This is a stark lesson.

    You may submit your comments and materials concerning the proposed rule by one of the methods listed in ADDRESSES. We will not accept comments sent by email or fax or to an address not listed in ADDRESSES. If you submit a comment via http://www.regulations.gov, your entire comment–including your personal identifying information–will be posted on the Web site. If you submit a hardcopy comment that includes
personal identifying information, you may request at the top of your document that we withhold this information from public review. However, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. We will post all hardcopy comments on http://www.regulations.gov.

    Comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting documentation we used in preparing the proposed rule, will be available for public inspection on http://www.regulations.gov, or by appointment,
during normal business hours, at the Mountain-Prairie Region Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
 
Background
 
    On October 5, 2011, we proposed to remove the gray wolf in Wyoming from the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife (76 FR 61782). This proposal relied heavily on Wyoming’s 2011 wolf management plan (Wyoming Game and Fish Commission (WGFC) 2011) and noted that conforming changes to State law and regulation would be required to allow Wyoming’s plan to be implemented as written. These changes have now been finalized by Wyoming.

    Following publication of the proposal, we began discussions with Wyoming on necessary or advisable revisions to its State statutes. On January 9, 2012, we notified the Governor of Wyoming that draft
legislative language, developed by the State in consultation with the Service, should provide an acceptable legal basis for implementing the State’s Gray Wolf Management Plan (Ashe 2012a). This legislation was passed by the Wyoming legislature during the 2012 session and, on March 7, 2012, was signed by the Governor of Wyoming and became law.    Wyoming also developed an Addendum to the Wyoming Gray Wolf Management Plan to address concerns raised by the independent peer review panel that evaluated our proposed rule and its supporting information. The addendum, developed by the State in consultation with the Service, provides additional clarification and detail about the Wyoming Game and Fish Department’s approach to managing wolves. On March 5, 2012, Wyoming released the addendum for public review and comment. The Wyoming Game and Fish Commission approved a final version of the addendum on March 22, 2012.

    In early 2012, we began discussions with Wyoming on necessary or advisable revisions to its State regulations including Wyoming’s “Gray Wolf Management” regulations (chapter 21) and “Gray Wolf Hunting
Seasons” regulations (chapter 47). On March 9, 2012, we notified the Governor of Wyoming that we regard the draft revised regulations, developed by the State in consultation with the Service, to be consistent with State law and Wyoming’s conditionally approved Wolf Management Plan (Ashe 2012b). On March 9, 2012, the Wyoming Game and Fish Department made the proposed regulations available for public review and comment. The Wyoming Game and Fish Commission approved a final version of these revised regulations at their April 25-26, 2012, meeting.
 
Highlights of Recently Released Wyoming Management Documents
 
    Population Management–The Addendum to the Wyoming Gray Wolf Management Plan reaffirms Wyoming’s commitment to manage the wolf population with a buffer above the agreed-upon population minimums of at least 10 breeding pairs and at least 100 wolves in Wyoming outside of Yellowstone National Park and the Wind River Indian Reservation at the end of the calendar year (WGFC 2012, pp. 3-5). The addendum adopts
this approach, as it would provide the greatest assurance that minimum agreed-upon population targets can be confidently exceeded on an annual basis, and that Wyoming would not risk managing wolves near minimum
recovery levels (WGFC 2012, p. 5). Furthermore, Wyoming clarified that the buffer would be applied solely within Wyoming’s portion of the population in the Wyoming Trophy Game Management Area (WTGMA) (i.e., wolves in Yellowstone National Park and the Wind River Indian Reservation would not constitute the buffer) (WGFC 2012, p. 5). Regarding the size of the buffer, no specific number or range was offered. Instead, Wyoming noted that the buffer would be determined through an adaptive management approach and may luctuate based on natural population dynamics and the effects of specific management actions (WGFC 2012, p. 4).

    The Addendum to the Wyoming Gray Wolf Management Plan also reaffirms and clarifies Wyoming’s intention to use an adaptive management framework based on intensive monitoring efforts to ensure minimum population objectives are never compromised (WGFC 2012, pp. 5-7). The addendum explains that, because of additional human-caused mortality, Wyoming would monitor the wolf population more intensively than the Service has in the past, and that this effort would become more intense as the population approaches minimum population objectives (WGFC 2012, p. 5).

Regarding management responses, the addendum clarifies that if the minimum population objectives are approached, the State would sequentially limit: Control actions for unacceptable impacts to ungulates; harvest levels; control for damage to private property; and lethal take permits (WGFC 2012, p. 7). The last item in this sequential list (lethal take permits) is discussed further below. Regarding hunting specifically, the addendum notes that Wyoming would employ an iterative, adaptive, and public process whereby season structures, hunt areas, and quotas are evaluated and adjusted based on the response of
the wolf population to prior management actions (WGFC 2012, pp. 4-7). Furthermore, the addendum notes Wyoming’s authority to revise, reduce, or close hunting seasons if necessary (WGFC 2012, pp. 6-7).

    The Addendum to the Wyoming Gray Wolf Management Plan also confirms the State’s intention to manage wolf numbers to gradually reduce the wolf population over a series of years (WGFC 2012, p. 6). This will
give the State an opportunity to understand how to best manage wolves in Wyoming, while not risking relisting of wolves under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) (WGFC 2012, p. 6). Within the WTGMA, at the end of 2011, there were at least 177 wolves in at least 29 packs (including 16 breeding pairs), as well as at least 4 lone wolves; within the seasonal WTGMA, at the end of 2011, there were at least 10 wolves in at least 2 packs (including 1 breeding pair), as well as at least 5 lone wolves (Jimenez 2012, in litt.). If we delist the gray wolf in Wyoming, the State intends to uthorize a hunting quota of 52 wolves in 2012, and once reproduction is accounted for, the State believes this would reduce the population by about 10 percent within the WTGMA (Mills 2012, pers. comm.). Specifically,
Wyoming estimates the population within the WTGMA would be around 170 wolves and 15 breeding pairs at the end of 2012 (Mills 2012, pers. comm.). We note that this first year goal is comfortably above the minimum agreed-upon population targets.

    In the permanent predator area, we estimated there were at least 22 wolves in at least 5 packs (including 2 breeding pairs), and at least 6 lone wolves at the end of 2011 (Jimenez 2012, in litt.). Additionally, 1 pack with 3 wolves (the Owl Creek pack on the Wind River Indian Reservation) borders and likely spends a significant portion of its time in the predator area (Jimenez 2012, in litt.). We believe few of the wolf packs in predator portions of Wyoming would persist to the end of 2012, although some individuals from these packs could survive as lone animals. Similarly, some of the current lone wolves in the predator area would be killed. Because none of the packs resident to the WTGMA are known to spend a significant portion of their time in the predator portions of Wyoming (Jimenez 2012, in litt.), the predator designation would not be expected to meaningfully impact wolves in the WTGMA (Jimenez 2012, pers. comm.).

    Regarding genetics, Wyoming’s gray wolf management regulations indicate the State is committed to managing gray wolves in Wyoming to ensure that genetic diversity and connectivity issues do not threaten
the population (Chapter 21, section 4(a)(ii)). This regulation goes on to say this commitment would be accomplished by encouraging effective migrants into the population in accordance with the Wyoming Gray Wolf Management Plan (Chapter 21, section 4(a)(ii)). The Addendum to the Wyoming Gray Wolf Management Plan indicates the Wyoming Game and Fish Department would strive for a minimum genetic target of ~1 effective
migrant per generation (WGFC 2012, pp. 6-7). If this minimum target is not achieved, the Wyoming Game and Fish Department would first consider changes to the monitoring program, if the increased monitoring is
likely to overcome the failure to document the desired level of gene flow (WGFC 2012, p. 6). If the Wyoming Game and Fish Department determines increased monitoring is unlikely to detect adequate levels of genetic interchange, or they determine that sufficient interchange is not occurring regardless of monitoring efforts, they would alter management, including reducing mortality quotas in dispersal corridors or reducing total mortality quotas over a series of years to increase the probability that migrants into the population survive and reproduce (WGFC 2012, pp. 6-7). Translocation of wolves between subpopulations would only be used as a stop-gap measure, if necessary to increase genetic interchange (WGFC 2012, p. 7). These efforts would be coordinated with Montana and Idaho (WGFC 2012, p. 7).
 
Variations or Clarifications From What Was Described in the Proposed
Rule
 
    Lethal Take Permits–Consistent with the Wyoming Gray Wolf Management Plan (WGFC 2011, pp. 22-23, 32), the proposed rule explained that the Wyoming Game and Fish Department “may” issue lethal take permits in chronic depredation areas. However, Wyoming law (W.S. 23-1-304(n)) states that permits “shall be issued” to landowners or livestock owners in cases where wolves are harassing, injuring, maiming, or killing livestock or other domesticated animals, and where wolves occupy geographic areas where chronic wolf predation occurs. This mandatory approach to issuance of lethal take permits is a significant change from both current management and our summary of anticipated State management provided in the proposed rule. Another meaningful change from current Federal management is Wyoming’s allowance for lethal take permits for “harassment.” While these factors indicate lethal take permits could become a significant source
of mortality if we delist the gray wolf in Wyoming, numerous safeguards are in place that limit their potential to meaningfully and detrimentally impact the population.

    For example, State statute requires that permits be issued, and renewed as necessary, in 45-day increments (W.S. 23-1-304(n)), and State regulations limit the take allowance for each permit to a maximum
of 2 gray wolves, and specify that each permit can only apply to a specified limited geographic or legally described area (Chapter 21, section 7(b)(ii)). These requirements ensure application of this source
of take is limited in time and geography. Similarly, State regulations indicate that purported cases of wolf harassment, injury, maiming, or killing must be verified by the Wyoming Game and Fish Department
(Chapter 21, section 6(b)). We believe this requirement for Wyoming Game and Fish Department verification would limit potential abuse for this source of mortality. Finally, and most importantly, State law
(W.S. 23-1-304(n)) and the implementing regulation (Chapter 21, section 7(b)(iii)) clarify that existing permits would be cancelled, and issuance of new permits would be suspended, if the Wyoming Game and
Fish Department determines further lethal control “could” compromise the State’s ability to maintain a population of at least 10 breeding pairs and at least 100 wolves in Wyoming outside of Yellowstone
National Park and the Wind River Indian Reservation at the end of the calendar year. Importantly, the word “could” (as opposed to would or will) provides authority for the Wyoming Game and Fish Department to
manage for a buffer above the minimum target and limit control from lethal take permits, if necessary, to maintain an adequate minimum buffer. However, the Addendum to the Wyoming Gray Wolf Management Plan explains that the State law’s mandatory approach to issuance of lethal take permits requires that Wyoming’s adaptive management framework limit other discretionary sources of mortality before it limits this source of mortality (WGFC 2012, p. 7).

    On the whole, the available information indicates that, if we delist the gray wolf in Wyoming, Wyoming’s approach to lethal take permits may impact population abundance (particularly at a localized
level where wolf-livestock conflict is high), but that Wyoming has instituted sufficient safeguards to ensure that this source of mortality would not compromise the State’s ability to maintain a population of at least 10 breeding pairs and at least 100 wolves in Wyoming outside of Yellowstone National Park and the Wind River Indian Reservation at the end of the calendar year.

    Management on the Wind River Indian Reservation–Another issue incorrectly characterized in the proposed rule is wolf management within the Wind River Indian Reservation. Specifically, the proposed
rule noted that wolves would be classified as game animals within the Wind River Indian Reservation’s boundaries. This assumption was reflected in the proposal’s discussion of the percentage of Wyoming where wolves would be protected or managed as a game animal, as this calculation considered the entire reservation as game. However, the Addendum to the Wyoming Gray Wolf Management Plan clarifies that, if we
delist the gray wolf in Wyoming, wolves would be classified as predators on non-Indian fee titled lands within the Wind River Indian Reservation’s boundaries (WGFC 2012, p. 3). This altered interpretation
would have minimal impact on wolf management and abundance, as these inholdings tend to be concentrated on the eastern side of the reservation outside of reported areas of wolf activity (Shoshone and Arapaho Tribal Fish and Game Department 2007, Figure 1). Furthermore, this change in our understanding is likely of little biological consequence as the proposed rule noted an expectation that the reservation would likely support only a “very modest * * * number of wolves.” Therefore, this change does not alter our perspective on the viability of the Wyoming wolf population should delisting move forward.

    Management Authority and Hunting–Following publication of the proposed rule, many members of the public expressed confusion about what it means to be included in the WTGMA and whether hunting would
occur within National Park Service and National Wildlife Refuge System units. First, let us clarify that nothing in the proposed rule would alter, or in any way affect, the jurisdiction or authority of the State
of Wyoming, the National Park Service, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service with respect to the regulation of hunting in any unit of the National Park System or National Wildlife Refuge System. Whatever
jurisdiction or authority the State and the respective Services had to authorize, prohibit, or regulate hunting in such areas prior to any final rule would be unchanged by the promulgation of that rule (except,
of course, that, if adopted, the proposed rule would remove the protections of the Endangered Species Act from wolves wherever they may occur in Wyoming).

    Wyoming regulations (Chapter 21, section 2; Chapter 47, section 4) and the Addendum to the Wyoming Gray Wolf Management Plan (WGFC 2012, p. 3) clarify management authority over various portions of the WTGMA. Specifically, Wyoming clarified that the State of Wyoming has no management authority in Yellowstone National Park, on lands administered by the National Park Service within Grand Teton National
Park, on National Wildlife Refuges, and on lands within the Wind River Indian Reservation except non-Indian owned fee titled lands (as discussed above) (WGFC 2012, p. 3). Wyoming further clarified that, if we delist the gray wolf in Wyoming, wolves present within Grand Teton National Park and the National Elk Refuge would be designated as trophy game animals solely for the purposes of counting wolves toward the State’s agreed-upon management objectives (WGFC 2012, p. 3), and that any planned allowance for hunting would not apply in these areas (Chapter 47, section 4(a)). Although some hunting is currently allowed in the John D. Rockefeller, Jr. Memorial Parkway under the Parkway’s enabling legislation and Wyoming law, Wyoming’s hunting regulations are clear that gray wolf hunting would be closed in the Parkway for at least 2012 (Chapter 47, section 4(i)).

    While such clarifications are important to have a complete understanding of wolf management, if we delist the gray wolf in Wyoming, these characterizations of authority and clarifications of intention have little, to no, biological impact on the ability of Wyoming’s regulatory framework to satisfy its greed-upon management objectives.
 
Service Assessment
 
    The Service has reviewed the recently finalized Wyoming wolf management documents (including revised State statutes, revised gray wolf management regulations (chapter 21), revised gray wolf hunting season regulations (chapter 47), and an Addendum to the Wyoming Gray Wolf Management Plan), and concludes that the revisions to these documents are consistent with the conditionally approved Wyoming Gray Wolf Management Plan. Based on our review, we believe Wyoming’s regulatory framework would likely maintain a population of at least 10 breeding pairs and at least 100 wolves in Wyoming outside of Yellowstone National Park and the Wind River Indian Reservation at the end of the calendar year and, when considered in the context of management across the entire State and the entire Northern Rocky Mountain (NRM) region, that the regulatory framework would likely maintain Wyoming’s share of a recovered NRM gray wolf population and contribute to the continued maintenance of the larger NRM gray wolf population above minimum recovery levels.
 
Peer Review
 
    In accordance with our joint policy on peer review published in the Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), we intend to subject this proposal to peer review. Specifically, the peer review will
evaluate the proposal in light of the four recently completed documents that clarify Wyoming’s approach to wolf management should we delist the gray wolf in Wyoming, including: Revised State statutes; revised gray
wolf management regulations (chapter 21); revised gray wolf hunting season regulations (chapter 47); and an Addendum to the Wyoming Gray Wolf Management Plan. We anticipate this peer review will be completed and provided to the Service during the public comment period. Once available, we intend to post the peer review comments online at http://www.regulations.gov and http://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/species/mammals/wolf/. We will consider all comments and information provided by the public and peer reviewers during this comment period in preparation of a final determination on our proposed delisting. Accordingly, the final decision may differ from our proposal.
 
References Cited
 
    A complete list of references cited is available: On the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov or http://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/species/mammals/wolf/; or upon request from the Mountain-Prairie Region Office, Ecological Services Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
 
Authors
 
    The primary authors of this notice are staff members of the Mountain-Prairie Region Office, Ecological Services Division, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).

It has been 23 years since Congress has reauthorized or made any significant, responsible improvements to the Endangered Species Act to ensure that it works for both species and people. After more than two decades, the ESA should be modernized and updated to once again focus the law on true species recovery.

Get the Facts:

* In the United States, 1,383 species are listed under the ESA: 5828 animals and 795 plants.

* Of the domestic species protected by the ESA, the Fish and Wildlife Service has declared only 20 species recovered. This represents a 1 percent recovery rate.

* According to the Government Accountability Office (GAO), the average cost for the recovery of an endangered species is $15.9 million. The average cost of a complete listing decision is $85,000.

* The U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service has designated 97.8 million acres and 40,000 miles of coastal rivers and streams as “critical habitat” for 603 listed species. The cost of a single designation of critical habitat is $515,000.

* In the past ten years, Congress has appropriated $1.4 billion to the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service to conduct ESA activities including listing, consultation and recovery efforts and $174.3 million to the National Marine Fisheries Service to undertake ESA related activities.

* In July 2011 the Interior Department agreed to a settlement that covered 779 species in 85 lawsuits and legal actions. Information obtained from agencies indicates that they have a combined total of over 180 pending ESA-related lawsuits.

* According to the Washington Post, “In fiscal 2010, the Fish and Wildlife Service spent so much of its $21 million listing budget on litigation and responding to petitions that it had almost no money to devote to placing new species under federal protection, according to agency officials.”

Earlier this week, House Natural Resources Committee Chairman Doc Hastings (WA-04) sent a letter to U.S. Department of Justice Assistant Attorney General Ignacia Moreno asking for detailed information on how much taxpayer money is being spent on Endangered Species Act (ESA) related litigation and settlements involving the Department of Justice’s Environment and Natural Resources Department (ENRD). The letter raises concerns over the disproportionate amount of ESA appropriated funds that are spent on legal actions and responding to petitions—and the lack of transparency on how these funds are being spent.

“The goal of the ESA was to preserve, protect and recover key domestic species. However, today the law is failing to achieve its primary purpose of species recovery and instead has become a tool for litigation that drains resources away from real recovery efforts and blocks job-creating economic activities,” writes Hastings in the letter. “Given the lack of clarity and transparency over how much taxpayer money is being spent by the federal government in connection with litigation and legal settlements involving the ESA, including the amount of money paid to cover the attorney’s fees and legal costs of activist groups filing these dozens of lawsuits, the Committee is conducting oversight over the implementation of the ESA.”

In May and July 2011, the Obama Administration agreed to two separate litigation settlements involving petitions to list 779 species under the ESA through more than 85 lawsuits and legal actions. These settlements mandate that over 250 candidate species must be reviewed for final listing as either threatened or endangered under the ESA by 2016. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s FY 2013 budget request includes an increase in funding that could result in 88 more species being listed and critical habitat being designated in just this year alone.

On February 15, 2012, Chairman Hastings questioned Secretary Ken Salazar how much the Department of the Interior spends on litigation and settlements involving the ESA at the Committee’s hearing to consider the Department of the Interior’s FY2013 budget request. Secretary Salazar admitted that he did not know.

Click here to read a full copy of the letter.

Granted, the wording found in miles of sometimes seemingly senseless bureaucratic drivel, says that deference be given the Secretary in making decisions and changes and those changes should be based on “best available science”. Unfortunately “best available science” has also become a political football.

It appears that now, with some inroads being reached by those demanding stricter controls over grey wolves, wolf advocates are attempting to move the goal posts yet again. The impression is given that this is another attempt at public persuasive propaganda, where “best available science” becomes a session of human interaction and sensitivity training. One Ph.D. wants to survey people about how wolves should be managed and find out how the feel about it; the best available science of feeling?

Through email exchanges, I’ve discovered that Jeremy Bruskotter, a PhD at Ohio State University, began seeking participants for his survey. The copy of the inquiry letter is printed here:

Dear study participant,

We are contacting you because you expressed an interest in wolf management policy and a desire to participate in future research related to wolves. As a participant in our previous study, we’re interested to learn if and how your views on wolf conservation and management have changed since gray wolves were removed from Endangered Species Act protections in the northern Rocky Mountains and Great Lakes states last year.

Please note: We have greatly reduced the length of the prior survey. This survey should only take about 5 minutes of your time to complete. Also be aware that your participation in this study is voluntary. Should you choose to participate, you may leave the study at any time. If you decide to stop, there will be no penalty to you. All information gained in this study will be kept completely confidential and at no time will this information be connected with your name.

If you agree to participate, please click the link below to proceed to the survey.

CLICK THE LINK TO PROCEED TO THE SURVEY:

http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=FJHJ1r_2bAH_2bh4MTcTEwOXpw_3d_3d

Thank you for your time and participation!

Jeremy Bruskotter, PhD

As one might suspect, some people began questioning all aspects of such a survey. Robert T. Fanning, a gubernatorial candidate for Governor of Montana, responded to Dr. Bruskotter with a bruising and factual email, in which Fanning takes Bruskotter to task of his lack of knowledge of historic fact concerning the entire grey wolf introduction. Fanning wrote:

Jeremy,

In 2000, I, we, {FOTNYEH} paid a total of $17,000 for three consulting Ph.D’s, one of which was Dr Robert Taylor, Ph.D ,who, among other duties, reached out at my direction and appealed in writing to Mike Phillips of the Turner Endangered Species Fund, and the federal biologist in charge of the YNP introduction to bring all the “stakeholders” represented by Ph.Ds from both sides to the table and participate in the “adaptive management” process so a wildlife cataclysm could be avoided and the economic , customs, culture and traditions mandated by NEPA of those States impacted by forced wolf “reintroduction ” could be represented transparently and equally.

Phillips replied in writing on TESF letterhead and essentially told Dr Taylor to “stick it where the sun don’t shine”.

As the next governor of Montana I will introduce that letter as evidence in litigation seeking restitution and restoration for the harm done by Turner, Phillips et. al. and their bad faith dealing..

Now 12 years later you want to take a vote on “management”? The “deal” was 78-100 wolves in Yellowstone National Park over a 10 to 20 year period; now you have “concerns” about “statutory obligations” with over 4,000 or 5,000 wolves reproducing at a 30% rate.?
You’re joking , right Jeremy?
Who is paying for this “study” that is 12 years late ?
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Bad+Faith

I wrote this and other Montana and Idaho legislation http://data.opi.mt.gov/bills/2005/billhtml/HJ0029.htm

Mr. Fanning makes reference to the “deal” in his email response. Just over one year ago, I wrote a two-part series about “The Deal”. This should help readers to better understand exactly what Mr. Fanning is referencing when he questions Dr. Bruskotter’s request in surveying residents.

Understand as well, that it seems that Mr. Bruskotter makes reference, according to the response from Mr. Fanning, that now with the present management policies in place for wolves, i.e. they are hunted and trapped in some states, there should be concern for abiding by “statutory obligations”. Fanning’s reference to “The Deal” is all the statutory obligations that were presented to the people prior to wolf introduction and those wishing wolves in every dooryard, didn’t seem to have much concern about abiding by these so-called statutory obligations.

By hand selecting only those obligations that fits one’s agenda, has contributed significantly to the constant moving of goalposts making it impossible to properly manage and control the species. With years of historic statutory obligations tossed aside to achieve personal agendas, now that things are seemingly not going the way of wolf proliferation, those who disregarded the rules, like a spoiled child, once again are demanding rule changes.

Tom Remington

That statement rings a little hollow coming from the mouth of Governor Otter who has presented himself over the years as a more of a bundle of contradictions than someone opposed to having wolves in his state. While I think the governor shares the sentiment of many citizens of Idaho, for someone now claiming “we don’t want them here”, after 17 years and a few thousand wolves later, it’s kind of a gutless comment.

*Editor’s Note* Mr. Coe had posted a comment on another article posted at the Black Bear Blog about the ruling by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upholding the legality of Congress attaching a rider to a budget bill that effectively removed grey wolves from the Endangered Species Act list in Idaho and Montana, while at the same time shielding that rider from legal scrutiny. I contacted Mr. Coe and asked him if he would take the time and put his thoughts together in a more formal format in order to present them as a guest post on this blog. Below is his work.

Winning the Battle, Losing the War
By Barry Coe

Last week everyone in the wolf wars, were either delighted or disappointed in the fact that the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals returned a verdict on yet another wolf lawsuit, upholding the delisting budget bill rider for wolves in Idaho and Montana.

The truth of the matter is, no one should be surprised, as the courts rarely ever side with the constitution, and this speaks to a much larger problem we face in this country. Collusion among the three branches of government is exactly what our constitution was supposed to avoid, and what this lawsuit was actually about. Now, there are many reasons this has come about, and those I will not delve into here, but I would hope that both sides step back and realize none of this is about wolves or endangered species in general.

The entire Endangered Species Act(ESA) is truly unconstitutional, yet it too has held court muster to fulfill a bigger agenda, it is the foundation of collusion, the animals are just the tools.

Wolves are one tool that have seriously worn out their welcome, both in the states they were dumped in and in government where they are tired of this animal not moving along the conveyor belt of corruption. It has been so diligently and thoroughly abused by environmental “gang green”, that it has threatened the entire program. People are now waking up to the reality of the ESA and demanding changes. That demand has very serious threats to the larger agenda, so the wolves have been cast aside to protect the agenda, much to the dismay of gang green and to the delight of the people who actually have to live with this species.

But, I have to ask. At what cost? Do we really want to sell our souls and allow precedence to be set that permits congress, with a simple rider, to remove active cases from the courts that are supposed to hold congress in check? Of all the wolf lawsuits that were based and won on an unconstitutional law, this one was based on the constitution itself. In every case, the court rulings went against the foundations of personal freedoms and liberties, supporting the unconstitutional ESA and now directly undermining the constitution itself.

My belief is, they’ll let us have this battle, because it sets up a situation that will allow bigger crushing blows down the road. Do not be surprised when you see a rider to a budget or other bill that makes the personal mandate in Obamacare exempt from judicial review.

And people actually think this is about wolves.

The Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation applauded the decision.

Attorneys representing RMEF and other conservation groups had presented oral arguments supporting the Congressional action, wolf delisting and science-based, state-regulated management and control of wolf populations.

“This is a huge win for real wildlife management in the U.S.,” said David Allen, RMEF president and CEO. “We’re thrilled with the favorable ruling because it upholds the law as well as science and common sense. This decision helps clear the way for continued work by true conservationists to balance wolf populations with other wildlife and human needs.”

Allen suspects the plaintiffs will appeal their case to the U.S. Supreme Court.

He said, “I’m hopeful that a Congressional act, multiple courtroom defeats and an American public that is clearly tired of this legal wrangling will encourage our opponents to give up and cede responsible wolf management to conservation professionals in each state. But we’ll have to wait and see.”

RMEF continues to fight wolf lawsuits and support delisting legislation at both federal and state levels.

“If I was a bird, I’d be an angry bird right now,” said David Almasi, executive director of the National Center for Public Policy Research and director of the National Center’s “Occupy Occupy DC” project. “Countless innocent birds that only want to be with their eggs die every year from crashing into wind turbines. The environmentalists who promote wind energy at the expense of the birds are green pigs!”

Monday’s event is part of The National Center for Public Policy Research’s “Occupy Occupy D.C.” events at Freedom Plaza. The National Center obtained a five-week permit from the U.S. Park Service that forces the Occupy D.C. encampment to share the park between February 12 and March 15.

A report by the National Research Council estimated that wind turbines kill approximately 100,000 birds every year. The American Bird Conservancy claims the number could be triple that estimate — affecting the songbird community most of all.

“At some point the slaughter of birds and bats by taxpayer-subsidized wind turbines is going to trigger serious legal action,” added National Center Senior Fellow Bonner Cohen, Ph.D. “If the full force of the Migratory Bird Treaty and the Endangered Species Act were brought to bear on these unsightly killing machines, investors would turn their backs on this artificial industry in a heartbeat.”

The National Center for Public Policy Research, founded in 1982, is a non-partisan, free-market, independent conservative think-tank with over 100,000 recent supporters. Contributions to it are tax-deductible and greatly appreciated.