I only wish they had included suing eddie bangs. Win or lose, I like seeing the state stand up to the feds. Good one for Govenor Fruedenthal!


Wyoming notifies feds of intent to sue over wolf management
By BEN NEARY
Associated Press

CHEYENNE, Wyo. -- The state of Wyoming has filed notice that it intends to sue the federal government over both last month's rejection of the state's wolf management plan and federal inaction on the state's request for changes in wolf management regulations.

"So far, their position has been their way or the highway," Gov. Dave Freudenthal said Wednesday of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. "We've chosen neither; we're going to court."

Last month, the federal government rejected Wyoming's petition to remove wolves in the state from the federal list of threatened and endangered species. In addition, the federal agency has yet to take action on the state's request to amend regulations.

Wyoming has proposed a wolf management plan that generally calls for leaving the animals alone in Yellowstone and Grand Teton national parks while allowing trophy hunting for them in areas outside the parks. The state has also proposed allowing them to be shot on sight as predators elsewhere in the state. In addition to their preying on livestock, Freudenthal has said he sees the spread of wolves in Wyoming outside the national parks as a public safety concern.

"It seems to me that we have a plan that satisfies the scientific obligation that they have imposed on us," Freudenthal said.

In rejecting Wyoming's proposal, federal officials said last month that they can't remove protections until the state sets firm limits on how many of the animals can be killed and agrees to minimum population figures. The state is now home to an estimated 252 wolves.

Ed Bangs, coordinator of the Fish and Wildlife Service's gray wolf recovery effort in Helena, Mont., said Wednesday he hadn't heard of Wyoming's formal notice that it would sue the federal government over wolf management. But Bangs said it was no surprise.

"They said they would pursue this thing in court, not matter how long it took," Bangs said. "I had hoped we could work out something more productive than litigation."

The Fish and Wildlife Service has already turned management of wolves over to state agencies in Montana and Idaho. Bangs said that about 400 wolves have been killed in those states for preying on livestock and for other reasons since 1987.

"They're continuing to kill wolves that are chronic problem animals," Bangs said, adding that his agency doesn't intend to leave Wyoming ranchers facing problem animals on their own.

Bangs said the federal government continues to manage wolves in Wyoming outside the national parks and said 106 have been killed since the reintroduction of the species. Last year alone, he said 41 wolves were killed in the state. "Those wolves killed last year 54 cattle and 27 sheep, confirmed, and one dog," he said.

To hell with Wyoming.

Idaho and Montana are not being allowed to start issuing wolf tags until Wyoming comes up with a realistic management plan. We are being punished for Wyoming's stupidity.

If Wyoming comes up with a realistic plan that the Fed approves, then Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming can start issuing tags and we can start hunting wolves, legally. It may not be perfect, it may be a compromise, but it would be a step in the right direction. I say let's do it.

Anyone with half a brain can see that the Democrats are going to win seats in this fall's elections, and that things aren't looking great for the Republicans in 2008. Does Wyoming think that they'll get a better wolf deal from a Democratically controlled House? Does Wyoming think that they'll get a better wolf deal if a Democrat or a moderate Republican wins the White House in 2008?

Wyoming, get real.

Screw Idaho, it's because Idaho doesn't have enough guts/balls to stand up to the liberal bullshit out of Wachington D.C. Wyoming won't cowtow to the feds and hide behind a womans dress like Idaho and Montana. If those two states had the fortitude to stand up like a man, and had joined suit with Wyoming, they could have accomplished a far better plan.

Wolf is a predator and nothing more. The same as a coyote, I suppose you want the same status for coyotes?????

kudu56 for president!!!!we told the feds we didn't want them in the state and they backdoored us with reintro to ynp.damn right we are going to stand up for how we run things in our state and with or without the feds permission we are and will "manage" the wolf population.to bad the fed fish and wildlife aren't elected positions,i know a bunch of them that would be looking for jobs.
with the safe breeding ground in ynp and teton they are here forever.if it wern't for the "home town managment" the damage to the states wildlife would be far greater.
montana ever figure out where 10,000 head of elk from the northern herd disappeared to?

Liberal bullshit is what you end up with in idaho and montana.Because they aren't anything but a bunch of out of state cocksuckers involving themselves in politics,so they can help fuck things up,just like they did where they came from.

No doubt about it the wolf should be hunted and killed in large numbers.The problem is grizzlies kill as many if not more calf elk then wolves do. And grizzlies are over looked.

Sledder, I could not have said it better myself.. We didn't want the f******wolves, now we have them, keep them in the park and they will be fine other wise shoot , shovel and shut up

Kudu56, Sledder, Ravenr, Popenmann: You all have good and interesting points regarding the horror the Wolves are heaping upon our Big Game Herds, domestic animals, business's let alone our Hunting opportunities!
BUT!
We can not even get some of the dick warts on this pro-Hunting forum to agree that the over-population of Wolves is fucking things up to the max!
How in the world can we expect the green dick warts at the various governmental agencies involved to decide there IS a problem and it needs to be solved - IN A HURRY???
Let alone the green, dick warts at the rmef (rmWf!)!!!
We are in for some tough times guys, before this Wolf over-population and over-predation on our game herds problem gets solved!
Yes, MANY thousands of Hunting opportunities have been lost already in recent years in Montana alone due to the Wolf over-population!
Its gonna get worse for us Big Game Hunters and thats a shame!
And I firmly believe that was the OBJECTIVE and reason number ONE for the Wolf transplantation program from DAY ONE!
Sledder, I have also seen Black Bears preying on Elk Calves but that is a problem for just a couple weeks out of the year! The Elk Calves can soon out distance the various Bears and the Mt. Lions (small lungs?) but the Wolves kill the Elk ALL Year long AND hary and stress them during the long winters! This STRESS kills and weakens the Elk by wearing them down and using up their energy!
Subtle and not often noted this way of killing as well!
We, as sportsmen, worked long and hard for many decades to attain the healthy Elk herds we had before the greens "decided" to introduce the Canadian Wolves!
Fucking greens!
Thanks for nuthin rmef (rmWf!)!
Hold into the wind
VarmintGuy
PS: Ravenr for Vice President!

I've never heard anyone called a dick wart before.

I do not know enough about it because I'm in Ohio but I'm all for whatever you westerners want regarding the wolf. I've heard nothing but negatives about the whole thing ever since they were reintroduced.

SSS!

popenman

Idaho and Montana, can't blame Wyoming...The federal goverment still controls you're wolf problem as they do here in Wyo. Wyoming wants to beable to hunt them outside the parks. I don't see either Idaho or Montana sportman or sportwomen shootin wolves... still the feds.
I hope Wyoming wins in court, then this will also help the other states.

Steve

Dick Wart! That's a good one. A friend of mine had them once, and believe it or not, he got them in Idaho!

Actually,varmintguy. Bears have a major impact. Grizzlies have been studied to death in yellowstone. The findings are that its not uncommon for a sow with cubs to kill dozens of calf elk in a short time. One recent case showed a sow and two small cubs managed to kill 13 calves in the course of 36 hours. Thats just the ones that the biologists counted and could varify. Couple this with wolves and its no wonder the populations of elk where these predators are present,is declining.

Isn't the dick wart,idaho's state bird.

Well, if it isn't another wolf thread! (Hooray!)

While you "dick warts" (and I say that with the utmost respect...it is our state bird) from Wyoming were out filing lawsuits, whining about wolves and watching re-runs of Brokeback Mountain on Pay-per-View, me partners and I have been out killing elk here in Idaho (see other thread)....funny thing....we heard wolves howling in the distance that night! I guess the elk in Wyoming are just pussy's and scared of the BIG BAD wolf.

But keep crying! It seems to be making a difference! Maybe while you in Wyoming are mired in litigation we here in Idaho will be filling wolf tags, better yet, keep up with the SSS talk, a felony on your record will keep you from hunting for awhile-- or is Wyoming above that Federal law too?

Best Regards, my friends (and you know who you are!) Remember this all for fun!

IV

quote:

Well, if it isn't another wolf thread! (Hooray!)

Well well, I was wondering when the peanut section would chime in! Glad you made it, I would have been very disapointed had you not responded!

Now tell us how you really feel!

IdahoVadel


How many wolves have you killed with you're great wolf plan in place.

One thing you're right about, our elk are pussies but, there bigger than you're elk

Steve

So here's a question: Its pretty obvious a biological argument is never going to be made that is going to lower the number of wolves as many here want, it is a political argument where they can probably win, i.e. "if it wasn't for hunters there would be far less land to put the stupid things on...blah...blah.. blah."

So, given that it is political argument, why doesn't Wyoming agree to the federal deal and then just manage them like the state wants to (against the agreement with the feds) and let the feds sue them? Then the burden of proof etc. Switches to the feds, Wyoming can keep doing it the way they want until the feds win in court and stop them? "Turn the tables" so to speak.

IV

"dick wart" i'm still laughing!!!!! i learned something new today. thanks

Well to add fuel to the fire, I just returned from two days in the park. We seen over a 1000 bison, one antelope, one deer, and not a single elk. Pretty much the same as last year. walked and glassed pretty much until dark. Drove miles at day break trying to get some elk photos. To bad there are none to photgraph! Never seen a single moose either!

Another wolf thread

I have had this same idea though.

So, given that it is political argument, why doesn't Wyoming agree to the federal deal and then just manage them like the state wants to (against the agreement with the feds) and let the feds sue them? Then the burden of proof etc. Switches to the feds, Wyoming can keep doing it the way they want until the feds win in court and stop them? "Turn the tables" so to speak.

Get the wolves delisted, then make it no limit no closed season out of the park.

252 wolves in wyoming We have 10000 here

Sledder: Thank you very much for the info on the Grizzly going bonzo on the Elk Calves! The Grizzlies, I do know, are not at all adverse to eating "ripe" or rotting meat! Maybe that Grizz was gonna eat them later?
Apparently that Grizzly got into some fine calving grounds and got them when the getting was easy!
If all the Grizzlies in the three affected states killed that many Elk calves each year the Elk would now be extinct!
I take your extreme example with reality in mind!
Reality - the Elk are at record numbers in all of Montana EXCEPT where the Wolves have high populations! And that area is growing each year!
I know Bears seek out, chase and prey on Elk calves - I seen'em!
The Elk were doing REALLY well in the now adversely affected areas UNTIL the Wolves were transplanted! The Elk were gaining in population and doing so for decades - right in amongst the Grizzlies and the Blackies! Then when the Wolves got the green light and the finacial aid and backing from the rmef (rmWf) and the rest of the greens - the Elk Hunters worst nightmare began!
And its getting worse every year!
I will relay my contention again - Grizzlies (and Blackies) seek out the Elk calves during a very specific and rather short period of each year! The Elk can live with this predation - as proved by the increasing populations over the last several decades!
Then the Wolves were brought in. The Wolves prey on the Elk (adults and calves!) year around.
Where the Wolves have taken a stronghold (become over-populated!) the Elk herds are being destroyed (decimated!).
Thanks for nothing rmef (rmWf)!
Hold into the wind
VarmintGuy

I have seen two wolves in Oregon, in the last 4 or 5 yrs....

One was in the Winema National Forest on the eat boundary of Crater Lake....

Then other was within 50 miles of the Oregon Coast south of Powers ( home to Daryl Holland) and that was during elk season, and it was a solid white wolf eating on an Elk gut pile.. while he was getting harassed by crows that he had disrupted them eating on it...

I am sure that they were roamers from the feds releasing them in Idaho or Montana...

One of the excuses to put wolves in yellowstone, was to control exploding elk populations that were destroying aspen stands. All of the park biologists blamed the elk, outside biologists said the elk were not to blame. Now read this! Might not be the elk! What excuse have they now?



West's aspen groves hit hard in '06
By CHASE SQUIRES
Associated Press writer Monday, August 14, 2006





DENVER -- Something is killing the quaking aspen trees of the Rocky Mountain West.

The slender, white-barked trees that paint the hills gold every autumn are dying, some scientists say, leaving bald patches across the Rockies. Experts are scrambling to figure out what's happening.

"As soon as we understand what's going on, then maybe we can do something about it," said Dale Bartos, a Forest Service restoration ecologist based in northern Utah.

Bartos thinks a fungus may be to blame, while others suggest everything from hungry caterpillars to drought to man's interference with the natural cycle of forest fires and even resurgent herds of hungry elk nibbling saplings to death.



Aspen stands have been hard hit in southwestern Colorado and northern Arizona. Bartos said a conservative estimate is that about 10 percent of the aspen in Colorado may have died or become afflicted with something in the past five to 10 years.

Since 3.6 million acres across the state are classified as aspen-dominated, that 10 percent equals 360,000 acres or 560 square miles of dead or dying trees.

"We really don't know what's going on," Colorado State University forester Tom Wardle said. "We will, I'm very confident, figure it out."

More worrisome than the tree deaths is that aspen stands don't appear to be bouncing back from adversity the way they have in the past.

Aspen grow differently than other species. Rather than spreading through seeds, aspens send out shoots, called suckers, from giant, interconnected root systems. Each stand, or "clone" system, can live hundreds of years and some consider them the world's largest living things.

The trees themselves are just an aboveground manifestation of the communal root. A tree may die, but beneath the soil, the stand lives on, the root sends out fresh shoots, and the cycle begins again.

What has Wardle and others concerned is that stands with dying trees don't seem to have the vigor they normally have in sending out shoots to replace old trees -- perhaps an indication that years of drought have inflicted deep damage.

In an 8,000-square-mile swath of Canada near Edmonton, aspen are virtually the only species that grows in large numbers. Canadian Forest Service researcher Ted Hogg said as many as 30 percent of the aspen in the affected region may have been wiped out in the past five years; he suspects a combination of drought, heat, fungus and bugs.

In northern Arizona, it's been blow after blow for aspen.

Forest Service plant pathologist Mary Lou Fairweather, who monitors the region's trees, said she has seen multiple factors rather than one cause. A late snowstorm in 1999 crippled trees as they put out leaves for the summer, drought weakened the survivors for attacks by caterpillars and opportunistic diseases, and elk gobbled up new shoots before they could mature.

Another Forest Service researcher, however, said there is no conclusive evidence of any long-term decline.

"We've taken a very long, temporal perspective," said Claudia Regan, who works in suburban Lakewood. "We've looked at changes in forest conditions over several hundred years and examined if whether or not over that long time frame we see a decline in aspen. There really is no evidence of aspen decline."

Regan said it appears the number of aspen in Colorado has actually increased in the past century. It's noticeable when a clone dies off, she said, but reports seem to be isolated and anecdotal.

And if there is a decline, it might be a natural reaction to earlier human interference, University of Wyoming botany professor Dennis Knight wrote in a paper for the Forest Service back in 2001.

"Widespread disturbances caused by timber harvesting and fires in the late 1800s and early 1900s may have enabled aspen to become unusually abundant in the Rocky Mountains," he wrote. "If aspen is now declining, the explanation may lie in natural processes. ... There is no basis to suggest that aspen is threatened globally, nor are most aspen groves likely to be lost in the near future."

While scientists speculate, preparations for the leaf-peeping tourist season continue.

"I was just up at Kebler Pass," said Rob Strickland, marketing coordinator for the Gunnison-Crested Butte Tourism Association. "I'm not a scientist, but I didn't notice any change."

Riley Polumbus of the Steamboat Springs Chamber Resort Association said no one is worried in the northwest Colorado area is worried.

"The aspens you ski through in the winter are excellent for hiking and walking through in the fall," Polumbus said.

On a cell phone from a hilltop near the southwestern Colorado town of Dolores, Dan Binkley offered some findings from his summer of research for CSU's Colorado Forest Restoration Institute.

There are fewer healthy aspens in the mountains of western Colorado, he said. But he hasn't found anything more than warm weather and drought to blame. Stocks of the trees may decline, but so far Binkley expects the stands to recover, someday.

"It'll be a visible blip, but the reassuring part is that the younger trees are faring better than the older ones. Unless I'm wrong, and it's not drought," Binkley said. "It's the sort of thing that we won't be surprised if we're surprised."

Does anyone know what legal arguments are being used as a basis for the Wyoming lawsuit?

Generally, prevailing in a lawsuit against an administrative agency is a very difficult thing to do. The US Supreme Court has ruled that an agency should be given "deference" with regard to decisions made on matters within its jurisdiction.

In most cases (there are some agencies subject to a different standard), it is only possible to have a court overrule an agency decision if 1) an agency decision exceeds the powers granted the agency by the legislature, 2) the decision was contrary to law or 3) the decision was arbitrary and capricious, and represented an abuse of discretion.

Point 3 probably deserves a little elaboration, for it involves something called the "substantial evidence rule." That rule stands for the proposition that an agency decision is not arbitrary, etc. if there is any evidence on the administrative record that would support the decision made. It does not address the quantity of evidence provided--if 1 person testifies one way, and 1,000 testify to the contrary, the agency can base their decision on the comments of the one and ignore the comments made by the thousand, and the courts will normally--absent some other irregularity--uphold their decision. Nor do the courts normally involve themselves with questions of credibility; that is something generally left up to the agency.

Thus, it would appear that Wyoming has set itself a fairly daunting task. Wyoming's proposal for wolf management could arguably be valid, and could arguably even be the best approach to the issue (I'm neither a biologist nor a person with any meaningful first-hand experience with the wildlife of the region, so I can't express an opinion on that), but if Wyoming made its case before the agency, yet the agency can point to other information on the record indicating that the Wyoming plan should not be accepted, it is unlikely that a court would view Wyoming's case favorably (note that a trial-level court could very possibly rule for Wyoming, but an appellate court would likely apply the rule that I described, even if the trial court found reason not to do so), unless some other flaw (e.g., a failure to comply with the dictates of a statute) could be found. Courts do not set themselves up as referees to decide whether the agency could--or should--have come to a different conclusion based on the evidence provided to it. Instead, the courts merely review the record and the law to determine whether there was any basis for the agency to take the action that it did.

Although I don't reside in the affected region, and at best will only hunt there a few times in my life, I am following this matter with interest, because as an angler and hunter I am often involved in regulatory issues in my home region, and the Wyoming wolf issue could set precedents that might affect the regulatory process elsewhere. Therefore, any information on the legal basis for the Wyoming suit would be read with interest.

Well lookie here. Idaho and Montana might be hunting wolves by winter. Probably won't happen that early but we will be hunting wolves before Wyoming.
http://www.idahostatesman.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID...rchID=73256048342332

Thanks for standing up for Idaho 24mileboy

A rule to lift federal Endangered Species Act protections from gray wolves in most of Idaho and Montana, but not Wyoming, could be made public by winter, state and federal officials say.

Nothing said about hunting, it is years away, there are not enough wolves in Utah, Washington,and Oregon to allow hunting of the seed stock in Idaho, Mt, and Wy.

Just lift protections to lead the way. It is a start, but it is just typical federal bull shit! When ed bangs lips move, idaho and montanas govenors talk. I hope it happens, but I also hope Wyoming stands it's ground! I don't want them bowing, cow-towing, down to ed's feet and kissing his ass. The feds put them here, let them pay for them!

Our Govenor made an election trip through here, his home town, and almost everyone there wanted to know his oppinion on the wolves! He got a standing ovation when he gave his stance on the issue. It is interesting when there were almost no questions about the economy, taxes,education,drugs, but mostly wolves.

quote:

Does anyone know what legal arguments are being used as a basis for the Wyoming lawsuit?

Yeah, we didn't want them! Let us bring a trawler load of pirahnas to your rivers and lakes and turn them loose!