Politics is a sordid crusade, probably not falling far short of some of this nation’s notorious mobster gangs that wreaked havoc in our larger cities of yesterday and still going strong today only dressed more in sheep’s clothing. Today, corruption and all the associated immoral acts, are much more widely accepted when the perspective is that ends justify means. You can’t maintain a solid footing with a typical politician unless you are a criminal yourself, with money, power and organized backing.
Can truth win out in the end? I have my doubts because few possess a clear enough mind to even know what truth is. Stealing from a famous line in a movie by Jack Nicholson, “You can’t handle the truth!”
Forget the lecturing on morals! I’ll move on.
The wolf wars have become fully engaged in the cannibalistic world of politics. If you think you got an understanding of how these maggots operate, I must inform you that you don’t.
Those that have followed the wolf wars know the influence the courts have had. Too many judges have their own activist agendas, many bought and paid for by environmentalists. A book could be written about the despicable “practice[s] to deceive”, but I’ll spare you this time.
Most who support sensible control of gray wolves and just as importantly a state’s right to administer their own wildlife plans, also are behind the efforts in Congress to pass HB 509 and/or S249. Both bills are simple and would promptly remove the gray wolf nationwide from the Endangered Species Act (ESA) list in order that state’s can make their own decisions on how to control this apex predator.
HB 509 and S 249 are simply written, easy to understand, applies to all states and every American citizen, saves taxpayers money, is non-preferential, saves federal tax dollars, gives states back their rights to manage game, is equitable, will aid in protecting the safety of citizens, ease the burden of loss of property and would limit disease. Who in their right mind would not support this kind of bill.
The truth is the entire foundation of the wolf wars could never have been built if the Endangered Species Act had been amended to meet the changes over the past 40 years. It hasn’t and any effort to do so has met with immense opposition. And thus, we are seeing the results of what a document crafted to destroy urban America can do. It has become an instrument to extort money from taxpayers and put more corrupt power into the hands of politicians.
Some question whether HB 509 and/or S 249 could obtain passage standing alone. There is valid argument to suggest that passage of such a bill would set a troubling precedent to be able to request most any specie be removed from federal protection. The problem is, the people have been left with no other alternative. And let’s further our honesty and say that adding a rider or an earmark or whatever it is you want to call it, onto a budget bill or some other bill, although stated to be legal, is a “practice to deceive”; if not for the immoral and corrupt politicians then “we the people”.
Those concerned about whether HB 509 and/or S 249 will pass, might be missing out on the dishonest, political regurgitation taking place in Congress that is about as crooked as lawless lawmaker can get. Congressman Mike Simpson, a republican from Idaho, sits on the House Budget Committee. He is one of the 535 who fail at their job to pass a budget but he has time to cut the throats of his constituents by working with Senators Baucus and Tester of Montana to attach a deceptive wolf bill to one of these useless “continuing resolutions” to keep the government funded.
While the Simpson Bill may appear reasonable on the surface, it’s actually quite destructive, dishonest, inequitable and preferential – unconstitutional to boot. The bill essentially would mandate that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) reissue the 2009 Final Rule that declared wolves recovered and removed from the ESA. There are many problems with this. For one, the bill, if passed would only apply to Idaho, Montana, portions of Oregon, Washington and Utah and would exclude Wyoming, the Western Great Lakes population of gray wolves and those in the Southwest, along with the entire United States of America.
The Simpson bill also states that once re-issuance of the 2009 Final Rule is accomplished, it cannot be challenged by the courts. That act, in and of itself, is troubling. Consider the U.S. Constitution and the Founders who labored for weeks and months to devise a system of and by the people to insure three branches of the government, independent of one another. Do we really want to pass a bill that would accomplish as circumvention of the courts? As much as I would like to flush all of Judge Donald Molloy’s court rulings down the nearest toilet, I think this act is quite dangerous and unconstitutional…..if that would matter. Consider the ramifications beyond the wolf wars.
Passage of this bill would more than likely destroy any chances of passing HB 509 or S 249. That leaves quite a mess to be sorted out. In other words, it will be left up to lawyers and the deep pockets of the environmentalists.
It may be the only honest bit of litigation that exists in all the wolf lawsuits, but the Wyoming and Wyoming Wolf Coalition v. United States Department of Interior, Case No. 09-CV-118J, is a solid and meaningful “final” court ruling. The case was heard by Tenth District Court Judge Alan B. Johnson and the plaintiffs, Wyoming Wolf Coalition, was anchored by the genius of Harriet M. Hageman of Hageman and Brighton, PC.
Wyoming, as well as Idaho and Montana had to have USFWS-approved wolf management plans before the feds would delist wolves. Wyoming had one and then after the fact the Feds decided they didn’t like it. The USFWS decided to go ahead with delisting plans except exclude Wyoming from that delisting. Judge Molloy ruled the USFWS couldn’t delist according to state boundaries and wolves got relisted.
Hageman and the Wyoming Wolf Coalition sued the USFWS about its denial of the state’s wolf plan. Johnson ruled in their favor and now that the Feds have officially decided they will not appeal Johnson’s ruling, Wyoming’s wolf plan is legitimate and Johnson’s ruling becomes the law of land.
In a recent 12-page document sent out to multiple interested parties, Harriet Hageman explains how this ruling is beneficial, not only to Wyoming but every state in the Union.
Judge Johnson’s decision was a great victory for all of the citizens of the state of Wyoming, including our livestock producers, our sportsmen groups, and our outfitters. It was a great victory for those cities and counties in Wyoming that have suffered the economic impacts of an ever-expanding wolf population. Judge Johnson’s decision, and the dismissal of the 10th Circuit Appeal, will also allow Wyoming to protect its historically-abundant wildlife species, including those elk and moose populations that have suffered so tremendously as the result of the federal agencies’ intransigence associated with the “wolf experiment”.
Judge Johnson’s decision was also a great victory for all state Fish and game agency and commission as it validates the States’ right to manage their own wildlife. This decision makes clear that the States should be allowed to balance the competing wildlife demands, and to develop the type of management plans that work best within their particular borders.
As triumphant as this victory may seem, Hageman also expresses “great disappointment” in referencing the Simpson/Tester/Baucus bill. As I pointed out above, this bill is exclusionary and preferential and Hageman agrees saying it would exempt Wyoming and everyone else, leaving them to “fend for themselves”.
What’s worse is Hageman fears the wording in the Simpson Bill is designed to destroy the Johnson ruling.
Most importantly, however, the very wording of the proposed amendment appears to be designed to nullify Judge Johnson’s decision in its entirety.
Passage of the Simpson/Baucus/Tester Bill would provide for a reinstatement of the 2009 Final Rule, including no judicial challenges to this rule. Does this nullify Johnson’s court ruling because it transpired after the initial issuance of the 2009 Final Rule? Whatever you or I think matters little. What I can assure you is that litigation will tie it up forever.
Now the question becomes, what did the USFWS know behind the scenes, before they decided to not appeal the Johnson ruling? My guess is this was all part of the plan. If Simpson, Tester and Baucus felt confident in their slime-ball politicking to lie, cheat and steal their way into a rottenly deceptive bill, they convinced the USFWS to go ahead and drop their appeal and they would get a better return on their investment this way.
In addition, and I suspect what is really behind this attempt to dismantle HB 509 and S 249, is to pad the coffers of the environmentalists who make gobs of money keeping this issue tied up in court. How many of this trio receive money and support from the environmentalists? Follow the stinking, rotten money.
There is no other explanation for the behavior and the tactics. When you stick your fingers into the tangled web of corrupt U.S. politics, you’ll be hauled full body into this cesspool that once was a shining star.
The wolf wars rage on!