Post by muskyhusky on Oct 20, 2008 18:07:38 GMT -6
By CHRIS MERRILL
Casper Star-Tribune
RIVERTON - On a mild fall day, with the Wind River Range glittering in sunlight to the southwest, more than a dozen state and local lawmakers and some 50 members of the public spent several hours inside a windowless conference room talking about wolves.
The state Legislature's joint travel, recreation, wildlife and cultural resources committee met in Cody on Thursday and Riverton on Friday to hear testimony from officials and members of the public. The panel is deciding how it should respond to a federal court ruling this week that quashed a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service plan to take gray wolves off the endangered-species list.
The Bush administration removed wolves in this part of the country from the list in March, handing over management to Wyoming, Montana and Idaho. That decision was challenged as soon as legally possible in federal court by a dozen conservation and animal rights organizations.
In July, U.S. District Judge Donald Molloy sided with the conservation organizations and issued an injunction against the rule, saying the government had failed to ensure genetic exchange between the three main wolf populations in the three states and had flip-flopped on Wyoming's "dual status" plan, by first rejecting it and then accepting it, without justification for the change.
That July decision effectively restored federal endangered-species status to wolves until a decision in the larger legal challenge was handed down.
This week, at the request of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the judge "vacated" the March delisting rule, essentially making it void.
Back to the beginning
"We are right now, in effect, right where we were before that rule was published," Wyoming Attorney General Bruce Salzburg told the panel. "The plan going forward, as I understand it, is they will re-open the comment period for another 30 days, the Fish and Wildlife Service will look at those comments and publish a revised delisting rule."
Ed Bangs, the wolf recovery coordinator for the government, told the Associated Press on Tuesday that the new delisting rule could be published as early as January 2009, but a spokeswoman with the department said that same day that the process would probably take longer than that.
Regardless, Salzburg and others told lawmakers that however long it takes, the feds are likely to reject Wyoming's wolf management plan, if it stays as written.
In his ruling, Molloy cited what he saw as flaws in Wyoming's plan, especially the provision that classified most of the state as a "shoot-on-sight" predator management zone for wolves, where the animals could be killed without any limits.
At least two state legislators, including Rep. Keith Gingery of Jackson, have proposed revising the state wolf management statute to get rid of the predator management zone and classify wolves as trophy game throughout the state, much like mountain lions are classified.
Gingery presented his proposal to the committee Friday, and most of the testimony from officials and members of the public consisted of a debate regarding the merits of such action.
Gingery said he believes changing the state wolf laws would be the quickest way to get back to state management of wolves.
"I think our plan was a good plan," Gingery said. "I think we all agree. But we'll never get it through court."
John Emmerich, the deputy director of the Wyoming Game and Fish Department, testified that the cost to the state to implement a single-status trophy game plan for wolves would be about $1.5 million per year, or about $300,000 more than the current dual-status plan.
Jim Magagna, executive vice president of the Wyoming Stock Growers Association, urged the lawmakers not to rush into anything until the legal issues shake out and until they see what happens with wolves in Idaho and Montana.
It's possible the animals could be delisted in those two states and remain endangered in Wyoming.
"We'd like to put this to rest, but I don't think we have a playing field where we can put this thing to rest today," Magagna told the panel.
David Noble, a rancher, urged the legislators "not to waste any more energy trying to accommodate" the judge.
The delisting process, Noble said, is "set up to fail," he said.
Rancher Charles Price urged the panel to stick to its guns and sue the federal government to accept the Wyoming plan and make it "do as was promised."
Some disagreement
thingy Inberg, a self-described recreationist who does summer mule pack trips in wolf country, disagreed. He urged the panel to rewrite the wolf laws because the "Legislature screwed up big-time," he said, when it insisted the plan have the "shoot-on-sight" zone. Inberg said he supports Gingery's proposal.
Bud Betts, a dude rancher and outfitter in the Dubois area, also urged the panel to draft a new bill addressing the judge's concerns, to show the "state is acting in good faith" and then to use that new bill "as leverage."
Regardless of the plan, he said, there's going to be legal challenges.
"The purpose would be to create litigation in the future that we can win," Betts said. "We're not saying we were wrong. We're saying we passed this plan and lost."
Representatives with the Jackson Hole Conservation Alliance, the Sierra Club and the Wyoming Outdoor Council testified in support of Gingery's proposal, and a handful of stock growers, including Jon Robinett from the Dubois area, also spoke in support of the idea.
"This is a tremendous opportunity for the state to match those criteria" in Molloy's ruling, Robinett said. "If you do that and it's not accepted, then you can walk away."
Robinett argued before the Legislature for statewide trophy game status in 2003 and 2004, when it was an unpopular argument, especially among his peers in the stock growing industry.
"Talk about getting tarred and feathered," he joked. "But if we'd done that, we wouldn't be here today."
State Sen. Eli Bebout, who represents the Riverton area, said he believes dual status for wolves is "paramount" and urged the panel not to try to appease "some left-wing judge."
Rancher Stan Hoventhingy also told the panel to "hold fast."
And Lander rancher Dave Vaughan told the lawmakers: "Don't move a foot. Hold up our rights and hold up our constitution."
Although there was much disagreement, just about everybody in attendance agreed that the state Legislature has three basic options:
• It can do nothing.
• It can change the state laws that govern wolf management in an attempt to create a plan more lawsuit-worthy.
• It can sue the federal government in an attempt to make it accept its existing plan, perhaps on the grounds of states' rights.
State Sen. Bruce Burns, the committee co-chair, said nothing was decided Friday but that the panel will meet again soon to further consider its options.
Published on Saturday, October 18, 2008
www.billingsgazette.net/articles/2008/10/18/news/wyoming/29-wolfplan.txt
Casper Star-Tribune
RIVERTON - On a mild fall day, with the Wind River Range glittering in sunlight to the southwest, more than a dozen state and local lawmakers and some 50 members of the public spent several hours inside a windowless conference room talking about wolves.
The state Legislature's joint travel, recreation, wildlife and cultural resources committee met in Cody on Thursday and Riverton on Friday to hear testimony from officials and members of the public. The panel is deciding how it should respond to a federal court ruling this week that quashed a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service plan to take gray wolves off the endangered-species list.
The Bush administration removed wolves in this part of the country from the list in March, handing over management to Wyoming, Montana and Idaho. That decision was challenged as soon as legally possible in federal court by a dozen conservation and animal rights organizations.
In July, U.S. District Judge Donald Molloy sided with the conservation organizations and issued an injunction against the rule, saying the government had failed to ensure genetic exchange between the three main wolf populations in the three states and had flip-flopped on Wyoming's "dual status" plan, by first rejecting it and then accepting it, without justification for the change.
That July decision effectively restored federal endangered-species status to wolves until a decision in the larger legal challenge was handed down.
This week, at the request of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the judge "vacated" the March delisting rule, essentially making it void.
Back to the beginning
"We are right now, in effect, right where we were before that rule was published," Wyoming Attorney General Bruce Salzburg told the panel. "The plan going forward, as I understand it, is they will re-open the comment period for another 30 days, the Fish and Wildlife Service will look at those comments and publish a revised delisting rule."
Ed Bangs, the wolf recovery coordinator for the government, told the Associated Press on Tuesday that the new delisting rule could be published as early as January 2009, but a spokeswoman with the department said that same day that the process would probably take longer than that.
Regardless, Salzburg and others told lawmakers that however long it takes, the feds are likely to reject Wyoming's wolf management plan, if it stays as written.
In his ruling, Molloy cited what he saw as flaws in Wyoming's plan, especially the provision that classified most of the state as a "shoot-on-sight" predator management zone for wolves, where the animals could be killed without any limits.
At least two state legislators, including Rep. Keith Gingery of Jackson, have proposed revising the state wolf management statute to get rid of the predator management zone and classify wolves as trophy game throughout the state, much like mountain lions are classified.
Gingery presented his proposal to the committee Friday, and most of the testimony from officials and members of the public consisted of a debate regarding the merits of such action.
Gingery said he believes changing the state wolf laws would be the quickest way to get back to state management of wolves.
"I think our plan was a good plan," Gingery said. "I think we all agree. But we'll never get it through court."
John Emmerich, the deputy director of the Wyoming Game and Fish Department, testified that the cost to the state to implement a single-status trophy game plan for wolves would be about $1.5 million per year, or about $300,000 more than the current dual-status plan.
Jim Magagna, executive vice president of the Wyoming Stock Growers Association, urged the lawmakers not to rush into anything until the legal issues shake out and until they see what happens with wolves in Idaho and Montana.
It's possible the animals could be delisted in those two states and remain endangered in Wyoming.
"We'd like to put this to rest, but I don't think we have a playing field where we can put this thing to rest today," Magagna told the panel.
David Noble, a rancher, urged the legislators "not to waste any more energy trying to accommodate" the judge.
The delisting process, Noble said, is "set up to fail," he said.
Rancher Charles Price urged the panel to stick to its guns and sue the federal government to accept the Wyoming plan and make it "do as was promised."
Some disagreement
thingy Inberg, a self-described recreationist who does summer mule pack trips in wolf country, disagreed. He urged the panel to rewrite the wolf laws because the "Legislature screwed up big-time," he said, when it insisted the plan have the "shoot-on-sight" zone. Inberg said he supports Gingery's proposal.
Bud Betts, a dude rancher and outfitter in the Dubois area, also urged the panel to draft a new bill addressing the judge's concerns, to show the "state is acting in good faith" and then to use that new bill "as leverage."
Regardless of the plan, he said, there's going to be legal challenges.
"The purpose would be to create litigation in the future that we can win," Betts said. "We're not saying we were wrong. We're saying we passed this plan and lost."
Representatives with the Jackson Hole Conservation Alliance, the Sierra Club and the Wyoming Outdoor Council testified in support of Gingery's proposal, and a handful of stock growers, including Jon Robinett from the Dubois area, also spoke in support of the idea.
"This is a tremendous opportunity for the state to match those criteria" in Molloy's ruling, Robinett said. "If you do that and it's not accepted, then you can walk away."
Robinett argued before the Legislature for statewide trophy game status in 2003 and 2004, when it was an unpopular argument, especially among his peers in the stock growing industry.
"Talk about getting tarred and feathered," he joked. "But if we'd done that, we wouldn't be here today."
State Sen. Eli Bebout, who represents the Riverton area, said he believes dual status for wolves is "paramount" and urged the panel not to try to appease "some left-wing judge."
Rancher Stan Hoventhingy also told the panel to "hold fast."
And Lander rancher Dave Vaughan told the lawmakers: "Don't move a foot. Hold up our rights and hold up our constitution."
Although there was much disagreement, just about everybody in attendance agreed that the state Legislature has three basic options:
• It can do nothing.
• It can change the state laws that govern wolf management in an attempt to create a plan more lawsuit-worthy.
• It can sue the federal government in an attempt to make it accept its existing plan, perhaps on the grounds of states' rights.
State Sen. Bruce Burns, the committee co-chair, said nothing was decided Friday but that the panel will meet again soon to further consider its options.
Published on Saturday, October 18, 2008
www.billingsgazette.net/articles/2008/10/18/news/wyoming/29-wolfplan.txt
