• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Montana's governor encourages ranchers to kill wolves

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
BILLINGS, Mont. — Defying federal authority over gray wolves, Montana Gov. Brian Schweitzer on Wednesday encouraged ranchers to kill wolves that prey on their livestock -- even in areas where that is not currently allowed -- and said the state would start shooting packs that hurt elk herds.

Schweitzer told the Associated Press he no longer would wait for federal officials to resolve the tangle of lawsuits over wolves, which has kept the animals on the endangered species list for a decade since recovery goals were first met.

"We will take action in Montana on our own," he said. "We've had it with Washington, D.C., with Congress just yipping about it, with [the Department of the] Interior just vacillating about it."


continued....
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/unleashed/2011/02/montanas-governor-encourages-ranchers-to-kill-wolves.html
 

Denny

Well-known member
I think maybe a guy needs to catch trailer loads of them and 1000's of ranchers should show up in front of the white house and turn them loose then block all traffic around the capital. Storm washington just like the people in Egypt did. Until our government puts more value on its people than a wild animal the people will have to act like wild animals and just kill the wolves at will.Now they want to cut funding for federal trappers that way knowone will be killing the wolves.Washington is full of Dumbasses The one in the whitehouse is the biggest.95% of the people will never see a wolf in the wild and the 5% of us that have shoot them on sight fine or not.I've lost cattle to wolves and the first thing the goverment wanted me to do was turn it into my insurance.I was pissed I told the game warden I would'nt as it was their wild dog that killed them and was'nt my insurance that should pay first. In the end I never got paid and their wolves have had to pay an eye for an eye.
 

porter

Well-known member
Denny said:
I think maybe a guy needs to catch trailer loads of them and 1000's of ranchers should show up in front of the white house and turn them loose then block all traffic around the capital. Storm washington just like the people in Egypt did. Until our government puts more value on its people than a wild animal the people will have to act like wild animals and just kill the wolves at will.Now they want to cut funding for federal trappers that way knowone will be killing the wolves.Washington is full of Dumbasses The one in the whitehouse is the biggest.95% of the people will never see a wolf in the wild and the 5% of us that have shoot them on sight fine or not.I've lost cattle to wolves and the first thing the goverment wanted me to do was turn it into my insurance.I was p****d I told the game warden I would'nt as it was their wild dog that killed them and was'nt my insurance that should pay first. In the end I never got paid and their wolves have had to pay an eye for an eye.
:clap: :clap: :clap:
 

PATB

Well-known member
You should not discriminate by doing it to only DC, all large cities over a million plus need to have wolves, lions, grizzleys and coyotes released.
 

Lonecowboy

Well-known member
it's called posturing:

He was less adamant in the letter to Salazar, which said the Bitterroot packs would be killed "to the extent allowed by the Endangered Species Act."

Governor BS, anything to take the focus in Montana off his budget!

Plus it made a nice focus for todays program featuring him on "Voices of Montana"- he got some good sound bites in!
 

Hereford76

Well-known member
sound bites.... i wish i would have been smart enough to carry a video camera around all those years i put up the hay on their irrigated place on Marias/Lake elwell. i still can't believe they let BS's brother in the white house!
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Kind of sounds like with the bias's- the Governor can't do right whatever he does.... :???:
I kind of liked his stand on this-- but I suppose because he doesn't have the right cultist letter (R) by his name- he will never do right by some.. :roll: :wink: :p :lol:
 

I Luv Herfrds

Well-known member
OT old BS should have stood with the State of Wyoming instead of bowing down before the feds.
I can't stand a person who forciably shakes another persons hand. Yeah he did it to me.
And before you say I was not impressed with our female govenor either.
 

cowboyup

Well-known member
Gov. Schweitzer is an idiot. He can encourage the ranchers north of interstate 90 to shoot wolves because he won't have to pay the fine or do the time. Notice that wolves in the so-called greater yellowstone area need to be left alone. Since he was elected his whole agenda for this area has been to get all the cows out of here. He managed to get a little closer with the split state designation for brucellosis. Also it has always been legal to shoot wolves that are harassing livestock. Not encouraged but legal to do so. How is he helping anybody?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
cowboyup said:
Gov. Schweitzer is an idiot. He can encourage the ranchers north of interstate 90 to shoot wolves because he won't have to pay the fine or do the time. Notice that wolves in the so-called greater yellowstone area need to be left alone. Since he was elected his whole agenda for this area has been to get all the cows out of here. He managed to get a little closer with the split state designation for brucellosis. Also it has always been legal to shoot wolves that are harassing livestock. Not encouraged but legal to do so. How is he helping anybody?

And while I know that split state designation wasn't popular in your area-- thruout much of the state it was strongly supported by cattlemen as the only way to keep the whole state from constantly being under Brucellosis quarantine rules- and costing them and the State Millions $ in sales...
 

Lonecowboy

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
cowboyup said:
Gov. Schweitzer is an idiot. He can encourage the ranchers north of interstate 90 to shoot wolves because he won't have to pay the fine or do the time. Notice that wolves in the so-called greater yellowstone area need to be left alone. Since he was elected his whole agenda for this area has been to get all the cows out of here. He managed to get a little closer with the split state designation for brucellosis. Also it has always been legal to shoot wolves that are harassing livestock. Not encouraged but legal to do so. How is he helping anybody?

And while I know that split state designation wasn't popular in your area-- thruout much of the state it was strongly supported by cattlemen as the only way to keep the whole state from constantly being under Brucellosis quarantine rules- and costing them and the State Millions $ in sales...

me thinks oldobamatimer just threw you and yours and all your neighbors under the bus with that statement!

he just doesn't care as long as he gets his!
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Lonecowboy said:
Oldtimer said:
cowboyup said:
Gov. Schweitzer is an idiot. He can encourage the ranchers north of interstate 90 to shoot wolves because he won't have to pay the fine or do the time. Notice that wolves in the so-called greater yellowstone area need to be left alone. Since he was elected his whole agenda for this area has been to get all the cows out of here. He managed to get a little closer with the split state designation for brucellosis. Also it has always been legal to shoot wolves that are harassing livestock. Not encouraged but legal to do so. How is he helping anybody?

And while I know that split state designation wasn't popular in your area-- thruout much of the state it was strongly supported by cattlemen as the only way to keep the whole state from constantly being under Brucellosis quarantine rules- and costing them and the State Millions $ in sales...

me thinks oldobamatimer just threw you and yours and all your neighbors under the bus with that statement!

he just doesn't care as long as he gets his!

I guess you can call it whatever you want- I call it common sense...Why have 56 counties forever under a bangs restriction- when many of these counties are a whole big state (several hundred miles) away from the problem area- which consists of a half dozen or so counties.... :???: :???:

Does quarantining cattle hundreds of miles away help stop the problem?
Should the state and the majority of the states cattle industry lose Millions $, just so they can console those in the problem area?

I thought you were the one just complaining about the state not having any money- just think how much less there would be if we were still under a statewide bangs quarantine.. :???:


Feds ease sanctions for brucellosis in livestock
Penalties for brucellosis outbreaks eased for livestock industry, but not Yellowstone wildlife


Matthew Brown, Associated Press, On Monday February 14, 2011, 8:44 am EST
BILLINGS, Mont. (AP) -- New federal rules ease sanctions against states bordering Yellowstone National Park when livestock get infected with the disease brucellosis -- but leave unresolved the more nettlesome problem of infected wildlife.

Under the U.S. Department of Agriculture rules, ranchers with a handful of cattle infected with the reproductive disease no longer risk losing their entire herds to slaughter. Nor do states automatically lose their coveted "disease-free" status -- a past practice that cost the industry tens of millions of dollars in lost sales and expenses.

The most significant change for wildlife is increased disease monitoring for species like bison and elk that carry brucellosis. So far, though, the rules have yielded no change to a government-sponsored capture program for bison, under which more than 500 of the animals are awaiting possible slaughter.

Brucellosis causes pregnant cattle, bison, elk and other animals to miscarry. It has been largely eradicated outside the Yellowstone region of Idaho, Montana and Wyoming, where it lingers in wildlife.

Lyndsay Cole with the Agriculture Department's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service said the agency's new rules give states more control over managing brucellosis within their borders. They also recognize that periodic transmissions from wildlife-to-cattle should be treated differently from cattle-to-cattle transmissions.

"In these cases that are popping up, we recognize that the chance of (an infected) cattle herd spreading it to other herds is slim to none as long as they are quarantined and the infected animals removed," she said.

Montana state veterinarian Marty Zaluski called the shift in federal policy a game-changer for brucellosis management in livestock.

Instead of the heavy hand of the Department of Agriculture coming down on states with infections, Zaluski said agriculture officials are finally acknowledging the Yellowstone region is unique.

The states must agree to essentially draw a line around a disease hot zone near the park. The most stringent brucellosis restrictions -- vaccination requirements and blood tests for animals being shipped out of state -- are reserved for livestock producers inside the zone, known as the designated surveillance area.



But ranchers inside the area complain of being stigmatized.

At a hearing before the Montana Legislature last week, cattle producers living near Yellowstone National Park urged adoption of a bill from a Republican lawmaker from Wilsall that includes a sunset clause for the state's new surveillance area.

Park County livestock producer Druska Kinkie said during a Thursday hearing on the measure that cattle buyers have been more reluctant to buy when they learn an animal comes from the designated brucellosis area.

"There's no reason why a designated surveillance area should be in place in perpetuity," she said.

Zaluski warned the bill from state Sen. Ron Arthun could undermine the state's effort to comply with the new federal rules -- and potentially lead to a loss of Montana's brucellosis-free status. The measure has not yet come to a vote.

Conservationists generally support the federal rules, characterizing them as a major step toward relieving livestock industry concerns over Yellowstone's wildlife.

Although the rules have been in place only temporarily since Dec. 27 and remain open to public comment, backers hope they will lead officials to re-think the need to capture and slaughter bison that migrate outside the park to find food in Montana.

"The brucellosis concerns from a regulatory and economic perspective have largely evaporated," said Mark Pearson with the Greater Yellowstone Coalition.

Wildlife officials say about half of the park's bison test positive for exposure to brucellosis. The prevalence rate among elk has been on the rise. Within one elk herd at the northern end of Yellowstone, the rate has gone from about 1 percent of animals in the early 1990s to more than 15 percent in some areas in recent years.

At least eight cattle infections have been found over the last decade, with elk believed to be the main source of those transmissions. Yet because elk roam freely and often in small numbers, there have been few efforts to control their movements.

That leaves bison -- which generally move in large groups -- as the animals most restricted by brucellosis containment efforts. Zaluski said that is not likely to change in the short term.

Even if new habitat were opened to the animals, he said that would merely change where the line has to be drawn to protect cattle. Once that additional habitat filled up and bison started to migrate beyond it, the problem of what to do with the animals would return, he said.

"I have some reluctance to speak about additional habitat without a greater conversation about population management," he said. "It's like buying another pair of pants because you keep getting fatter. At some point you'll grow out of those pants too."
 

Lonecowboy

Well-known member
First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out --
Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out --
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out --
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me -- and there was no one left to speak for me
Oldtimer wrote:
"It's like buying another pair of pants because you keep getting fatter. At some point you'll grow out of those pants too."

just kickin the can down the road- not dealing with the real problem.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Ben H said:
Any ranchers hiring Mercenaries? Sheriff's could prevent federal officials from enforcing the laws in their counties. I just came across the "Sheriffs First" bill in Montana.
http://sheriffsfirst.com/

This is another of the Tea-Bagger sponsored bills that is biting the dust--just like the other one that they wanted giving government control over a terminal patients right to die with dignity- a decision that I believe should be left to be made between the Doctor, the Patient, and their God-- not government...

Most of this bill is just crying wolf at a nonexistent problem...


Montana legislative committee guts 'Sheriffs First' bill



HELENA — A legislative committee passed a bill Wednesday that had aimed to make sheriffs the supreme authority in Montana, but first gutted it of a key provision requiring federal officials to obtain permission before conducting any law-enforcement action.

The stripped-down measure, dubbed the "Sheriffs First" bill, now heads to the full Senate.

The original Senate Bill 114 sponsored by Republican Sen. Greg Hinkle of Thompson Falls would have required federal law-enforcement officers to receive written permission from the sheriff before making an arrest, search or seizure in a Montana county. The penalty for not complying would have been prosecution on charges of kidnapping, trespassing or even murder if somebody was killed in the operation.

The measure drew vocal support from conservatives and tea party supporters distrustful of the government. In a hearing last month, some said they believed their sheriffs would protect them against episodes like the 1993 federal raid on Branch Davidian complex in Waco, Texas, or the deadly siege by government law enforcement agents at Ruby Ridge, Idaho, in 1992.

But the Senate Judiciary Committee tabled the bill after state law enforcement officers and prosecutors called the measure unconstitutional and said it would disrupt important federal operations and the interagency cooperation between state, local and federal officials.

On Wednesday, the committee took up the bill again, discarding the written permission requirement and replacing it with non-binding language that aims to "encourage federal law enforcement officer to use the knowledge and expertise of local law enforcement officers."

The measure now says federal officers "should" inform the sheriff before undertaking a law-enforcement action in the sheriff's jurisdiction. If that's not possible, the new version says, the sheriff should be notified "as soon as practical."


The amendment was introduced by Republican Sen. Jim Shockley and reluctantly agreed to by Hinkle.

"This bill was clearly unconstitutional,"
Shockley said. "This takes out onerous parts of original bill and points out (that federal officials) should cooperate with local law enforcement."

Gary Marbut, president of the Montana Shooting Sports Association, has claimed authorship of the bill, which is based on failed legislation from the mid-1990s. He had called the "Sheriffs First" bill an alternative if a lawsuit by gun rights advocates and states seeking freedom from federal gun laws loses on appeal.

On Wednesday, Marbut said he had not seen the changes to the bill and could not comment on them, but he said he thinks it's great the bill moved out of committee.

He declined to say whether he would push for the original provisions to be put back in when the bill reaches the Senate floor.

"We'll have to see what happens," Marbut said.
 

Lonecowboy

Well-known member
It seems that this is already the Law of the land- the Sheriffs first bill way just to clarify it for the simple minded!

CAN THE COUNTY SHERIFF RESTORE CONSTITUTIONAL GOVERNANCE WITH THE HELP OF “WE THE PEOPLE?”
by Sher Zieve, ©2010


[1]
Capt. J.D. Wilmeth is running for Lea County, NM Sheriff on November 2, 2010 as an independent candidate
(Sept. 22, 2010) — Although I and many others wish that it had always been so, if Captain Jim Wilmeth is any indication of the current state of local law enforcement, We-the-People are in good hands. During a recent conversation with Captain Wilmeth, he expressed to me what he called a growing nationwide movement within many Sheriffs’ departments, a movement away from viewing citizens as merely ‘potential lawbreakers’ and back toward the original intent of peacekeeping as indicated in the US Constitution. He also identifies the problem posed by federal law enforcement agencies as their largely unconstitutional incursion into local law enforcement continues. Below is my interview with Jim.

The Interview


Sher: Thanks so much for speaking with us today, Jim. You are running for Sheriff of Lea County, NM. But, I must say that it was word of your beliefs about the US Constitution that caused me to want to interview you. After talking with you, I found it refreshing and heartening to hear that you are a true Constitutionalist–something that appears to be increasingly rare with many in law enforcement today. Would you give the readers a little bit of your professional background?

Jim: Sure. I have served as a Peace Officer for the last 25 years. I started my law enforcement career as a 17-year-old, when I joined the US Air Force to be a Security Policeman. Since then, I have served as a city police officer, a Special Agent for the US Army Criminal Investigation Command, and as a jailer and deputy in two Sheriff Departments. I am presently a Captain in the Lea County Sheriff Department, having served as a Deputy, Investigator, Sergeant, Lieutenant and Captain. I command the Internal Affairs Division as well as being recently assigned over operations, which includes patrol and investigations. I hold dual Master’s of Science Degrees in Curriculum and Instruction, and Administration, and conducted an eight-year study of my department and its interaction with our communities while completing my degrees. I have always seen my profession as a critical source of protection for the Constitution and the rule of law.

Sher: You say that, rather than a Libertarian or Conservative, you consider yourself a Constitutionalist. You also said that you are a man of faith rather than religion. Please tell us how you arrived there and what these positions mean to you–from both a personal and professional perspective.

Jim: Let’s start with my being a man of faith because quite frankly, that is the more important of the two for me. As a young man, I struggled a great deal with trying to reach an understanding of faith that allowed for the many religious dogmas, their denominations and their varying translations of Biblical passages. I reasoned that my Creator had to have a purpose for this. I soon came upon a copy of “The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth” by Thomas Jefferson. While I didn’t necessarily feel comfortable with all its design, the concept of peeling away the fallible writings and interpretations of men, while concentrating on the actions and words of Jesus, pointed me in the right direction, I think. From that time I studied the Holy Books of all the major religions, reflected and prayed for understanding of their intent, and then I asked God to help me come to some measure of peace about it all.

The process resulted in my becoming a man of faith. I have faith in my Creator, faith in the salvation afforded me individually through Jesus Christ, and faith that we humans are more good than bad. I came to accept that we are all broken in some way or another and the grace of God is what redeems us. Beyond that, I came to believe our life is a series of events intended to bring us closer to God in unique and personal ways. Obviously this approach did not lend itself to my total acceptance of any particular dogma, but I discovered these concepts through my own reflections and God’s guidance, so it is deeply personal and individual for me. I don’t expect anyone to ascribe to the very same articles of faith, because I discovered I could find things to agree with in every faith, as well as interpretations that I did not believe were right for me, but could be right for others. By the way, the path I took to define my personal faith also created a habit in me to be objective about what I was studying and view things through multiple perspectives.

Becoming a Constitutionalist was a similar journey. I was born into a fiercely independent family, raised by parents who wanted their children to develop their own conclusions and fight for what they believed in. Our individual rights were stressed along with the responsibilities that accompanied them. I also happened to love history and read a great deal about the societies that rose and fell before the creation of our Republic. As a result, I developed an extreme sense of justice; that curious mixture of reason and action that mingles morals, ethics, faith and education into a desire to render to people their just due without distinction.

The longer I spent as a law enforcement officer, the more convinced I became that our processes and relationships with our communities just felt wrong. Gaining compliance from a community by appearance and veiled threats or control didn’t seem to be a very efficient way of working to me. I became so frustrated with the mechanisms used by my profession that I decided I was going to quit and become a teacher. But as I took my classes, I always found myself applying my research and practical exercises to the Sheriff’s Office where I was still employed. In the end, I didn’t leave the department; instead I just had a much better understanding of its strengths and weaknesses. It didn’t take me long to realize the major weaknesses in my profession, either; we did not understand the Constitution well enough or follow its principles as well as we should. So I became a scholar of sorts of the Constitution, and began researching the whole concept of law enforcement as we know it, and how the Founding Fathers would have accounted for a peacekeeper in our society.

For me the Bible serves as the perfect companion to the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. Everywhere you look in the Old and New Testaments, you will find references and teachings that are mirrored in the Declaration and the Constitution. My favorite part of the Constitution is the Bill of Rights, not because it is a list of restrictions upon the government, but because they happen to be a perfect guideline for how a law enforcement officer should perform his duty while retaining the respect of the community in which he works.

Sher: It has been said that in many if not most instances, the US Constitution provides more power to Sheriffs than to the federal government. You also say that–contrary to what the current Washington D.C. regime would have us believe–it is We-the-People who ultimately have the power in the United States of America. Please give us your point of view on how this is provided in our second founding document.

Jim: Well, actually, I have to give a nod to the Declaration of Independence first which states “…Governments are instituted by men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” Next the Preamble of the Constitution established that We the People created our government under our own authority and utilized the Constitution as the legal means by which to define the character and powers of that government.

Now police power is commonly recognized as an executive power, because it entails the authority to make sure something happens or to enforce laws, and Article 2 defines the executive powers of the federal government. So if those activities we commonly recognize as law enforcement were powers granted to the federal government, the Constitution would enumerate that power in Article 2; it doesn’t. Next, let’s examine Article 6, where we find the requirement that all executive officers of the federal government and of the respective states are to be bound by an oath or affirmation to support the Constitution. This establishes without question that the FIRST and FOREMOST duty of any government official is to protect the Constitution. We then look at the 9th Amendment which says rights not specifically afforded the people are not relinquished simply because they are not mentioned by the Constitution; they remain in place. The 10th Amendment then declares unequivocally that powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved for the states or to the people. Essentially, these amendments establish that the federal government may only exercise those powers it has been granted by the people through the Constitution. This is absolutely critical to understand. The federal government DOES NOT possess Constitutional authority to vest itself with new powers. It may only exercise powers the people specifically grant it. For a new power to be afforded the federal government lawfully, it would have to be assigned through an amendment.

Now if we add to this line of reasoning the fact that US Federal and State courts have consistently ruled police powers (such as the usual law enforcement, fire protection or other public safety duties) are a Reserved power of the states, basing their argument on the 10th Amendment, one is left with this finding: state and local police powers are vested by the people in state and local law enforcement, and such power remains with the states and the people as a part of the checks and balances set in place by the Founding Fathers to curtail usurpation of power by the federal government. If you add to this reasoning the fact that your County Sheriff is the only law enforcement officer elected through the Constitutionally-defined process of a General Election, you will come to this inescapable conclusion: The County Sheriff, as the direct representative of the people, having sworn an oath to support the Constitution and vested by the people with the authority to enforce law and keep the peace, exercises a level of authority second to only one other group – the people themselves. The federal government exercises no authority over them whatsoever. On the contrary, it is the duty of the County Sheriff to allow or refuse to permit federal activities within his jurisdiction based on the constitutionality of such actions, because his primary purpose is to defend the people’s rights and keep the peace.

Sher: Please tell us how you see law enforcement continuing to be led away from the US Constitution by those in power in D.C. and how you would bring it back to the position of the original intent of our founders.

Jim: Well, in my opinion, three basic methods have been used to draw local law enforcement away from its original character. We see them as a combined methodology beginning in the early 1920’s and continuing through today. These methods are: usurpation of authority, bribery, and elitism.

By usurpation of authority, I am referring to the blatant assumption of authority and exercise of power by federal agencies, which is made worse by an utter failure on the part of local law enforcement to challenge such actions. Waco and Ruby Ridge are notable examples of this method.
Bribery refers to the massive amount of funding offered to local law enforcement by the federal government in the form of grants. Local agencies become dependent on such grants and become increasingly more compliant to criteria set by the federal government. Over time, this creates a sense in local agencies that the federal agency exercises more authority because it holds the purse strings. For example, agencies which accept federal grant monies from the Department of Justice (DOJ) must meet reporting requirements and carry out certain activities that support the DOJ’s nationwide crime-fighting strategy, even if those activities have nothing to do with the actual crime issues the local agency faces; otherwise it risks losing funding.

Last of all is elitism. Federal agencies, most notably the Federal Bureau of Investigation, market themselves as premier law enforcement entities. The FBI goes so far as to sponsor a National Academy for law enforcement managers to attend. This is a sort of “favored few” club, and it has developed a mystique about it. Members of the FBINA tend to hire one another, advance each other’s agendas, and support federal plans ahead of local interests. Further, federal law enforcement agencies promulgate intelligence that consistently attacks the concept of militias within the states and encourages local agencies to disconnect from their local communities. Even as they provide grants for “community-oriented policing,” they stress that citizens can be a threat to the law enforcement officer and should be treated with some level of suspicion.

Sher: Thanks so much for your time and thoughts, Jim. From the perspective of any true Constitutionalist, they are very heartening! Jim can be contacted via his website at http://www.wilmeth4sheriff.com/ [2].
 

Ben H

Well-known member
In other words, it is to make it more difficult to have federal law enforcement operated under the "color" of law.
 

Lonecowboy

Well-known member
I think it was a bad bill-

just because if it doesn't pass how screwed up will short sighted sheriffs be then?
If they didn't know their rights before they really won't if it doesn't pass-

or if it passes and is then later repealed, how many will think they lost this right.

But now that they've opened this can of worms we better all get behind it and get it passed.
 

Tam

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
cowboyup said:
Gov. Schweitzer is an idiot. He can encourage the ranchers north of interstate 90 to shoot wolves because he won't have to pay the fine or do the time. Notice that wolves in the so-called greater yellowstone area need to be left alone. Since he was elected his whole agenda for this area has been to get all the cows out of here. He managed to get a little closer with the split state designation for brucellosis. Also it has always been legal to shoot wolves that are harassing livestock. Not encouraged but legal to do so. How is he helping anybody?

And while I know that split state designation wasn't popular in your area-- thruout much of the state it was strongly supported by cattlemen as the only way to keep the whole state from constantly being under Brucellosis quarantine rules- and costing them and the State Millions $ in sales...

Gee imagine that Oldtimer is supportive of a split state over a cattle disease due to what it might cost him if the complete state was held to the same health standards. But yet he supported shutting down a complete country no matter what it cost the ranchers and Country in sales in areas that were never effected by it's cattle health problems. HYPOCRITE. :roll: :x
 

Lonecowboy

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
This is another of the Tea-Bagger sponsored bills
gee the TEA party doesn't seem to be mentioned as a sponsor?
which TEA party group was it that sponsored this?



Montana legislative committee guts 'Sheriffs First' bill



HELENA — A legislative committee passed a bill Wednesday that had aimed to make sheriffs the supreme authority in Montana, but first gutted it of a key provision requiring federal officials to obtain permission before conducting any law-enforcement action.

The stripped-down measure, dubbed the "Sheriffs First" bill, now heads to the full Senate.

The original Senate Bill 114 sponsored by Republican Sen. Greg Hinkle of Thompson Falls would have required federal law-enforcement officers to receive written permission from the sheriff before making an arrest, search or seizure in a Montana county. The penalty for not complying would have been prosecution on charges of kidnapping, trespassing or even murder if somebody was killed in the operation.

The measure drew vocal support from conservatives and tea party supporters distrustful of the government. In a hearing last month, some said they believed their sheriffs would protect them against episodes like the 1993 federal raid on Branch Davidian complex in Waco, Texas, or the deadly siege by government law enforcement agents at Ruby Ridge, Idaho, in 1992.

But the Senate Judiciary Committee tabled the bill after state law enforcement officers and prosecutors called the measure unconstitutional and said it would disrupt important federal operations and the interagency cooperation between state, local and federal officials.

On Wednesday, the committee took up the bill again, discarding the written permission requirement and replacing it with non-binding language that aims to "encourage federal law enforcement officer to use the knowledge and expertise of local law enforcement officers."

The measure now says federal officers "should" inform the sheriff before undertaking a law-enforcement action in the sheriff's jurisdiction. If that's not possible, the new version says, the sheriff should be notified "as soon as practical."


The amendment was introduced by Republican Sen. Jim Shockley and reluctantly agreed to by Hinkle.

"This bill was clearly unconstitutional,"
Shockley said. "This takes out onerous parts of original bill and points out (that federal officials) should cooperate with local law enforcement."

Gary Marbut, president of the Montana Shooting Sports Association, has claimed authorship of the bill, which is based on failed legislation from the mid-1990s. He had called the "Sheriffs First" bill an alternative if a lawsuit by gun rights advocates and states seeking freedom from federal gun laws loses on appeal.

On Wednesday, Marbut said he had not seen the changes to the bill and could not comment on them, but he said he thinks it's great the bill moved out of committee.

He declined to say whether he would push for the original provisions to be put back in when the bill reaches the Senate floor.

"We'll have to see what happens," Marbut said.
 
Top