The Idaho Department of Fish and Game Commissioners drafted their own not so tough resolution in answer to Judge Donald Molloy’s recent ruling that places gray wolves in Idaho and Montana back on the Endangered Species List. I wrote about that yesterday.
It also appears that the Idaho Department of Fish and Game sent questions to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, I presume to get some kind of clarification as to just how tough the Department can get in dealing with Molloy’s ruling. Some of these questions are in direct line with the “Resolution” formulated and signed by the Commissioners on August 16, 2010, a Resolution whose bark was much bigger than its bite.
The USFWS answered the IDFG’s questions by essentially lifting their leg and peeing on the Department as a dog marking his territory. From my perspective you have to examine the responses the USFWS gave to the IDFG by first understanding that the USFWS is deeply in bed with all the environmental groups seeking ultimate wolf protection. Consider also that the USFWS, along with all the environmentalists, as well as state and local governments, all work within the System.
There’s been chatter on the Internet last night and today about whether or not it is a feasible notion to devise a plan to legally battle this culpable ruling of Judge Molloy’s from within a non-governmental agency. It is clear that within the System, the System rules and dictates to all other entities within the System how to behave and act. Perhaps this is why the USFWS has never appealed any of Molloy’s rulings that went as a victory for the environmentalists.
From this perspective, examine carefully the answers USFWS gave to IDFG’s questions. (I’ll not cover them all.)
IDFG asks USFWS if there is a chance they could still have a wolf hunting season. It would be a cold day in hell when someone is Washington would allow a specie that was placed back on the Endangered Species List to get hunted. I would suppose in efforts to appear “tough” (bowsie, wowsie) the IDFG had to ask this question. The key part of USFWS’s answer comes when they tell IDFG that “FWS, however does not believe we would prevail against the inevitable legal challenge.” Mired within the System, of course this wouldn’t happen. There never was intended to be a wolf hunt to begin with.
The next two questions go hand in hand. IDFG wants to know if their department can get broader approval to use the ESA 10j rule to better control depredation on ungulate populations and how long will it take for this approval? First of all, let me say this. IDFG should have been doing all the necessary jumping through Federal hoops (working the System.) back when they finally were willing to admit there was a problem with wolves eating too many elk, deer and moose.
USFWS relays their talking points on 10j telling IDFG how they worked so hard to provide the Department more latitude to protect ungulates, blah, blah, blah. All IDFG has to do is fill out the necessary paperwork, which includes providing a scientific study that proves wolves are eating elk. Then, the waiting and public comment periods begin and after that USFWS will make a determination if the scientific study really shows them anything. And this little gem: “FWS must then make a determination that the requested
action would continue to provide for the conservation of the wolf.” Oops! IDFG just got their leg peed on really bad.
This entire process would take about 2 years, although USFWS tries to be dishonest by telling IDFG, “we anticipate being able to respond within 60 days.” Respond isn’t providing an answer.
To make sure that this litigation remains mired within the System, USFWS reminds IDFG that the 2008 “Enhanced 10j” rule is currently in litigation and any attempts at taking advantage of it are sure to tied up in bureaucracy until at least a ruling comes down, which we all already know the outcome of. After all, it will come from within the System.
IDFG then wants to know why they should continue to work with the USFWS and remain their “designated agent”. USFWS’s answer is that they will blackmail them if they don’t.
• Continued demonstration of successful State management of wolves is critical to the legal
argument for delisting wolves in Idaho. If IDFG is stripped of its ability to manage wolves under
the approved State management plan, the likelihood of delisting wolves in Idaho may be
substantially diminished.
• FWS will not manage wolves to achieve ungulate population objectives. Ungulate population
management is the purview of the State, and as such, the State may address that priority by
maintaining status as a designated agent.
• The State is currently better positioned than the Service to address on-the-ground depredation
control issues. Lack of State management would mean increased presence of contract or Federal
biologists in Idaho to handle on-the-ground management.
The dog came back and peed on their leg one more time for good measure.
The remainder of the questions and answers are mostly routine, all formulated within the System. USFWS has no plans to appeal Molloy’s decision; USFWS has no plans to work at altering any strategies with the “Distinct Population Segments” to allow for state boundaries; and when asked what IDFG is supposed to tell hunters about a wolf hunt, USFWS said it supported Idaho’s wolf hunt last year, however there’s nothing they can do until the wolf is delisted.
I find it interesting that IDFG even felt the need to ask these questions. Doesn’t the majority, if not all, of these questions have answers that only someone not at all involved in this debate would know about? So that leaves us the question of why.
The Commission created their “Resolution” and the Department asked questions. I’ve examined the Resolution to show that it has no spine. It essentially threatens to do the things they’d like to do as soon as Washington gives them the green light. The Department asks questions most residents in Idaho could already answer. Maybe somehow they think they are acting tough and it’s everybody else’ fault.
The Commission, in drafting their resolution, said they consider three avenues of action to take: 1. Do nothing, 2. Continue to be the “designated agent” of USFWS in the management of wolves, or 3. Devise some kind of limited role to work with USFWS. Neither the Resolution of the formulation of these questions tells us what role IDFG plans to take.
I find it all quite pathetic actually. There is no easy solution but it is obvious that change has to start from the very top down. No state government can push back against Federal intrusion when everyone within the state government is part of the System, afraid to make waves because of fear of future repercussions, fear that they might end up in court fighting for something they may not even believe in and mostly, fear of the strong hand of the Federal Government in denying them bribe money, that money that keeps all the states in line.
The USFWS, when asked by IDFG why they should remain a “designated agent” of the USFWS, they were told first that it was really a decision of the State of Idaho. This is actually accurate. It’s time to act or shut up. Either Idaho and Montana, as a state, governed by “We the People”, want control over their wildlife or they don’t. If they do, then break the ties of the System and find a way to end this stranglehold on the people. If not, then try to prepare the people for the results of letting the Federal Government have it.
Tom Remington
