GW:  More wasted taxpayers’ money because of the Equal Access to Justice Act.  Why?  Because Senator Reid will not let reform to come to a vote, despite the efforts of the House.  Why?  Because animal rights whackos are part of his base.

MISSOULA, Mont.-The Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation maintains a ruling that restores federal protections to wolves in Wyoming is basically a technicality that can easily be fixed on Wyoming’s end. The State of Wyoming is in the process of adopting an emergency rule to do so.

U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson ruled out of her Washington D.C. courtroom that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) was wrong to rely on Wyoming’s non-binding promises to maintain a buffer above the FWS minimum of 10 breeding pair and at least 100 wolves outside of Yellowstone Park and the Wind River Indian Reservation. Montana and Idaho initially had the 10 breeding pair and 100 wolf minimum, but a 50 percent “buffer” of 15 breeding pairs and 150 wolves was implemented for those two states.

The plaintiffs argued the following four points about the Wyoming wolf population, and they were denied a favorable ruling by Judge Jackson relative to the first three:

Wolves have not recovered.
Wolves are at risk because of a lack of genetic connectivity.
Wyoming allowing wolves to be treated as a predator in some areas does not meet the Endangered Species Act requirements of protections over a significant part of the species’ range.
Wyoming’s current regulatory mechanism to insure a population of more than 10 breeding pair and 100 wolves is inadequate and represents a non-binding promise.

“There are some silver linings within this ruling handed down from Judge Jackson as she ruled against three claims made by the plaintiffs including confirmation of the fact that Wyoming’s wolf population has recovered and is not endangered,” said David Allen, RMEF president and CEO. “We anticipate Wyoming will be able to fix the issue with how its wolf management plan is written to satisfy the court.” Read more

On Monday we launched BoycottHSUS.com to ask Discover to reconsider its financial support of the deceptive Humane Society of the United States. It’s worth noting that a previous financial institution that supported HSUS apparently no longer does: Bank of America.

GW:  This from www.humanewatch.org

We’ve launched a new site: BoycottHSUS.com. And we have our first campaign. The credit card company Discover recently started a new affinity card to benefit the deceptively named Humane Society of the United States. For every $100 someone with one of these cards spends, Discover will donate between 1 and 20 cents to HSUS. That may not seem like much, but Discover expects it will add up to slightly over $1 million. In fact, according to the contract, Discover paid HSUS $150,000 up front in advance royalty payments. And HSUS gets $100 from Discover for every person that signs up for the program from an HSUS communication and spends $100 within the first three months.

But where will that money go? Discover may not like the answer, and the company’s decision-makers should know the following:

• The Oklahoma Attorney General has opened an investigation of HSUS, issuing subpoenas in July.
• In May, HSUS paid up to  $15.75 million to settle a federal RICO lawsuit alleging bribery and fraud.
• Charity Navigator revoked its rating of HSUS in June, replacing it with a “Donor Advisory.”
• HSUS gets a “C-minus” grade from the well-respected CharityWatch.
• HSUS has a radical agenda to put farmers out of business.
• HSUS only gives 1% of the money it raises to local pet shelters, despite its name and its ads full of dogs and cats.

Please visit BoycottHSUS.com and pledge to boycott Discover until it cancels its support for one of America’s most deceptive charities. And please share on Discover’s Facebook page to reach out to its 1.5 million followers. Until Discover affirms that it will either end (or not renew) its partnership with HSUS, it’s time to find another credit card company.

Montana has opened its 6-month rifle season for wolves but will have to contend with Rodney Coronado and his group of whackos said to be shadowing and video recording hunting activities.

Coronado, a SHAC speaker & organizer; editor, the Earth First! Journal; Animal Liberation Front arsonist jailed for 57 months for torching a university research lab; confessed fur-industry serial arsonist; recipient of $70,400 from PETA. Rodney Adam Coronado is a long-time ringleader of the Animal Liberation Front, a criminal enterprise that the FBI classifies as America’s most dangerous domestic terrorism threat. He was sentenced in 1995 to 57 months in federal prison, for the 1992 arson of a Michigan State University research laboratory. In a November 30, 2002 speech, Coronado openly confessed to at least six other arsons, all of them part of a crime spree known as “Operation Bite Back.” While the FBI was most intensely investigating Coronado, PETA gave him over $70,000 in “grants” from its tax-exempt coffers.

Details here…

Natural Resources Commission Asks DNR to Review Science, Data on Wolf Depredations for 2015

EAST LANSING—The Natural Resources Commission today announced that it would not consider a wolf hunt for 2014, even if the two referendums on the November 2014 ballot, which originally authorized a wolf hunt were approved. A separate law, the Scientific Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act, will grant the Natural Resources Commission authority to designate game species using sound science, when it takes effect in March or April.

“Even if the referendums are passed, there would not be time to establish a wolf hunt in 2014,” said Commissioner John Matonich.  “We asked the Wildlife Division to study the science and the data on wolf depredations of dogs and livestock and present their findings to the commission in 2015.”

Russ Mason, chief of the DNR Wildlife Division, also announced that department biologists would be reviewing and possibly updating the department’s wolf management plan.

“We’re very happy with the decision to study the science and not to rush a wolf hunt this year,” said Amy Trotter, resource policy manager for Michigan United Conservation Clubs. “The Scientific Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act was not about a wolf hunt, despite what the anti-hunters claimed. It was about making the decision, and others like it, with sound science, and that is exactly what the NRC has asked for. “ Read more

By Glen Wunderlich

When Michigan voters head to the polls this November, they’ll have an opportunity to vote for principle – and, principle only – as two particular referendums have already been rendered moot.  The reason is that the Michigan House of Representatives passed the Scientific Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act with a bipartisan vote of 65-43.  This in turn means the seemingly endless wolf hunt controversy is settled and the Department of Natural Resources’ biologists will be able to establish hunting seasons based on science.

Looking back to year 1996, when Proposal G was overwhelmingly approved by a 70-percent margin, Michiganders actually believed science would dictate how we would manage wildlife.  Proposal G was a referendum on Public Act 377 of 1996, which amended the Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act (NREPA) to grant the Natural Resources Commission exclusive authority to regulate the taking of game in this state. The amendment also required the Commission, to the greatest extent practicable, to use principles of sound scientific management in making decisions regarding the taking of game.

Ah, but if enough emotion and money could be leveraged into the mix, anti-hunters found a way to override the intent of Proposal G through referendums designed to trump science in favor of hype.  Not anymore!

Sponsored by the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), a Washington, D.C.-based anti-hunting organization, the referendums aimed to repeal two bills that would have allowed a regulated hunting season for wolves in certain areas of the Upper Peninsula where wolves have killed pets and livestock. Because the initiative contains an appropriation ($1 million to protect fisheries from aquatic invasive species), it is not subject to a third referendum by HSUS or its front group, Keep Michigan Wolves Protected.

After the language was adopted, Michigan United Conservatin Clubs’ Drew YoungeDyke was asked if MUCC or Citizens for Professional Wildlife Management planned to campaign for a “yes” vote on the referendums.

“We’re not going to waste resources on it,” he said. “No matter what happens in November, there’s not going to be a 2014 wolf hunt because there isn’t time for the DNR to scientifically craft a season structure for it. And no matter what happens in November, there will be a hunting season in 2015, 2016 and every year thereafter as long as it continues to be supported by sound science.”

Jill Fritz, Michigan director for the Humane Society of the United States and director of Keep Michigan Wolves Protected, told reporters that they would campaign heavily for a “no” vote on Proposals 1 and 2, including television advertisements. The Humane Society’s Legislative Fund spent $750,000 on “media” for Keep Michigan Wolves Protected in late July, according to campaign finance reports.

She also told reporters that they planned to sue to block the Scientific Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act, although it has not been made clear on what grounds.

Said Representative Jon Bumbstead (R-Newago), “This is about more than wolves. It’s about protecting the rights of our constituents to hunt and fish by managing our fish and wildlife with sound science.”

It’s also about keeping the noses of out-of-state extremists out of our business, just like we thought we were doing 18 years ago.

The Board of State Canvassers has assigned ballot numbers to the two moot anti-hunting referendums sponsored by the Humane Society of the United States through its front group, Keep Michigan Wolves Protected.

The first referendum, which seeks to repeal Public Act 520 of 2012, which originally named wolves as a game species, will be Proposal 1 on the ballot. The second, which seeks to repeal Public Act 21 of 2013, was assigned Proposal 2. This act originally authorized the Natural Resources Commission to name game species. However, both referendums will be meaningless since the Scientific Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act was passed last week and will take effect in March.

The Board of State Canvassers also approved the language that will appear on the ballot. MUCC’s Drew YoungeDyke spoke before the board and suggested that a specific reference to wolves be removed from the summary of Proposal 2, since the actual act in question is not specific to wolves and applies to multiple species. An attorney for Keep Michigan Wolves Protected asked the Board to insert the word “unelected” before a reference to the Natural Resources Commission. The Board granted neither request.

“The final language reasonably apprises voters of what the legislation does, which is allow the Natural Resources Commission to name game species,” said YoungeDyke. “But it doesn’t tell them that the NRC has to use sound science, which is an important part of the act.”

After the language was adopted, YoungeDyke was asked if MUCC or Citizens for Professional Wildlife Management planned to campaign for a “yes” vote on the referendums.

“We’re not going to waste resources on it,” he said. “No matter what happens in November, there’s not going to be a 2014 wolf hunt because there isn’t time for the DNR to scientifically craft a season structure for it. And no matter what happens in November, there will be a hunting season in 2015, 2016 and every year thereafter as long as it continues to be supported by sound science.”

That’s because the Scientific Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act will take effect in March. In addition to re-granting the Natural Resources Commission the authority to name game species using sound science, it also reenacts the sections of law that HSUS is trying to repeal. It also contained a $1 million appropriation to protect fisheries from aquatic invasive species, so it is not subject to a third anti-hunting referendum.

Jill Fritz, Michigan director for the Humane Society of the United States and director of Keep Michigan Wolves Protected, told reporters that they would campaign heavily for a “no” vote on Proposals 1 and 2, including television advertisements. The Humane Society’s Legislative Fund spent $750,000 on “media” for Keep Michigan Wolves Protected in late July, according to campaign finance reports.

She also told reporters that they planned to sue to block the Scientific Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act. Read more

Here’s how the Humane Society of the United States stacks up to real animal shelters that house pets.  Bottom line:  give locally.

Scientific Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act now law, renders anti-hunting referendums moot

LANSING, MI – The Michigan House of Representatives passed the Scientific Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act today with a bipartisan vote of 65-43 . The citizen initiative, which passed the Senate on August 13 and was supported by the signatures of almost 300,000 registered voters, allows the Natural Resources Commission to name game species and issue fisheries orders using sound science, creates a $1 million rapid response fund to prevent Asian carp, and provides free hunting and fishing licenses for active military members.

“We are very thankful to the legislators who voted for sound science, the voters who signed the petition, the organizations who supported it, and the tireless volunteers who collected the signatures of almost 300,000 registered Michigan voters,” said Dan Eichinger, executive director for Michigan United Conservation Clubs. “This is an important step to protecting the rights to hunt, fish and trap in Michigan from radical animal rights organizations.”

The initiative also renders moot two referendums sponsored by the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), a Washington, D.C.-based anti-hunting organization, which sought to repeal two bills that would allow a regulated hunting season for wolves in certain areas of the Upper Peninsula where they have killed pets, dogs and livestock. Because the initiative contains an appropriation, it is not subject to a third referendum by HSUS or its front group, Keep Michigan Wolves Protected.

“We thought it was important to listen to the will of the 300,000 registered voters who brought this initiative to us,” said Representative Jon Bumbstead (R-Newago). “This is about more than wolves. It’s about protecting the rights of our constituents to hunt and fish by managing our fish and wildlife with sound science.”

Passage of the citizen initiative settles the wolf hunt controversy, which has moved back and forth over the past two years, providing the certainty that Department of Natural Resources biologists need to move forward with wolf management.

Citizens for Professional Wildlife Management is a coalition of conservation, hunting, fishing and trapping groups and individuals including the Michigan chapters of Safari Club International, the Michigan Bear Hunters Association, Michigan United Conservation Clubs, the Michigan Trappers and Predator Callers Association, the Michigan Hunting Dog Federation, the Upper Peninsula Sportsmen’s Alliance, U.P. Whitetails, Inc., the U.P. Bear Houndsmen, the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, National Wild Turkey Federation, Ducks Unlimited and the United States Sportsmen’s Alliance. The act has also received the endorsement of the National Wildlife Federation, the Michigan Salmon and Steelhead Fishermen’s Association, the Lake St. Clair Walleye Association, the Lake St. Clair chapter of Muskies, Inc., and numerous local conservation groups throughout Michigan.