Defenders and Earth Justice, etc. did argue on the merits of delisting. however, they also filed a motion for summary judgement which included all issues, and which was ruled valid and was the basis for the decision.

The only issue that could be decided was the issue as to whether or not delisting only Idaho and Montana and keeping wolves in Wyoming was legal. It was not. Fish and Wildlife incorrectly interpretted their legal ability to do so, the judge overturned that decision.

As to the merits of delisting, that is not a matter the courts can decide at this point in time. As to my arguments that delisting cannot be successful because the very issues cited by the Northern Rocky Mountain Wolf Recovery Plan as the reason for loss of wolves have not been addressed, excepting population numbers; those arguments are unlikely arguments I can make in court, at least not without a great deal of research on the matter. I must first try to convince Fish and Wildlife, or Congress. Congress...forget it. Fish and Wildlife have already stated their disagreement with my findings and arguments despite the logic and evidence in support of them. I have represented my arguments to them via Ed Bangs and asked if we could work together. Barring that, I will have to work with you, to present my findings, and educate you as to how you can help convince Fish and Wildlife to do the right thing through the ordinary procedures involved.

Given that Fish and Wildlife will soon be delisting wolves again, and will have to go through such procedure; I estimate I have about a year to get my personal legal issues settled sufficiently so I can work on convincing you and the rest of the general public interested in wolf recovery that my arguments are valid, sound, and vitally important to the future well being of wolves as a species in this nation.

The only other alternative I have is to wait for my arguments to be proven valid over time, and then my only recourse will be to say "I told you so." I will not be happy with that course.

If anyone knows a good civil rights attorney who can help me file a case in federal civil court in Washington State, please contact me. Settling my personal issues will afford me the time to devote my energies to my work, rather than maintaining my personal health and well being. I currently have to devote ALL of my energy to such matters. The sole reason I have the time to read these decisions is that I made a conscious decision to set aside my personal matters while I await a decision by the state on whether or not they are going to back off on their previous decision to deny me due process. I doubt they will, which means I will have to go through even more legal work on a case which I am less and less capable of handling.

Today, Judge Molloy decided that wolves were not legally delisted by the US Fish and Wildlife Service.

I do not have a copy of this decision, and am relying strictly on news reports in my analysis herein. If possible, I will post a new entry when I get a copy of the decision.

The good news is, wolves are back on federal protection. The bad news is that Judge Molloy only ruled on Earth Justice's argument that wolves were delisted wrongfully because they weren't delisted in Wyoming. He did not rule on whether or not wolves were delisted.

It is disappointing to me that the issue of whether or not wolves are recovered was not ruled on. This may because of how the case was presented. I am deeply interested because in ruling as Molloy did today, my arguments that delisting cannot take place until education efforts undo the very reasons for wolves needing recovery are successful were not heard or considered. This means that wolves will be delisted again after this Wyoming issue is settled, and another lawsuit will be filed. These lawsuits, I believe, are filed with Equal Access to Justice Act funds, as well as through the contribution of money to organizations like Earth Justice. In my mind, this creates a significant financial drain that doesn't need to happen. I will analyze the complaint and decision and present my findings when I can.

Unfortunately, I cannot pursue legal action myself. I would like to see wolves protected until the factors leading to their decline in the first place are resolved, and the only way to do that is through education. I believe that wolf advocates' donations are better served by creating and maintaining educational efforts, rather than filing lawsuit after lawsuit. Unfortunately, I am mired down in my own legal battles. I actually have to find a civil rights attorney to sue the state I reside in which has been abusing me with regards to provision of state and federal public assistance benefits. The state is hindering my efforts to prove I am disabled and unable to work, and has denied me due process in fighting their unlawful denial of my state benefits, part of which are federal-grant program benefits (Medicaid.) My latest case, to fight closing my benefits, includes over 1500 pages of Discovery documents, Discovery which wasn't even completed. My motion of prejudice to replace the administrative law judge was illegally denied and I have to move into the Appellate Court system here in the state to fight this as the Superior Court judge in the county I reside is one of the "good ol' boys" and won't rule against his friends in the local office. A real-life David and Goliath fight, and this David is injured and thus having a really tough time fighting this fight. Sadly, the state is so messed up that the civil rights attorneys have a waiting list of clients because of the sheer volume of suits against the state agency. My efforts with regards to this matter will likely be limited to an analysis and publication of my results on this blog.



And for the record, since I know FWS personnel are reading this, I will work with Fish and Wildlife Service on a voluntary basis to help develop and implement educational efforts.

I have read many comments and heard many things said against the ruling by Judge Molloy in his decision not to grant the injuction against the hunting of wolves in Idaho and Montana.

I read through the text of the ruling.

And what bothers me, I hate to say, is why people aren't mad at Earth Justice for what I regret to say was a poorly written motion.

Now, don't get me wrong. I'm a better critic than a lawyer and could not have written such a motion myself. But in reviewing Judge Molloy's decision, I have to agree with him 100%. And I don't quite understand why people are coming down so hard on him when his ruling was very well done, very well written, and right; and also in light of his decision today on grizzly delisting.

What people seem to miss too, in the ruling, is that Judge Molloy indicated, in reviewing the four tests for the issuance of an injunction, that the plaintiffs are likely to prevail. In fact, three of the four tests were successful (though two did fail, except one failed because the second did.) The test that failed was Earth Justice's failure to demonstrate that wolf hunts would harm them, or the public at-large. But this isn't entirely their failing. Science has failed in this regard too. There simply isn't enough research on the subject. There are other factors too, but I am addressing them separately. But the motion simply didn't stand up, plain and simple.

I look forward to watching this case progress. Judge Molloy seems fair. The case is well presented. And I remain hopeful that my contribution will provide further insight into the larger issues of this case and wolf recovery in general. As I continue to recover my faculties of late, I continue to discover that the people involved in these issues aren't as intelligent and logical as they should be in their actions on behalf of wolves. I see too many people more concerned about the almighty dollar, or glory; than about wolves. And too much faith is entrusted in the policy makers and scientists who quite simply don't have the matter in-hand as of yet. This is new territory, and I hope that science and policy makers continue to learn, and stop letting politics get in the way of progress.

I was, of course, wrong about this. I misunderstood the nature of the hunt in Idaho, and was not aware that only two units were open to hunting.

I do believe that irreperable harm will come to many wolf packs, and that depredation of livestock will increase in areas where wolves and livestock are close to each other and where hunting takes place. Disaster may still befall wolves, but it will take some time, and it will also require that Idaho and Montana continue to demonstrate malice towards wolves, and towards the will of the people of this nation.



--------



I foresee a disaster in the making for Idaho's wolf hunt.

10,700 wolf tags have so far been issued. The hunt has started, the week before Labor Day weekend, the last hurrah for most outdoorsmen in Idaho to get out and enjoy summer: Idaho style, i.e. shooting things.

But while 10,700 permits to take a wolf have been issued, the quota for the state is 220 wolves. And the hunt will be stopped as soon as the quota is reached.

Sounds reasonable, right?

Here's the catch: the rules for the wolf hunt require kills be reported within 24 hours, "with consideration for backcountry hunters" (from the official rules.) Did I mention Labor Day was coming up? A minimum 3-day weekend for most Idahoans, and more like 5 or 6 to many who cherish this last weekend for camping and outdoor recreation (including shooting things?) It gets worse:

First, there are only a handful, at most, available law enforcement officers for each game unit. So enforcement of hundreds of thousands of square miles of wolf territory is in the hands of maybe a dozen or two people - versus 10,700 tag holders.

Second, the penalty for failure to report a wolf kill within 24 hours, which hunters are aware of, is a ticket with a fine of $57.

Third, its Labor Day weekend - how many hunters are going to end their hunt to go back into town and call in their kill if they kill their wolf on Friday? Bear in mind its just as easy to lie and say the wolf was killed, say, the day before they plan to return home from their weekend.

Fourth, wolves live in packs. Hunters know this, and will in all likelihood hunt with their friends so that they can take a whole pack (or substantial portion thereof) at once.

Fifth, wolves in Idaho have NEVER been hunted. To them, a gunshot means a gutpile, a free meal. So the usual response of a hunted game animal, to flee gunshots, will not be as likely.


The result of all of these factors is a very significant likelihood of a disaster to the wolf population in Idaho in less than a week after the hunt for wolves began. I firmly believe that hunters will kill wolves far faster than Idaho anticipates (or perhaps Idaho already anticipated this...). In other words, I believe that the quota of 220 wolves will be met long before Labor Day weekend is out, and long before Idaho can issue a call to end the hunt. Even IF hunters manage to fulfill their legal duty to call in their kill, the likelihood of the quota being reached during Labor Day weekend is high, and in case you aren't aware, there is no way to inform hunters that the hunt is ended when they're all out on their weekend hunts.

And so it is that I predict a disaster, that far and above the quota will be killed, and that such will be realized by Tuesday or Wednesday when the count will be official. Bear in mind that I live here in Idaho, among a very strong population of avid wolf haters, who have on numerous occassions risked the potential penalty of a $100,000 fine and 6 months in jail, for the chance to brag to their friends that they killed a wolf (as was precisely the case of the man given the stiffest fine to date of $21,000.)


But while many wolves may well lose their lives, this may represent a turning point, not only for protection of wolves, but for all big-game species managed by states for the sole benefit of hunters.

I don't know if this disaster will happen. It seems very likely to me that it will. But if it does, I am going to commit to helping to launch a campaign to end state-control of big game animals for the purpose of hunting.

My heart goes out to the wolves who have had to give their lives for the Fish and Wildlife Service's botched experiment in reintroduction, and to the hundreds who will likely lose their lives this coming weekend.

I read about it in the news, since I don't watch television or listen to the radio: but you have no doubt seen or heard of Republican tactics to disrupt health care town hall and other gatherings to discuss openly the health care reform issue, top on President Obama's domestic agenda.

You have heard undoubtedly accurate portrayals as these disruptions being scripted: politics driven by a vulgar, violent, vocal minority.

It's appalling when one considers the real impact these, heck there's just not a nice way to refer to them - people are causing. These are people who want the status quo (despite the simple fact that it is NOT currently status quo, given that only (by sheer coincidence) most of the health care industry was non-profit as of 8 years ago (though thank Reagan and Bush Sr. for the cost of drugs going up thanks to efforts to allow on-air advertising of pharmaceuticals.



But what does this have to do with wolf recovery?

What you are seeing unfold, my friends, is politics - Republican Style - the same politics that have ruled wolf issues since the 1980s when opposition to recovery efforts began.

The techniques used by Republicans today, rallying support through organized propaganda, through organizations who are not supposed to be involved in politics (a signature of the Bush political campaign of 2004 when Churches were used to, in utter and complete violation of their non-profit status, promote Bush - including cries by preachers to vote for Bush or go to hell), and through corporations and industry lobbies with one goal: to become the vocal minority who wins out over the silent majority. These are travesties of Democracy, but sadly, liberals do little to mitigate or fight these efforts, and thus this vocal minority wins out in the end.

But I have doubts that these efforts, as desperate as they are (which include rampant death-threats against politicians and others) will be effective because of the makeup of Capitol Hill. They were effective with wolf recovery, but no amount of effort on their part will change the fact that Democrats have a vast majority of Congress as well as the Whitehouse.

My only hope is that this accurate representation of American ideals (in 2004, 51% of registered voters were Democrats, 38% were Republicans) can hold out against the continued onslaught of propaganda in wolf recovery issues as it is likely to do in health care.