Montana Wolves -March '08

MONTANA WOLF UPDATE – MARCH 2008

Bob,

(Consider this Wolf Management 101)

Not only is it a true fact that sport hunting wolves is all but impossible and totally ineffective: poisons are banned, effective traps and sets are prohibited, experienced hunters are gone, a market for hides and parts is all but gone, airplanes are verboten for all but bureaucrats, and children and soccer moms everywhere have been brainwashed (the correct term) into believing that deadly animals can all be "tranquillized" and whisked away to some far-off  "wilderness".

While all the foregoing is true, there is yet a bigger issue that is the most intractable of all impediments to EVER gaining control of wolf populations much less eradicating them at some future date when the lies of their proponents and the fairy tales of the ignorant are vaporized when the welter of human deaths and rural societal destruction they wreak can no longer be denied.

I speak of LAND OWNERSHIP AND LAND CONTROL:

Wilderness is inaccessible.
Many yuppie millionaires and retirees won't allow any wolf (or other) animal management on their land.
National (where wolves were first illegally introduced, i.e. Yellowstone) and State Parks are off-limits to controllers. 

National Refuges (they boys and girls that introduced and "protect" wolves) and State Refuges are off-limits to controllers.
BLM and National Forest lands et al are controlled by anti-hunter/pro-wolf/pro-no-management of any plant or animal ideologues so regulations and new law verbiage provided (sub Rosa) by bureaucrats to Congressional staffers will encumber and inhibit any wolf control on Federal and State (they get funding from these Feds don't forget) lands.
Suburban and semi-rural areas of big homes and small acreages will preclude any harassment of wolves while providing food and shelter when the wolves feel harassed.
All of these points will be magnified as the wolves get into New England and spread West and Southeast and South of presently infected areas.
The result will be dens and wolf packs that simply take advantage of these things as any real pressure is applied though where any such significant pressure would come from is problematic to say the least.

Historically it took societal agreement and poisons and possees and constantly armed rural residents and government trappers and hunters working full time without restrictions for DECADES ACROSS FREELY ACCESSIBLE LAND to make the West safe, habitable, and productive.  These pseudo "native" wolves are not only genetically more domesticated animals, they have lived around people for years without challenge so they view us as simply stupid and slow meat: they are ALSO all descended from wolves fed in cages that watched us treat them like sacred cows in India or cats in ancient Egypt and then releasing them into the "wild" (i.e. ranching and hunting and recreational country) and mollycoddling them no matter what they did (think the domestic dog breeds so many fear and multiply that times what, 3?, 4?).  They are far deadlier and more of a threat than their forbearers that our forbearers so
wisely eradicated and kept suppressed until this wave of animal worship took hold for a myriad of hidden agendas.

Not only will wolves decrease the big game, purposely for their advocates, to evaporate huntable populations of big game –

WHAT PARENT WILL LET THEIR TEENAGE SON GO PLINKING OR RABBIT HUNTING ALONE?

WHAT COYOTE HUNTER OR TURKEY HUNTER WILL BE DUMB ENOUGH TO DRESS UP IN CAMO AND SIT STILL FOR HOURS IN HABITAT WHERE WOLVES ABOUND? 

WHAT PARENT OR GRANDPARENT WILL LET THEIR CHILD OR GRANDCHILD OUT IN THE DARK OR PUT THE FAMILY PET OUT ALONE WHERE WOLVES HAVE BEEN SEEN? 

AMERICAN RURAL RESIDENTS (THAT REMAIN) WILL LIVE LIKE RUSSIAN PEASANTS WHEN CHILDREN ARE KILLED TENDING STOCK AND VILLAGERS ARE KILLED AT NIGHT AND PEOPLE STAY IN AFTER DARK IN THE WINTER
WHEN SNOW DRIVES HUNGRY WOLVES INTO THE STREETS AND RABID WOLVES DO WHAT THEY DO AND DISEASES ARE SPREAD LIKE ANTHRAX AND BRUCELLOSIS AND TAPEWORMS, ETC. TO PEOPLE AND STOCK AND WILDLIFE.

The wolves are a MAN/GOVERNMENT-MADE PLAGUE for which no remedy is currently available.  Like any plague, things will get a lot worse before they get
better.  It is counter-productive to be accommodating and say they "belong"
here or that you can somehow have a few around: both are untrue (that you
can have only a "few" around or that they "belong").  (They no more "belong"
than free-roaming buffalo or cougars or grizzly bears where farms and
ranches and homes exist- some may "want" them but to impose them on rural
America like a 1/4 million elephants imposed on Africans trying to live like the
rest of the world is simply WRONG and TRULY DETESTABLE to anyone that
recognizes HUMAN DIGNITY.)  Going along  with this is self-defeating and only
confirms what Lenin said about hanging capitalists with the rope they (the
communists) buy from them: if we are dumb enough to buy into this we deserve
the consequences.  The discussions about delisting and seasons, like other
discussions about listing polar bears or jumping mice et al, are merely
diversionary skirmishes (important though they are) in the larger war for
the future of this nation and that war is but a symptom of the concept of
the nature of man and human worth that is being attacked throughout the
world.

Hope to spend some time with you in Cheyenne if things work out.  My best to
you in all your very important endeavors.

Jim Beers




----- Original Message -----
From: "fanning" <rtfanning@att.net>
To: "Robert Fithian" <rfithian@alaskaprohunter.org>
Cc: <nick.gevock@mtstandard.com>
Sent: Sunday, March 02, 2008 11:37 AM
Subject: Wolf count rises by 1/3....Montana now has 73 packs of at least two
wolves, with 39 breeding pairs


> http://www.montanastandard.com/articles/2008/03/02/state/hjjbjgjhjjghgi.txt
> Bobby Fithian, Executive Director of the Alaska Professional Hunters Assn.
> tells us that only once in over 25 years in Alaska's bush,  has he had the
> opportunity to shoot a wolf   http://www.alaskaprohunter.org/officers.htm
> Montana , Idaho or Wyoming wildlife officials deceive the public into
> believing a 5 week hunting season can regulate a wolf population that
> grows
> at a 33% rate, compounded.
> Needless to say , Gevock only interviewed the top bureaucrat in the wolf
> protection rackets, not someone who hunts wolves.
> APHIS can't even get the job done anymore from the air.
> Needless to say, Gevock didn't interview an animal control officer, but
> only
> the top bureaucrat in the wolf protection rackets
> Alaska Dept of F& G, 50 year ungulate mortality studies, show that 85 % of
> all ungulate mortality is due to predation.
> Does Gevocks' article reflect the values and the laws of the people and
> the
> State of Montana ? Scroll down.
>
> http://www.montanastandard.com/articles/2008/03/02/state/hjjbjgjhjjghgi.txt
>
>
> Robert T Fanning Jr.
> P.O. Box 7 Pray, Montana 59065
> Phone 406-333-4121
> Fax 406-333-4144
> E-mail: rtfanning@worldnet.att.net
> http://www.saveourelk.com/
> Will Graves' book Wolves in Russia is now published.  For information or
> to
> order, see:
> http://www.wolvesinrussia.com/
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Gary Marbut
> To: WesternGrayWolf@fws.gov
> Sent: Tuesday, May 08, 2007 7:55 PM
> Subject: Comment - RIN number 1018-AU53
>
>
> Gary Marbut
> P.O. Box 16106
> Missoula, Montana 59808
> gary@marbut.com
>
> May 8, 2007
>
> NRMGrayWolf@fws.gov
> Subject:  ``RIN number 1018-AU53
>
> U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
> Western Gray Wolf Recovery Coordinator
> 585 Shepard Way
> Helena, Montana 59601
>
> In re:  Comment -- Canadian Wolf Delisting and Designating the Northern
> Rocky Mountain Population of Canadian Wolves as a Distinct Population
> Segment
>
> Sent via email
>
> Dear Sirs,
>
> I opposed the initial "introduction" of Canadian Wolves into Montana,
> support the earliest removal of these wolves from protection by the
> federal
> government, and oppose any Distinct Population Segment designation for the
> following reasons:
>
> Wolf delisting
>
> 1.  Wolves are not endangered and federal protection of wolves should not
> have been asserted in the first place.  Wolves have never been threatened
> with extinction.  There are tens of thousands of wolves living and doing
> well throughout the Northern Hemisphere, in Canada, Alaska, Scandinavia,
> Russia, Mongolia, China, Korea, and many other places.
>
> The only possible rationale for asserting that wolves were threatened in
> Montana is that wolves used to be here but are not here now.  Extension of
> this logic requires that Grizzly Bears must be "reintroduced" into the Los
> Angeles basin, the most historically famous Grizzly habitat in the U.S.
> This same logic requires that if a Tyrannosaurus Rex can be recreated from
> genetic fragments, ala Jurassic Park, then T-Rex must be "reintroduced"
> through the U.S., regardless of cost or impact.  Of course, these
> extensions
> of the same rationale used for wolves are nonsensical, which demonstrates
> the nonsensical nature of the rational used to foist wolves upon the
> people
> of Montana.
>
> 2.  Congress does not have constitutional authority to impose wolves on
> Montana via the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and the United States Fish
> and
> Wildlife Service (FWS).  Congress has only those specific powers
> enumerated
> in the United States Constitution.  Among those enumerated powers is the
> power to "To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several
> states ." (Article I, Section 8.)  The authority Congress asserts for
> passage and enforcement of the ESA is the enumerated power to "regulate
> commerce . among the several states," known as the "Commerce Clause."
> There
> is inadequate commercial nexus of commerce in wild wolves to justify
> imposition of wolves on Montana based on authority found in the Commerce
> Clause.  See U.S. v. Stewart (9th Circuit, Kozinski opinion) and U.S. v.
> Lopez (USSC).
>
> 3.  Wolves are having a gigantic and unacceptable negative financial
> impact
> upon the people of Montana, which amounts to a tax on Montana for a
> federal
> purpose.  The United States Supreme Court (USSC) held in New York v. U.S.
> and in Printz v. U.S. that the Congress may not compel the resources of a
> state.  However, that is exactly what is happening in Montana.  Not only
> are
> wolves having a huge negative financial impact on Montana's culture and
> industry of hunting and stockgrowing, but Montana is left to pick up the
> pieces with a necessity to "manage" wolves according to a
> federally-acceptable plan with no concomitant plan in place for federal
> funding for this federal program.  This is akin to the city forcing you to
> stock your own property with rodents and termites and then requiring you
> to
> fund the predictable repairs associated with such pests.
>
> 4.  Conflict with Montana laws.  Federal laws prevail over state laws and
> constitutions only when the federal laws in question are well founded in
> authority clearly offered in the U.S. Constitution.  As asserted in item #
> 2
> (above), Congress lacks authority to impose wolves upon the State and
> people
> of Montana.  Therefore, precedence must be given to Montana laws in
> several
> issues stated below.
>
> 5.  Montana to manage large predators.  In 2003, the Montana Legislature
> passed and the governor signed a bill which became 87-1-217, M.C.A., and
> which requires the Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks (FWP) to
> manage large predators (specifically including wolves) to protect hunting
> opportunities, livestock, pets, and people using the Montana outdoors.
> FWP
> claims that they cannot implement 87-1-217, M.C.A. as long as wolves are
> under federal protection.  We believe that the FWS would claim that
> Montana
> may not implement 87-1-217, M.C.A. vis-à-vis wolves as long as wolves are
> federally protected.  We believe both interpretations are wrong, and that
> Montana laws must take precedence, for reasons previously stated.
>
> 6.  Terms of delisting established.  In 2003, the Montana Legislature
> passed
> House Joint Resolution 32 (See:
> http://data.opi.state.mt.us/bills/2003/billhtml/HJ0032.htm), wherein the
> Montana Legislature established the public policy position of the State of
> Montana for State assumption of wolf management.  HJ 32 passed the Montana
> House of Representatives by a vote of 76-21 and passed the Montana Senate
> by
> a vote of 48-1.  HJ 32 established Montana policy concerning several
> significant issues, including the definition of a "breeding pair" of
> wolves,
> federal abdication of wolf authority upon assumption of Montana
> management,
> and federal funding for wolf management.  None of these conditions have
> been
> met, which makes ongoing federal protection of wolves in Montana a
> violation
> of established Montana public policy.
>
> 7.  Cooperative management agreement invalid.  On July 5, 2005, the FWS
> and
> FWP entered into a "Cooperative Agreement" about the joint management of
> wolves in Montana.  This management agreement was entered into without
> authority by FWP, and perhaps even without authority by FWS.
>
> This Agreement is in conflict with 87-1-217, M.C.A., and with HJ 32 (both
> mentioned above).  This Agreement is also in conflict with the intent of
> the
> USSC in Printz v. US (cited above) because it does not fully or adequately
> address the negative financial impacts of wolves in Montana, impacts on
> Montana's hunting opportunities and industry, impacts on Montana's
> agricultural community, and impacts on the management ability and budget
> of
> FWP.
>
> 8.  Violation of the right to hunt in Montana.  The people of Montana feel
> so strongly about the right to hunt that over 80% of them voted to amend
> the
> Montana Constitution to secure for themselves, and to prevent government
> interference with, the right to harvest wild fish and game animals
> (Article
> IX, Section 7, M.C.)  It is axiomatic and a principle of jurisprudence
> that
> a grant includes the essentials.  (1-3-213, M.C.A.  "Grant includes
> essentials.  One who grants a thing is presumed to grant also whatever is
> essential to its use.")  It would avail the people little to reserve to
> themselves from government interference a freedom of the press if the
> government were allowed to prohibit use of the ink which pressmen use to
> put
> words on paper.
>
> In the same vein, it avails the people little to reserve to themselves the
> right to hunt if the huntable game is absent, having been consumed by
> wolves.  There is no constitutional right found in the Montana
> Constitution
> for wolves to hunt, or for wolves to consume the huntable game.  In fact,
> wolves are not mentioned at all in the Montana Constitution.  In Baldwin
> v.
> Montana, the USSC said, "The elk supply, which has been entrusted to the
> care of the State by the people of Montana, is finite and must be
> carefully
> tended in order to be preserved."  The decision also included, "If the elk
> is to survive as a species, the game herds must be managed, and a vital
> part
> of the management is the limitation of the annual kill."  Thus, fostering
> or
> mandating a scheme to allocate a significant portion of huntable game to
> wolves violates the right to hunt the people of Montana have reserved to
> themselves in the Montana Constitution.
>
> 9.  Non-residents have no right, individually, or collectively, to Montana
> game.  The USSC established in Baldwin v. Montana, that individual,
> non-resident hunters have no right to the game in Montana.  Conversely,
> denying non-resident hunters the right to game in Montana does not violate
> either their equal protection or privileges and immunities.
>
> The theory that Congress, representing many individuals, can make a claim
> on
> Montana game, via wolf introduction, that none of the individuals
> represented may make is oxymoronic.  The game in Montana belongs to the
> people of Montana, a savings account that may not be raided by
> non-residents, no matter how many are operating collectively.  For any
> national consensus to be interpreted as asserting otherwise is to propose
> that many individuals may give Congress power that no one individual has
> to
> give.
>
> 10.  Violation of the Compact with the United States.  In 1889, Congress,
> acting as agent for the several states, approved the Compact with the
> United
> States (Compact), as did Montana (Article I, M.C.), which included a
> guarantee at that time of the benefit of the limitations of the federal
> constitution to the people of Montana, and approving conditions of
> statehood, as they were both understood and accepted at that time.  At
> that
> time, the ability of Montana to control predators and manage game was
> viewed
> differently than it might be today, but any change of view
> notwithstanding,
> there has been no amendment of the Compact, and no contract may be changed
> without the consent of the parties thereto.
>
> The Compact specifically says that it remains "in full force and effect
> until revoked by the consent of the United States and the people of
> Montana."  Further, an essential element of the Compact is Ordinance 1,
> which says, "That the ordinances in this article shall be irrevocable
> without the consent of the United States and the people of said state of
> Montana."  Neither Congress nor the people of Montana have adopted any
> amendments to either the Compact or Ordinance 1, much less has both
> Congress
> and Montana done so.
>
> The Compact and Ordinance 1, by contract law, freeze in time the authority
> of Montana to control and manage wolves, as that authority was viewed,
> interpreted, understood, and effectuated in 1889.  There is no evidence
> whatsoever that in 1889 either the people of Montana expected, or the
> Congress intended, that Congress would seek protect, breed and restock
> wolves in Montana.  Any such assumed power by Congress is therefore a
> violation the Compact.
>
> 11.  Federal Data Quality Act.  The original science done to support
> federal
> protection of wolves under the ESA did not meet the criteria required by
> the
> federal Data Quality Act.
>
> 12.  The Ninth and Tenth Amendments.  There is nothing whatsoever in the
> U.S. Constitution that can be interpreted, consistent with the times and
> culture of the adopters, to allow the federal government to impose wolves
> on
> the states over the objections of the states.  In fact, there are two
> provisions in the U.S. Constitution that reserve to the people and the
> states authority over all topics and endeavors not specifically granted to
> Congress in the enumerated powers.  Those provisions are the Ninth and
> Tenth
> Amendments.  Thus, imposing wolves on any of the states is violative of
> the
> Ninth and Tenth Amendments.
>
> 13.  Initial wolf introduction illegally funded.  The initial introduction
> of wolves into Yellowstone National Park was an illegal act, because
> Pittman-Robertson funds were taken and used illegally for that purpose.
> By
> the doctrine of the fruit of the poisoned tree, all wolves in the southern
> half of Montana are descendents of wolves illegally introduced into
> Montana
> using stolen money.
>
> 14.  Canadian wolves as invasive species.  Canadian gray wolves are a
> subspecies that have not before been in Montana.  Canadian wolves are
> significantly larger than, and hunt with different patterns than, wolves
> that existed in Montana before the 1900s.  Therefore, the Canadian wolves
> transplanted to Montana by the FWS are an invasive species, illegal to
> introduce into Montana.
>
> Distinct Population Segment Designation
>
> The proposal to designate wolves in the northern Rockies as a Distinct
> Population Segment is an administrative effort to lump Montana in with
> Idaho, Wyoming, Washington, Oregon, Utah, and perhaps Colorado for a
> multi-state, one size fits all wolf management strategy that will make
> Montana dependent upon compliance by all other states.  Not only do we
> object to this administrative change, but we assert that it violates the
> ESA
> and possibly other controlling federal laws and it violates Montana laws
> and
> Montana sovereignty (Article II, Section 2., M.C.) for many of the reasons
> discussed above, including that it violates the contractual relationship
> between Montana and the other states (the Compact) by which Montana
> accepted
> statehood.
>
> Conclusion
>
> These are all arguments why it was a mistake for wolves in Montana to come
> under federal protection, why it was a mistake for wolves to be
> reintroduced
> into Montana, and why it is important to remove all federal protection and
> control at the earliest possible date.
>
> Sincerely,
>
>
>
>
> Gary Marbut, Member
> Friends of the Northern Yellowstone Elk Herd
> 2005 Montana Legislature
>
> About Bill -- Links
>
>
>
>
> HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 29
>
> INTRODUCED BY RICE, BARRETT, EVERETT, JACKSON, L. JONES, KLOCK, KOOPMAN,
> MENDENHALL, ROSS, TAYLOR, WINDHAM
>
>
>
> A JOINT RESOLUTION OF THE SENATE AND THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE
> STATE OF MONTANA CLARIFYING TO APPROPRIATE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS
> THAT
> MONTANA RESERVES ITS APPLICABLE RIGHTS AND REMEDIES TO REQUEST FEDERAL
> PREDATOR CONTROL AND TO EXERCISE RIGHTS AND REMEDIES TO PREVENT AND
> CONTROL
> DAMAGE OR CONFLICT ON FEDERAL, STATE, OR OTHER PUBLIC OR PRIVATE LAND
> CAUSED
> BY PREDATORY ANIMALS, AND URGING THE MONTANA CONGRESSIONAL DELEGATION TO
> TAKE APPROPRIATE MEASURES TO OBTAIN MEANINGFUL FUNDING AND ASSISTANCE FOR
> MONTANA CITIZENS AND COMMUNITIES THAT HAVE BEEN ADVERSELY AFFECTED BY
> FEDERAL WOLF REINTRODUCTION.
>
>
>
>     WHEREAS, Article II, section 3, of the Montana Constitution provides
> all persons with the inalienable right to enjoy and defend their lives and
> liberties, to acquire, possess, and protect property, and to seek their
> safety, health, and happiness in all lawful ways; and
>
>     WHEREAS, the 2001 Montana Legislature enacted section 87-5-131, MCA,
> to
> provide for state delisting of the gray wolf upon federal delisting and to
> provide a plan to manage the wolf as a species in need of management until
> the Department of Fish, Wildlife, and Parks and the Fish, Wildlife, and
> Parks Commission determine that the wolf no longer needs protection as a
> species in need of management and can be managed and protected as a game
> animal; and
>
>     WHEREAS, the 2003 Montana Legislature enacted section 87-1-217, MCA,
> requiring the Department of Fish, Wildlife, and Parks to manage large
> predators, including wolves, with the primary goals to
>
> preserve citizens' opportunities to hunt large game species, to protect
> humans, livestock, and pets, and to preserve and enhance the safety of the
> public during outdoor recreational and livelihood activities; and
>
>     WHEREAS, the 2003 Montana Legislature adopted Senate Joint Resolution
> No. 4, requesting delisting of the wolf pursuant to the federal Endangered
> Species Act of 1973, requesting that Congress establish and fund the
> Northern Rocky Mountain Grizzly Bear and Gray Wolf National Management
> Trust, requesting that wolf population management methods include
> nonlethal
> and lethal methods, encouraging the Fish, Wildlife, and Parks Commission
> to
> reclassify the gray wolf when regulation of the wolf population is needed,
> and requesting the Department of Fish, Wildlife, and Parks or the
> Department
> of Livestock to address livestock depredations expeditiously; and
>
>     WHEREAS, the 2003 Montana Legislature passed House Bill No. 283
> (chapter 530, Laws of 2003), directing the Attorney General to prepare a
> proactive opinion of state options regarding delisting and possible
> litigation scenarios related to recovery of damages and costs associated
> with wolf reintroduction in Montana; and
>
>     WHEREAS, uncontrolled wolf populations and extraordinarily high wolf
> densities continue to cause damage to Montana's economy, customs, culture,
> public safety, and public health despite the state's ongoing efforts to
> conform to federal requirements regarding wolf management plans and the
> state's regular requests for wolf delisting and despite the declared
> intent
> of Congress in 1988 "not to hurt hunting, not to hurt the local
> economies";
> and
>
>     WHEREAS, wolves are predators and should be managed as predators; and
>
>     WHEREAS, high wolf population densities resulting from reintroduction
> are proof of the failure of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to abide by
> the law and its own regulations; and
>
>     WHEREAS, the U.S. Congress has yet to address its restitution
> responsibilities under the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution for
> damage to private property, livestock, domestic animals, and Montana
> wildlife that has resulted from the unnatural and accelerated
> reintroduction
> of wolves; and
>
>     WHEREAS, designation of the wolf as a game animal under the Montana
> management plan will not supersede or undermine current federal or state
> law
> allowing management of wolves for depredation and Montana would be better
> served by a state management plan that allows the controlled taking of
> wolves following delisting; and
>
>     WHEREAS, recent adoption of the final 10(j) Rule under the Endangered
> Species Act allowed Montana landowners to take additional steps to protect
> livestock and dogs from attacks by wolves on private land and allowed
> grazing permittees and guiding and outfitting permittees to take wolves
> attacking livestock or domestic animals herding and guarding livestock on
> public lands; and
>
>     WHEREAS, a recent U.S. District Court decision in Oregon held that the
> U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service violated the Endangered Species Act by
> changing the status of the gray wolf from "endangered" to "threatened" in
> some regions, relaxing protection on many of the nation's gray wolves and
> effectively disallowing the shooting of wolves that are not part of the
> reintroduced experimental populations but that are attacking livestock;
> and
>
>     WHEREAS, the court decision irreparably harmed the good faith efforts
> between state and federal agencies to move expeditiously toward delisting
> the gray wolf and raised the prospect of endless third-party lawsuits that
> will obstruct and delay the delisting process; and
>
>     WHEREAS, federal, state, and local governments have a constitutional
> duty and fiduciary responsibility to provide all available remedies to
> protect the economy, customs, culture, public safety, and public health of
> the citizenry.
>
>
>
> NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE SENATE AND THE HOUSE OF
> REPRESENTATIVES OF THE STATE OF MONTANA:
>
>     That the State of Montana reserves its rights and remedies available
> by
> order of the U.S. Secretary of Agriculture to provide funding under the
> federal Granger-Thye Act for predator control pursuant to Title 7 of the
> U.S. Code and recognizes that an injunction sought in a court of law
> cannot
> divest the State of Montana of those rights and remedies.
>
>     BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the State of Montana reserves its rights
> and remedies available through the U.S. Secretary of the Interior pursuant
> to Section 11(h) of the Endangered Species Act to order predator control
> in
> defense of game herds and recognizes that an injunction sought in a court
> of
> law cannot divest the State of Montana of those rights and remedies.
>
>     BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the State of Montana reserves its rights
> and remedies to prevent and control damages or conflicts on federal,
> state,
> or other public or private lands caused by predatory animals, rodents, and
> birds that are injurious to livestock, agriculture, horticulture,
> forestry,
> wildlife, and human safety and health, including threatened or endangered
> wildlife within Montana, as established by federal or state law or
> regulation or by county resolution.
>
>     BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Montana Congressional Delegation is
> urged to recognize the statutory concessions made by the State of Montana
> and is urged to obtain meaningful and substantive funding for the impacts
> from the federal wolf reintroduction program that was forcibly established
> in Montana, including emergency federal assistance for those Montana
> communities that bear the disproportionate burden of the impacts from the
> federal wolf reintroduction program.
>
>     BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Montana Congressional Delegation is
> urged to review documents published from 1988 through November 22, 1994,
> that preceded accelerated wolf reintroduction in order to verify that the
> federal government never intended for high wolf population densities to
> result in damage to Montana citizens or to strip citizens of their legal
> rights.
>
>     BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Montana Congressional Delegation is
> urged to respond to this unintended collateral damage to Montana citizens
> by
> seeking restitution under the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution for
> Montana citizens who have been damaged by the introduction of wolves into
> Montana.
>
>     BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Secretary of State send copies of
> this
> resolution to the President of the United States, the U.S. Secretary of
> Agriculture, the U.S. Secretary of the Interior, members of the Montana
> Congressional Delegation, and all other members of the U.S. Senate and
> House
> of Representatives.
>
> - END -
>
>
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

> Title 87, Chapter 5, Section 701 Montana Code. Purpose. The legislature
> finds that in order to protect the native wildlife and plant species of
> Montana and to protect the agriculture production of Montana, it is
> necessary to provide for the control of the importation for introduction
> and
> the transplantation or introduction of wildlife in the state. Serious
> threats, known and unknown, to the well being of native wildlife and plant
> species and to agriculture production, resulting from the introduction of
> wildlife into natural habitats, necessitate the prohibition of the
> importation for introduction and the transplantation or introduction of
> wildlife into natural habitats unless it can be shown that no harm will
> result from such transplantation or introduction. Any importation for
> introduction or the transplantation or introduction permitted must be
> conducted in a manner to assure that the introduced or transplanted
> population can be controlled if harm arises from unforeseen events.