from the constitution would render the majority of current laws illegal, speed limits, alcohol blood levels while driving, possession and use of illicit drugs, drug trafficking, etc,etc.

I do feel livestock producers that don't have recourse to eliminate problem wolves and or compensation for losses are in an untenable situation and as such are essentially being made criminals by omission of fair and reasonable legislation.

To make the jump to illegality visa vi lack of inclusion in the constitution is a leap that IMO denies logic. :wink:

 

[Ben H]

If a State wants to protect wolves, they have the right to do it, you also have the right to not live in that State and shoot them when they cross into your State. The Federal Government does not have the right to protect them in all states. They became endangered for a reason.

SHOOT-SHOVEL-SHUTUP