Oh, for crying out loud! Does the editorial staff of the Idaho Statesman really think they know what it is that they call “good science“? They are calling on, “Idaho officials to show that they can make judicious decisions that ensure a balance between wolf and big-game populations.” At the same time they declare that making those “judicious decisions”, is “good science and good politics”, and ask for more of it.
First of all, the Idaho Statesman knows nothing about “managing” wolves or wildlife for that matter. They seem to base their assessment of wolf management on politics or court rulings they agree with. To them this is “good science”?
Secondly, while parading the claim that achieving a balance of wolves and big-game animal populations is “good science”, what is that claim based on? Oh, yeah. Sorry! Good Science!!
Toby Bridges explained just the other day about all the decisions that have been made concerning wolf introduction and management as being “junk science”. Does junk science then become good science because we want to agree with it? Or is it not junk science because government paid officials state it as so? Bridges relates:
Science is a wonderful tool when it is used for the right reasons. But when it is used to lie and deceive, to cover up what’s really happening, and to support a radical agenda, perhaps it should be handled as a criminal offense.
Was it “good science” when scientists told the people, in order to sell their fraud, that 100 wolves in each of three states was enough to recover the population? Does the editorial staff at the Idaho Statesman now believe the “good science” does not include wolf hunts because it fits a narrative? Has the staff also abandoned all hope for “good science” because due to excessive and frivolous lawsuits, we are now subjected to the intervention by Congress?
Just what the hell is “good science”? Yeah, yeah! I know it’s that magical balance between “managing” wolves and having enough big-game animals to sell enough hunting licenses to keep the cash flow going.
The Idaho Statesman can’t even get the court rulings straight, showing they fail at basic knowledge of the topic they are trying to form opinions on. They state:
State leaders have argued, some 15 years after the release of 35 wolves in Central Idaho, that this population can no longer be considered “endangered.” They barely acknowledged that neighboring Wyoming had failed to come up with a responsible plan for maintaining a sustainable population— which is why Molloy put the northern Rockies’ wolves back under federal protection.
Two big and incorrect issues here to dispute. The editorial staff claims Wyoming “failed to come up with a responsible plan for maintaining a sustainable [wolf] population-”. Which is an outright false statement. Wyoming did and has all along had a plan to maintain wolves. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service approved that plan and then only AFTER pressure from environmentalists, did they renege on Wyoming’s plan. Court rulings have cleared any confusion about this and shame on the Idaho Statesman for its failure to know this and/or point this out. While eager to chastise those who “barely acknowledged” their perceived Wyoming problems, they are guilty of presenting incorrect information barely acknowledging the truth of the matter.
The second piece of bad information is the Statesman’s claim that Judge Donald Molloy returned wolves to the Endangered Species Act list because Wyoming didn’t have a responsible wolf plan. Again, absolutely not true. If the Idaho Statesman did its job, or perhaps chose to publish facts instead of unsubstantiated claims, and read all court rulings pertaining to the delisting processes of gray wolves in the Northern Rockies, they and their readers would understand that Judge Molloy returned wolves to protection because the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service attempted to remove wolves from federal protection in Idaho and Montana and not in Wyoming, stating that it was his interpretation of the Endangered Species Act that you cannot delist wildlife species based on state boundaries.
While all this information continues to infest the media outlets worldwide, rotting the brains of readers only interested in believing what they read, they all have it wrong. The laws that guide the Endangered Species Act have been broken, twisted, manipulated, abused and administered using Toby Bridges’ “junk science” and yes, it amounts to what Robert Fanning, founder of Friends of the Northern Yellowstone Elk Herd, calls “scientific fraud”.
The Endangered Species Act, which is the instrument used by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, to introduce gray wolves and manage those populations during and after recovery, clearly states what criteria is to be used in the implementation of the Act.
Section 8A(c)(1)&(2) – Scientific Authority Function, reads as follows:
FUNCTIONS.—(1) The Secretary shall do all things necessary and appropriate to carry out the functions of the Scientific Authority under the Convention.
(2) The Secretary shall base the determinations and advice given by him under Article IV of the Convention with respect to wildlife upon the best available biological information derived from professionally accepted wildlife management practices; but is not required to make, or require any State to make, estimates of population size in making such determinations or giving such advice.(emphasis added)
Not only does the Endangered Species Act not read ANYWHERE in it that “good science” is needed to find balances between wildlife and politics, it also does not say that implementation of the Act must be based on social demands. Got that? It clearly refers to “best available biological information”.
It does NOT say: good science; best science provided by government scientists; science provided by the Center for Biological Diversity; science given by Ed Bangs or Dr. David Mech; science provided by well-paid environmentalists’ lawyers; science created by Judge Donald Molloy or any other judge or court; science based on computer modeling; and a myriad of other scientific, non scientific, junk science or any other available propaganda sources, including rogue Congressional bills designed to circumvent the U.S. Constitution.
The Act demands the “best available biological information”. This must come from all sources and not be limited to just government sponsored information sources or have all decisions and authority given to one person or one group of persons. The Act does not make that stipulation. There are no restrictions as to where the “best available biological information” must come from. For the administrator of the Act, and the Scientific Authority, who happens to be the Secretary of Interior, fails in his duties to utilize the “best available biological information”, he or she should be called on a failure of duties and made public. Continued failures should result in firing the person from that position.
In addition, the Courts fail miserably when their own rulings are based on limited “available biological information” because they either refuse to consider “all and best” available science in rendering decisions or worse yet, they rule with complete disregard of this part of the Endangered Species Act.
To utilize the term “good science” is nothing more than calling for the support of “junk science”, social demands and politics in attempting to determine how to manage gray wolves. It is all of these things that has mired us in the wolf wars of which it appears even dirty and underhanded, good-ole-boy politics will not render any solution.
There is one thing for certain. If the Idaho Statesman really wanted to do something about finding a solution to this problem, the first thing they can do is stop publishing false information and making claims in which they know nothing about. They should take the time to read the Endangered Species Act to first understand what laws are supposed to govern this event, in addition to actually reading and understanding what the court rulings actually say. Then and only then can they be taken as a legitimate source of information and editorial opinions based on facts.
We ache to move on!
Tom Remington
