SECTION 1. That Article I, of the Constitution of the State of Idaho be
24 amended by the addition of a NEW SECTION, to be known and designated as Sec-
25 tion 23, Article I, of the Constitution of the State of Idaho, and to read as
26 follows:

27 SECTION 23. RIGHT TO HUNT, FISH AND TRAP. All wildlife within
28 the state of Idaho shall be preserved, protected, perpetuated and
29 managed to provide continued supplies for the citizens of Idaho to
30 harvest by hunting, fishing and trapping for the continued benefit of
31 the people. The taking of wildlife, including all wild animals, birds
32 and fish, by hunting, fishing and trapping is a valued part of our
33 heritage and shall be a right preserved for the people. The exercise
34 of this right by the people shall not be prohibited, but shall be
35 subject to the laws, rules, and proclamations of the state. The
36 rights set forth herein do not create a right to trespass on private
37 property or lead to a diminution of other private rights and shall
38 not be construed to prohibit or in any way affect rights established
39 to divert, appropriate, and use water pursuant to Article XV or the
40 statutes and rules enacted pursuant thereto, or to establish any min-
41 imum amount of water in any stream, river, lake, reservoir or other
42 watercourse or water body.

Of note is the fact that Idaho’s proposed amendment included wording that mandated the state to preserve, protect, perpetuate and manage wildlife, “to provide continued supplies for the citizens of Idaho to harvest by hunting, fishing and trapping for the continued benefit of the people.”

The Humane Society of the United States opposed this amendment and efforts were underway to see that this amendment never passed muster. It was Senator David Langhorst, a democrat and member of the Idaho Sportsmen’s Caucus Advisory Council and the Congressional Sportsmen’s Caucus, who was instrumental in that effort.

Sen. Langhorst, just prior to a vote in the Idaho Senate, introduced a replacement bill, and muddied the debate by making the issue in the amendment about water and water rights/access. George Dovel, editor of The Outdoorsman, at that time wrote in an article, “Elk Controversy”:

Instead of debating the proposed Constitutional amendment in the Senate Resource Committee where it passed unanimously in their absence, Sen. Langhorst helped Sen. Little destroy its chance of passing by the required two-thirds majority in the full Senate by offering an ineffective substitute immediately before it was voted on.

Perhaps the best constitutional amendment ever proposed to the state of Idaho was railroaded out of the Idaho Congress by the efforts of one man. The 2/3 majority needed failed because of a fabricated water issue.

Turning the clock ahead to 2012, both Houses of the Idaho Congress have passed HJR2a. If Governor Otter signs this resolution, a referendum vote will appear in the upcoming November election where the citizens of Idaho will decide on its fate.

What is wrong with this proposed amendment is that it has been stripped down from the 2006 version in which the new proposal essentially only protects the right to opportunity to hunt, fish and trap. The 2006 version clearly spelled out a mandate to the state that it had to manage wildlife in order to provide enough for all citizens of Idaho to harvest that game. Why does the state of Idaho seemingly not want to perpetuate game for all citizens?

So who is responsible for stripping out of the constitutional amendment the guts that would actually preserve, protect and perpetuate wildlife for hunting, fishing and trapping? One has to wonder if it isn’t the effort of Idaho’s own Department of Fish and Game. Not to be misunderstood here, but Idaho is very similar to most fish and game departments nationwide. All have taken a position, much like the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has, where once its function was in managing game using the North American Model and now its model is to protect all wildlife with the intent of getting rid of hunting, fishing and trapping as part of that management process.

The Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG) announced recently it was conducting a “Wildlife Summit“. With focus within the department to change Idaho’s Wildlife Code, it is presumed by many sportsmen that the Wildlife Summit is to be used to promote the changing of this code, that if successful would remove the part of that code that mandates wildlife be “preserved, protected, perpetuated, and managed”.

Government is the enemy of sportsmen. No longer do they hold interest in what the sportsmen want or in the scientific approach to manage wildlife. It’s all about control. Environmentalism has taken control of our fish and game departments and what has transpired in Idaho is a classic example of what takes place everyday in America.

Perhaps the citizens of Idaho will vote to pass this pseudo constitutional amendment, thinking they have done a good thing, while not fully understanding that the amendment is nothing more than the results of a shell game, a dog and pony show, a sham of the worst kind.

This is your government at work.

Tom Remington

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

Wolves are opportunistic hunters. In other words, they take what they can when they can. That isn’t to say that a wolf isn’t smart enough to recognize a badly limping deer or elk and from a few years experience has learned that they are easier to catch. However, the idiots who perpetuate the dishonest fable about killing only the crippled and sickly, present their theory to people in a manner that leads them to believe that wolves are so highly evolved intellectually, they always are aware that they are killing only those animals that “need” to be killed to keep a healthy prey species for next time.

The question I have is this. We have learned that wolves carry echinococcus granulosus worms and pass this on to elk, deer and moose. We’ve also discovered that when this occurs, hydatid cysts develop, sometimes very large ones, in the lungs, the result of which can seriously restrict an ungulate’s ability to escape the danger of predators. Are these same highly intelligent wolves capable of diagnosing hydatid cysts where highly skilled human doctors cannot?

In a recent news article in the Kansas City Star, a woman who represents the Defenders of Wildlife in the Northern Rockies where overblown populations of wolves exist, made the following statements. (Warning: If you are eating or drinking, please clear mouth and throat before reading.)

“In some ways wolves are benefitting elk in that they’re the only predator that actually culls disease and other illnesses from those herds,” Stone said. “So genetically over time, wolves actually improve the overall health of elk populations.

“So the wolves should maybe be charging Idaho for their services.”

The wolves are doing such a good job, it appears they are taking no chances. Probably due to fear, the wolves are killing all elk just to make sure they haven’t left any diseased or lame animals behind.

This person needs a rubber room. It’s this kind of crap sandwich that gets shared so often in the media that people actually believe this stuff to have truth in it. Not one word uttered here is factual. Not one! I say let’s bring in a half dozen of these wolves, give them a stethoscope and a white robe and put them to work “culling diseases” from humans.

I don’t like to place photos or cartoon sketches of other people’s work on my websites without permission. However, in the Critter News about a week ago, there appeared the below cartoon. The author’s name and signature are on it. Having seen this cartoon, I thought it only appropriate that I share this with others and perhaps if someone knows Ms. Stone, who promotes disease-killing wolves, she would appreciate a copy as well.

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.