It’s been a week since U.S. District Judge Donald Malloy heard arguments from some wolf advocate groups, the federal government the states and sportsmen on wolf delisting.
The only thing that’s clear is that the judge did not consider the wolf killing situation so dire across the Northern Rockies that he had to rule immediately. Maybe he’ll rule today. Maybe not.
One other alternative he raised was a so-called split ruling. Molloy clearly didn’t like Wyoming’s predatory zone where a wolf can be shot on sight any time by any one.
He asked attorneys what they though of him leaving delisting in place in some states and enjoining it in others. Earthjustice attorney Doug Honnold did not encourage him. But Montana clearly wanted to be taken out of the case, arguing that the issues raised in Wyoming and even Idaho weren’t issues there.
Wolf advocates don’t like the idea that Idaho could kill off half its wolves this year under its plan. But experts are doubtful hunters and ranchers could do it since the animals will be come especially elusive once the shooting starts.
But the hardest measure for environmentalists to swallow is Wyoming’s predator black hole area. It’s like saying wolves can walk in but they can’t walk out.
A wolf that is fully protected as endangered in Utah takes a turn in the morning and walks into Wyoming and not only is it not endangered it’s vermin. That’s a big step for the animal and the Endangered Species Act.
Of course, commercial fishermen are allowed to take a certain amount of endangered wild salmon in their nets. If landowners agree to an approved conservation plan like that in place in the Salmon River area, they can kill a few fish in their canals without facing prosecution.
The issue won’t be resolved until Molloy finally rules on the case. But we might get a preview when he rules on the injunction, probably sometime soon.
Delicious
Digg
Yahoo
How bout that injunction>>?
If Malloy was as concerned about the current "Slaughter" as the pro wolfies are....He would have issued an injunction by now...This is encouraging...I think he will let Idaho's management plan play out this year...When hunters aren't able to kill a fraction of the goal number of wolves...This will become moot case and arguement in 2009...But im sure the wolfie cons. groups will continue wasting money and preying on the emotions of the wolf lovers....
Thanks For the Insight, Rocky
I would like to read your take on a couple of issues that are related:
1) Why you think that most of the citizens and organized groups that are hostile to the wolf are silent on the real problem facing wildlife and the future of hunting - habitat? In my opinion, habitat - particularly winter habitat - is so much more important than the presence of wolves. We know wolves can be managed, and will be managed; but once habitat is gone...it is gone forever.
2) I have come to believe that the issues around wolf reintroduction are more cultural than anything else. The same old "facts" get tossed around and folks seem to seek confirmation of what they already believe rather than an objective review. I see it on both sides, although the radical anti-wolf folks seem to have it worse. Groups like "Save Our Elk" keep pumping out the same poison and nonsense without any regard for science.
I welcome your insight & thoughts
Why I support Wolves and Other Animals Rights
At 50+ yrs. old, I've seen this country's spirituality (morality) deteriorate -- something every generation sees.
Might Makes Right is the only law that is enforced -- and I've seen how destructive that is in my life -- and the lives of others.
And I've seen how much taxpayers' money is wasted on this Big Dog eats little dog govt., legal, medical systems -- etc.
My belief system has evolved by my experience of weak, dependent, yet powerful people dominating, conquering, polluting, destroying, killing, etc.
They are parisitical cowards, destroying this country and our world, weakenning all of us spiritually, psychologically and physically.
Part of being a strong, independent, positive spirit, mind and body is the affordability to know right from wrong -- and to practice that -- not perfectly, but to make a conscious effort.
It's wrong to kill defenseless animals -- especially when they are not eaten for food. It's wrong to kill animals to manage them. It's wrong to define manhood by killing animals.
Because it weakens people, men and women, to hunt for sport, for fun, for the excitement of killing a defenseless animal and defining that as strength.
It's a false definition because the animal killed cannot defend itself against a human brain, especially with a gun.
The excitement comes from a false belief, a mythology that the animal is strong enough to defend itself.
But we know it's not a fair fight -- so people are lying to themselves. They're using a bullying coward's rationalization.
And that corrupts, thus weakens people.
Might Makes Right means that the power to do something validates the right to do something -- but morality is about choosing our action responsibily, with respect to the rights of other people, animals and the planet.
Animals rights is just one area of society that must evolve to strengthen our society as a whole. Whether one supports wildlife conservation, fights for healthier raising of livestock, or stops animal abuse --
We need to respect the rights of animals to be used for our needs -- not abused to satisfy our greedy wants and desires at their expense.
How our society treats those that are vulnerable -- people, animals, the environment -- defines our level of strength or weakness.
We can't afford to continue the primitive predator, kill or be killed, screw or be screwed belief system that dominates our society.
What we think becomes our action -- our destruction or our salvation.
I believe that everyone and everything must be respected as having equal validity, equal rights -- for us to survive, to be healthy, to succeed.
We need to save animals to save ourselves.
Put the pipe down and step back slowly from the microbus!
Starshine, I am SO sure.