No Surprise

Didn't I tell you this would happen when the wolf was first de-listed?<br />n<br />n<a href="http://billingsgazette.net/articles/2008/07/19/news/state/30-wolf.txt">Judge puts wolf protection rules back in force</a><br />n<br />n<blockquote>A federal judge has restored endangered-species protections for gray wolves in the Northern Rockies, derailing plans by three states to hold public wolf hunts in the fall.<br />n<br />nU.S. District Judge Donald Molloy in Missoula granted a preliminary injunction late Friday restoring protections for the wolves in Montana, Wyoming and Idaho.<br />n<br />nMolloy will eventually decide whether the injunction should be permanent. That would force the government back to the beginning in its effort to pass management of the animals to the states.</blockquote><br />n<br />nI sure enough did and now it has happened. The wolf is back under federal ESA protection since the states are incapable of managing them, at least according to this judge.<br />n<br />nI love some of the reasoning involved here. The <a href="http://billingsgazette.net/m/extras/2008/07/19/orderwolf.pdf">judge states</a> that;<br />n<br />n<blockquote>the states’ defense of property laws permit the killing of wolves in more circumstances than defense of property regulations under the ESA.</blockquote><br />n<br />nWhich seems to indicate that people are allowed to blaze away at the wolf for no reason, but later he states that;<br />n<br />n<blockquote>Because Idaho has committed to managing for at least 15 breeding pairs, its depredation control law is not likely to threaten the continued existence of the wolf in Idaho.</blockquote><br />n<br />nand <br />n<br />n<blockquote>Montana’s depredation control law is not likely to threaten the continued existence of the wolf for the same reasons.</blockquote><br />n<br />nSo at least two of the states involved have adequate protections according to him but he still paints us all with one brush.<br />n<br />nI also can't understand why the talk in the decision revolves around protecting the introduced population of wolves in the Greater Yellowstone Area but then talks about the indigenous population of wolves in the Northwestern part of Montana in the same sentence. It seems to indicate that the wolves in the Northwestern part of Montana are also introduced when they are not. This conversation is all about the wolves having genetic distribution to other areas and how there is no proof that it has happened yet.<br />n<br />nI will point out that there is no proof it hasn't happened yet either. Since, according to the International wolf center, a dispersing wolves, those leaving packs in search of their own mate, have been known to travel distances of 550 miles away form their home territory, it should be fairly easy for the wolves to exchange genetic information and we might never know. If it hasn't happened yet, maybe the more important question should be, why haven't the wolves been dispersing like they are known to do? Why hasn't the genetic transfer taken place yet? Maybe because they breed so prolifically that they don't need to.<br />n<br />nI'm just sick and tired of the whole game. Whether it is wolves or something else. Sue, counter sue. Everybody is always wrong and there never seems to be a right answer. It just paralyzes the whole country and nothing ever gets accomplished except spend more money spinning our wheels. How useless.<br />n<br />n<strong>The torment of human frustration, whatever its immediate cause, is the knowledge that the self is in prison, its vital force and "mangled mind" leaking away in lonely, wasteful self-conflict. Elizabeth Drew</strong>