Letter to the Idaho Statesman newspaper

[Sundles]

Canadian wolves

Bounty hunting in court is your view, as if this were some sort of injustice. The facts are we have spent millions to dump a non-native wolf into the back yards of people who don´t want them. Then we spend tens of thousands protecting and studying the wolves while threatening the people with lifetime bankruptcy should they harm a wolf.

You say there are 284 wolves; other credible estimates put the number up to 1,000. Using your numbers mean there are 10 times as many now as there was in 1996. If we don´t have 1,000, we soon will.

You say the wolves kill up to 5,000 elk. I wonder how many deer, rabbits, fox, raccoon, grouse, sheep and others the wolves kill. How many wolves does there need to be before you recommend putting an end to hunting?

What good has come from the millions we have spent, the people and livelihoods we have threatened and the thousands of native animals killed? People like you who think it makes them “feel good” knowing a Canadian wolf howls at night in Idaho even though they will never see or hear one should go sleep in Canada.

Rick Rietmann, Boise

9-4-2003 Statesman letter

Tim, can we see what Rick was replying to for perspective?

Looks like lots of folks in Idaho want them in their backyards:

http://www.wildwhiteclouds.org/news_wolves.html

So much for that argument.

[Kevin]

How so? Lotsa folks think Elvis is still alive, and still think Al Gore won the presidency. But that doesn't win any arguments.

To be more precise, so much for any argument, or part of an argument that claims that all local Idahoans do not want wolves. Many do, as evinced by the Boulder/White Clouds Council Board of Directors.

Now, if you want to split hairs about de re and de dicto forms of knowledge, I KNOW a native Idahoan whose family wants wolves in Idaho. I KNOW a former student of mine who is a professor in Moscow and wants wolves in Idaho.

And to keep in this vein of precision, the Letter to Editor was not precise in that it did not specify whether ALL or merely SOME Idahoans do not want wolves in their backyard. To be precise, some do, some don't.

That's why I asked Tim for the post that Rick replied to ... not for rebuttle ... simply for perspective.

Sorry, I still can't spell. I'm sitting here with this mental image of round little 'ol Jackie Gleeson twisted around and saying "And away we go" ... I just gotta laugh.

[Kevin]

Okay, but the argument that ALL Idahoans want everything is a straw man. You can't get 100% agreement on anything. Heck, as we can see from this board, we can't even get 100% agreement against bestiality on this message board. And it was widely reported that on the last UK census that some 2000 people listed their religion as "Jedi Knight."

You can certainly say that "some" Idahoans want wolves reintroduced, and likely that "many" want it, but no more with the evidence presented.

For all I know, the Boulder/White Clouds group is a small group, as some who promote special interests are here. I know of one in Colorado from a few years back that consisted of one(1) member, yet presented evidence before the Senate Judiciary Committee as an organization. Or it may represent 95% of Idaho.

And the issue is not whether some or many support it, the issue is whether or not it is a good idea, and if so, under what terms. It appears that a significant percentage of Saudi Arabia supports terrorist bombings of Israel and America, but that does not make it a good idea.

David, Kevin, Good points all ... DH you have to be loving this. I'm sorry, I'm mot trying to be a little jerk ... I'm still LOL at/to myself.

kevin, I agree with you. Nonetheless, the "us locals don't want 'em" argument was made above. I guess I not so much rebutted the argument as made it more precise.

Arguments for state control are made all over this board. Arguments elsewhere have made the claim that the anti-wolf crowd is the special interest with the political influence over State officials. Ron Gillette does what for a living?

I'm all for moving on to greener pastures and exploring the issues you've laid out. I personally think it comes down to long-term versus short-term health of Man. Can I prove that? Hell no!

[Sundles]

David,

The wild white cloud group is a bunch of grannola eating, tree hugging, prarie fairys. They are a smallish group that wants no human hunting, no farming, ranching, logging, you know the type.

BTW, Ron Gillette only takes river floating trips down the Salmon. He has not done any hunting for over 15 years and when he did do guided hunts they were only one or two clients per year that he took on very difficult back pack big horn sheep hunts in the Middle Fork. I know Ron real well. When wolves were first introduced he had no problem with it. He thought that the whole idea might attract more visitors to his part of the world, but after the first two years of having wolves around his place, literally all the elk calves were killed and the normaly abundant docile elk, became very scarce. WHat really pissed him off was when wolves killed every one of the elk Ron was feeding by his house in the winter. No Kidding, evey one of those little band of elk was killed and left in the snow. Ron got sick to his stomach and then pissed.

boone,

the letter that was being responded to by the letter that started this post was a letter to the editor that stated that the upcoming law suit by the anti wolf coalition is "bounty hunting in court". In other words, we that dont want the government forced wolves, are using the court system to our advantage to get rid of wolves. This is kind of funny when you consider that the "greens" have been using the courts to force thier agenda in a big way for the last 30 years--as soon as our side trys the same tactic, they hypocriticaly start screaming.

Thanks Tim, this is why its important to hear both sides. Gillette sounds like a likeable guy.

The Idahoans I know are both scientists, one is a hunter, both are some badass tough ski-mountaineers. I'd be hard pressed to label them as fairies.

Thanks Tim, and special thanks to the gent that sent me the link.

http://www.idahostatesman.com/Search/story.asp?id=46571

[Sundles]

David,

There is a big difference between a prairie fairy and a simple fairy:-)

/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/laugh.gif /images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

[TheSimpleton]

Let me just be stupid here for a second, but I've never heard anyone on this board say they were for the removal of all wolves in their state.

Tell me if I'm wrong here, but isn't the logic that when you have too many Elk you hunt them, (or release predators) but when you have too many wolves...??? ...You DON'T shoot them? How does that work?

Since the wolves are in no danger of being eliminated by any account, then shouldn't a normal hunting/grooming of their numbers be allowed? At the very least in self-defense of self, pets and domestic animals?

The environmentalists seem to be unfairly branding people as "anti-wolf"--and I see you guys accepting that label, and it's working well for them in the gov't and media. The winning argument (as I see it) is simply to reassure them that the wolf population is safe and we can think about controlling the standing population--not that they need to be eliminated or whether it has been unfairly shoved down on the locals by the Feds or minority interests. Then some sense can begin to prevail about HOW MANY of elk and wolf are healthy.

The first step has got to be permission for individuals to defend their own corral and dooryards, and the only way to do that is if the people that introduced them believe locals won't shoot them on sight if allowed to shoot them at all.

Just a reader's view here. Better to win a yard than fight for a mile and lose it.

TS

[Sundles]

TS,

I never would have shot a wolf that was naturaly here. We had a few running around long before the reintroduction, so technicaly they cant reintroduce something that already exists. However, now that the feds have illgally dumped wolves on us, I say, out of priciple, kill them all in the sate of Idaho and send the feds packing. If Idaho citizens then decide they want wolves and can legaly intrduce them to the state, then I would not be bothered by such a reintroduction, as I would prefer to be law abiding. Since the feds have broken many laws in regards to the ESA, I say the wolves are here illegaly and we have the duty to eliminate them, at least for now.

I'll stand on principle on this issue. I say get the feds and thier wolves out of here. Make the feds obey thier own laws. After we have accomplished the reigning in of the feds, then we can see about legally having wolves in Idaho.

[DH]

TS,

I have discussed the wolf introduction on forums for several years. Most of the wolf advocates behind the introduction are anti-hunting and therefore have no stomach for hunting wolves as a means of control. You should hear them wail and gnash there teeth over each wolve that is controled now. They name these animals and become individual pets. Here is an example of an exchange between two opposing posters.

Ralph Maughan said..."""""Rick McIntyre described 113M to me on several occasions as a real coalition builder. He's an alpha that doesn't rule, but seems to lead by recognizing the differences and needs of each member of the pack."""""

The reply.....""""Is he (113M) also running for governor of Calif by chance?""""

[TheSimpleton]

I say make them ransom lupus for spot. Even the most lilly-hearted have to condone protecting one's own dogs from wolves. --Well, not everyone, but it's a strong enough case that it can be introduced first and actually pass. They'll have a hard time defending the killing of personal pets to the public-at-large. After that you go for horses and your local property and so on until reason is restored about animal control.

I know they're goofy but focusing on the goofy ones is not a help. You have to focus on the swing voters and tread lightly with name calling that doesn't charm people to your cause. I'd guess that's why they're winning right now. How about a PR campaign focusing on the old-time romance of ranching and the wonderful guided west, a traditional way of life now threatened by a few extremists who want not wolves, but wolf PREDOMINANCE over man, yada ya. Cast THEM as the villians. ...See what I'm saying? Take it to the streets as the victims even if it burns. Maybe I live in too media-rich an area in the east but these days it's about marketing, not reality. Why do you think McDonalds and Microsoft sells? Not for their superior product.

In an armed rebellion you might have the licence to make a point about federal rights vs Idaho rights, and I tend to be pretty pro-states as written in the Constitution. However it might not be time for that fight right now, and I don't know if anyone can make a distinction between Idaho wolves and Federal wolves. You're all in the soup now and to take on the feds in court or in public opinion you've got to have a case that's beyond all possible argument. Otherwise, the feds are stronger and you fight to lose--losing at the same time the specific fight about wolf control.

Glad I'm not in your shoes, though. You know what a pack of wild dogs can do, and though (supposedly)less controlled than wolves, when they're near you can't walk out your door without wondering if you'll make it home again. --And it's not as accepted to carry on our small parcels of land. --You'd be considered a loose cannon.

It's idiocy to believe that you can be attacked by Bears and lions, dogs, snakes and buffalo, --heck, even wasps and killer bees--But if you're out west rest assured that although wolves eat mice, rabbits, fawns, deer, sheep, elk, moose and anything else they can find, no wolf, would EVER attack a human or human-guarded animal under any circumstances. Gosh I feel safe already.

Too bad so few get past their driveways or they'd see how foolish that argument is. But because they DON'T know the obvious, the key has got to be public education and media presentation of your side in a beautiful light. Never retaliatory attacks which make you the bad guys by today's lilly-white terms. Hit them where it hurts, in the media and their public donations. The sheperding, pro-conservation approach is what made Ducks Unlimited a DC force and untouchable interest group.

From the media-addled East, TS

[Sundles]

TS,

We have put together an unbeatable law suit and it is with a law suit that we will win back our constitutional rights. I'll leave the PR to others. If we cant get redress in the courts, Im pretty sure that people will simply control the wolves on their own--they already are, just not enough.

TS,
Ever feel like you were talking to a wall?

[Kevin]

Words that never belong together..."unbeatable" and "lawsuit."

[TheSimpleton]

...Every time I talk common sense I feel that way.

Is this what happens when people stop growing up on farms?

TS

TS,
It might have something to do with that, only I think it might have more to do with just being blinded with an issue.
boone

[Sundles]

boone,

I think that TS is right on with his view. However, TS's view simply isnt for me. My path is to not compromise on the issue, period. If I lose the whole battle, so be it, but Im not going to compromise. I will leave all the compromising to others that are better at it than I. Yes TS is correct, but my path is different.

Kevin,

The only way this lawsuit will be beatable is through corruption in the judiciary, which is entirely possible, (as weve seen it happen before) so, yes the law suit can be defeated."Unbeatable" was poor choice in words on my part.

[Kevin]

Tim,
I have lost unloseable cases and won unwinnable ones. Once you get before a judge or a jury, all bets are off.

Are you talking about the Constitution as written or as currently applied? There is a big difference.

[Sundles]

Kevin,

The law firm handling this suit has beaten the USFWS several times already on ESA issues versus current constitutinal interpretations of law. The constitutional researcher doing the research for the suit, is the same researcher who helped construct the other suits that prevailed. She tells me that there are so many HOLES in the wolf reintroduction as to render the entire reintrodution illegal. She claims that there are so many grounds for the suit that it will take months just to write the suit. She says it is the biggest federal blunder she has ever seen and if she throws enough mud on the wall, some of it is bound to stick.

[Sgathak]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> If I lose the whole battle, so be it, but Im not going to compromise. I will leave all the compromising to others that are better at it than I. Yes TS is correct, but my path is different. </div></div>Just out of curiousity, and you can respond in Private Message if you wish, what will you do if you loose? You say that your a law abiding citizen but you will refuse to obey unlawful laws (as a good citizen should IMHO) but if the court upholds the wolf placement and decides your wrong in this matter, what will you do? Will you stop if the courts tell you to?

It is my opinion that once you step into that courtroom, your subjecting yourself to that courts ruling... if the court says your wrong in this matter, will you stand by the courts decision?

[Sundles]

Sgathak,

I'll leave the answer to your question to your imagination. Illegal laws are wrong no matter what the courts say. The courts are involved in a lot of freedom stealing illegal activity these days. We are seeking redress through the courts as that is the only legal option. IF it were up to me..................

I really like that federal judge in Alabama that says the federal courts are tyrannical and illegal in nature with the ten commandments decission. If the people of this country lose the ability to get peaceful redress through the judiciary, ( as designed by our founding fathers) they will eventualy seek redress another way, just like our founding fathers did.

[Sgathak]

well... leaving the answer to my imagination, Im going to imagine that you will not comply with the legal descision unless you get your way.

This leads me to beleive that you have no interest in LAW, but only an interest in what YOU think.

Now, If Im wrong on this, please understand that it is only because the answer was left to my imagination...

[Sundles]

Sgathak,

You are free to think what you like, but I will tell you that I have a huge interest in the law. The very reason the ESA and wolf reintroduction (amoung other things) bothers me, is because they are illegal. If we followed the law (the constitution) in this country, we wouldnt be having some of the probelms we have today. We have child protection laws that violate parents rights and the sanctity of the family. Nearly all of our natural resource agencies are taking your freedoms in gross violations of the law. ( I could go on) So, I do have a great interest in the law. You could also argue that our founding fathers had no interest in King George 111 laws either, The founding fathers only wanted what they wanted. (freedom) They did in fact break every law of the land in rebeling against KG111 and in killing his soldiers, no?

[Sgathak]

Look, your unwilling to respond with a direct response regarding my question towit, will you abide by the courts desicion? Therefore, not only am I "free" to think whatever I want... I and everyone here is left only to assume and to "think" about it. But I guess thats easier than actually coming out and saying it. Just let everyone assume and then you can claim whatever stance you feel to benifical after the fact.

And thus far, I "think" that your only willing to abide by a favorable desicion, everything else being "illegal".

Again, if you step into a court, you ought to understand that you are placing yourself in the judgement of the court... if the court finds you wrong, legally... your wrong! Until such time that you can again address the court and hopefully overturn the previous ruling.

[Sundles]

Sgathak,

I get your point. I have all along. Im not sure why you are trying to make such a big deal out of it. I dont disagree with what you have written about the courts and the laws, but Im not going on record on the internet with answers about what I would do if the laws suit fails--probably cause Im not sure what I would do. I will most likely wait to cross that bridge IF I get to it. I expect that the law suit will be won in part or in its entirety, so for now, I focus on that hoped for outcome. I cannot foresee the future, so I focus on what I hope for.

Sundles,
How about Nature's Wolves? What happens to that ... if and when you win?

[Sgathak]

Well theres a shocker, you not wanting to go on record and all. Its good to know this is such a well thought out course of action for you.

Im making such a big deal out of this for one reason and one reason only. This line "If I lose the whole battle, so be it"

Youve killed wolves, you admit it and have made open ended statments that support the notion of continued killings and yet you say in the above line that if you loose, "so be it". I dont buy it, and you are incapable of providing any backing to the claim.

First you skirt the issue by telling me to "use my imagination" and then go for the "Famous Founding Fathers Laterall Pass" (I think Elway used this to get the ball to Terrell so Davis could win his Super Bowl MVP /images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/eek.gif ) to further refocus the conversation. A move which only further galvanized my "imagined" beleif that you will not abide by court ruling if it is unfavorable for you.

Im genuinly flabbergasted and disappointed that you cannot state, openly and for the record, that whether you win OR loose this case, you fully intend to obey court ruling and follow the legal system as set forth by this nations constitution whether you agree with the ruling or not, understanding that by choosing the legal course of action (one NOT available to the founding fathers, as a proper court procedures were not in existance in the 1770's so theres no need to further develop this straw man debate) you are bound not simply by the letter of the law, but by the dignity of yourself, your state, and your nation to do what is right. Now, I as a person, nor any man here can tell you what is "right" but when you enter the court you give them full power to do just that. Therefore my simple question is thus:

Will you abide by the court ruling, whether favorable or infavorable?

Your free to answer it or not... You already know what my lowly "imagined" answer is.

[Sundles]

Sgathak,

How are you defining "so be it"? What do you think I meant by "so be it". It looks to me like you are taking "so be it" differently than myself.

Further, when the federal government comes into this area and lies to us and to congress in the EIS (USFWS changed the original EIS so that congress would accept the wolf dumping plans as congress would not acceot the original EIS because it explained the finacial hardships that ranchers and outfitters would suffer. So Ed Bangs arbitrarily changed the EIS to get congressional funding), what makes you feel that we subjects are bound by any law? If the feds can break their own laws, why should they expect any different from their subjects? Fair questions, no?

Now to answer your question, truthfully no less. If we lose this suit altogether, I have no idea what I will do? We would probably regroup and try again. As for shooting wolves, I would already shoot one if I saw one, so I doubt that stance will change until the feds are out of here regardless of any court ruling. I have nothing against wild wolves migrating into this area (we already had some before the reintrodcution) as long as this state can exercise its soveriegn right to manage them. I doubt I would ever shoot a natural, unreintroduced wolf in Idaho. However, given the current circumstances we are under with a tyrannical Fed. gov. forcing them on us, Im fairly certain I would shoot one if I saw one again. As you pointed out, I am already on record stating thusly. Most Idaho hunters would shoot one on sight at this point, so Im not feeling lonely in my stance. It is not always so easy to see wolves though.

[Sgathak]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Further, when the federal government comes into this area and lies to us and to congress in the EIS (USFWS changed the original EIS so that congress would accept the wolf dumping plans as congress would not acceot the original EIS because it explained the finacial hardships that ranchers and outfitters would suffer. So Ed Bangs arbitrarily changed the EIS to get congressional funding), what makes you feel that we subjects are bound by any law? If the feds can break their own laws, why should they expect any different from their subjects? Fair questions, no? </div></div>You REALLY can lay this tired rhetoic to rest. Youve regurgitated it so many times many here could recite it in our sleep.

Firstly, you may consider yourself a subject, I do not. I beleive that the Government is beholdent to their own laws. That they may not follow them is a given, but they are bound by them... and it is our duty to do what we can to hold them to their laws.
If the government cannot or will not abide by their own laws and becomes tyranical, then we are bound to rise up against the government. If the revolution is a succuss, then the new government can repell the laws. However, until that time, the law exists, We are accountable to it, and can be brought to bare on the grounds of said law.

You dont like it? Fix it. Vote, for a president you like, vote for and write your congressmen, take illegal laws and practices to court. USE the system as it was intended to be used. If that doesnt work, the Constitution has provisions for armed uprising. However if Im not mistaken... the first three come BEFORE pulling triggers.

Your continued violation of the laws on the grounds of "well they do it" is both petty and childish. I can almost imagine you sticking your tounge out as you say it! While trite, two wrongs do not make a right, and as a citizen of this nation, and a student of the Constitution of the United States of America you should fully be aware of the way the system was set up and would from the beginning, use the system accordingly.

Though Im not surprised in the least.

kevin, I haven't followed tort law or the trends of tort reform since the Clarence Thomas- Anita Hill case. Where has it gone since then? I understand if you do not have time to answer such an open ended question.

I applaud these folks for playing the game within the rules, even though I disagree with their claim. Would it set a precedent for the Rez?

[Kevin]

David, I don't understand your question. Tort law is not what I think of when I think of Clarence Thomas/Anita Hill.

And I don't know what you mean about setting a precedent for the rez.

Perhaps early senility is setting in, but a little more clarity would help.

But remember, much of this is state law, and I am only familiar with one state, Colorado. I am not qualified to comment on the laws of other states, except in a few very isolated instances.

[Sundles]

Sgathak,

You may consider it to be "tired rehtoric", but to me it is obviously more. If you dont like it, dont keep reading it, but to read it and complain about it is petty IMHO.

I do agree with your understanding of the constitution. I agree with you! We are using the very system you are suggesting, yet your finding fault because Isaid I would shoot a wolf if I saw one.

When an illegal action is taken by government it is serious. The dumping of Wolves however, is very differnt than passing a law about something that is inanimate. Wolves continue to populate and kill and then repopulate and kill some more and so on. I believe that free people are entitled to take certain actions unto themselves when illegaly beset upon by circumstances that will bring them suffering if they wait for the system to work. If wolves didnt populate as prolificaly as they do, citizens could sit back and wait for the system to work. We are doing all we can within the system for now. If some folks choose vigil antism to protect their vital interests, or just to send the feds a message, it is ok with me. You may disagree, thats ok with me too. You are the one who seems to have his panties in a bunch. It is still legal to have an opinion in this country and if the feds made it illegal to have an opinion, I would still have one. You know my opinion--Ive never been secretive about it. If you dont like it, get on with your life.

[Sundles]

Sgathak,

Oh yea, I almost forgot. Sometimes I break the speed limit, sometimes I forget to claim barter on my taxes and sometimes I go to Montana to buy goods, just to avoid the Idaho sales tax. If this bothers you, it is of no consequence to me.

[Sgathak]

I just love how you get all indignant.

Yes, I take exception to your killing of wolves, but thats not my point. My point is simply, if your going to do the legal thing... you really ought to pretend like you give a damn about the law.

[Sundles]

Sgathak,

I told you before that I care very much about the law. If the law had been obeyed this country wouldnt be in the mud slide it is right now. I have a huge interest in the law.

What you are failing to see is that wolves populate like crazy. They eat. They kill. When they over populate, they eat and kill more. It is easy for you to have the luxury to sit back and be critical while one of my freinds was literaly put out of the ranching business by wolves. Several others of my friends have been severely impacted. These people arent "bubbas". They have wives and kids and responsibilities and hopes and dreams and RIGHTS. So, while we wait for the system to work, would you care to send money and support my impacted friends so you arent such a hypocrite, or would you prefer to criticize and be a hypocrite? It is so easy for you to have an opinion while you arent impacted, no? Well, I guarantee your opinion would change a little if your lively hood was being consumed by wolves. As it is right now, you havent a clue till youve "walked a mile" in the other guys shoes. Would you like some examples of what some of the people here are going through? It might quiet your spouting about the law.

[Sgathak]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Originally posted by Sundles:
[]Sgathak,

I told you before that I care very much about the law. If the law had been obeyed this country wouldnt be in the mud slide it is right now. I have a huge interest in the law.</div></div>When its of benifit to you

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">What you are failing to see is that wolves populate like crazy. They eat. They kill. When they over populate, they eat and kill more.</div></div>On what planet could I fail to see this? I can point to 3 dozen posts on this message board where youve said this aleady.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It is easy for you to have the luxury to sit back and be critical while one of my freinds was literaly put out of the ranching business by wolves. Several others of my friends have been severely impacted. These people arent "bubbas". They have wives and kids and responsibilities and hopes and dreams and RIGHTS. So, while we wait for the system to work, would you care to send money and support my impacted friends so you arent such a hypocrite, or would you prefer to criticize and be a hypocrite? It is so easy for you to have an opinion while you arent impacted, no? Well, I guarantee your opinion would change a little if your lively hood was being consumed by wolves. As it is right now, you havent a clue till youve "walked a mile" in the other guys shoes. Would you like some examples of what some of the people here are going through? It might quiet your spouting about the law</div></div>Sundles, I dont care about you or the people who have been put out of business. Not because I have some agenda, not because I dont like you, not because Im against you, not because Im a "wolf lover"... simply because your lives dont impact my question. That being said, I dont need your ad neasuem recountations of you and your buddies desperate struggle against the big bad wolf.

If you will note, the WOLF is not my issue here. My issue is legalities and whether or not you will play by the rules set forth by the court/government. Thats it. Full stop.

Youve already indicated that you will not unless you find the ruling to be favorable. That is the answer to my question. That is all that needs be said.

edited to remove the bold block of text

[James H.]

This kind of reminds me a few years back when a mountain lion killed and ate a goodly portion of a woman who was out running somewhere in the West (California, I believe). The lion was tracked and destroyed, leaving behind a set of kittens.

The funny thing is that there was a trust fund set up to look after the kittens and another to look after the children of the woman who was killed and eaten. If I recall correctly, donations to the kittens' trust fund doubled that to the childrens' fund!

Wild animals are wonderful creatures, but we can not lose sight of the fact that when they come into conflict with humans steps should be taken to resolve the issue. Obviously, this is much easier where we see a man-eater vs a calf-eater but the impact isn't much different if its your calf!

[Sundles]

Sgathak,

You Wrote: "simply because your lives dont impact my question". Thats correct. Your question refuses to take into account real lives, only a principle with narrow parameters. Well, real life isnt always so black and white and doesnt always allow the luxury of a SIMPLE question couched in narrow guide lines that DONT IMPACT YOU.

WHen your life becomes impacted by an illegal law, I wont worry because it isnt impacting me at the moment. How empathic! Instead I'll stand fast on some principle that over looks your particular set of circumstances--you know, individual circumstances dont matter.

Sorry kevin. I didn't blow you off. i answered over on the "Email chatter" post, from whence the context arose.

[Sgathak]

Sundles, Individual circumstances DO matter. I did not say that they didnt. I said they didnt matter in respect to the question I asked.

That question was

Will you abide by the courts decision whether or not it is favorable.

Is that question too difficult for you to understand? It had nothing to do with you, your friends, the wolf, your pocket book, the elk, the trees, the clouds, the ducks, or what you think of the government. Get it?

So lets try this again... Ill even answer for you so you dont need to think it through.

Sgathak:"Will you abide by the courts decision whether or not it is favorable?"

Sundles:"No"

See, that was E-Z

[Sundles]

Sgathak,

I got it a long time ago. You dont seem to. Here it is for you. Individual circumstances DO MATTER in respect to the question you asked. Period.

You cant ask a sterile question that undoubtedly involves individual circumstances and then say the question doesnt involve individual circumstances. IF IT WASNT FOR INDIVIDUAL CIRCUMSTNACES, THERE WOULD BE NO NEED FOR GOVERNMENT in the first place. How can you isolate your question from the individual circumstances, when the crux of the entire question only matters when applied to the individual circumstances? Ever heard of the legal term of "competing harms"?

[Sgathak]

No they dont. Because the question was not predicated on the terms of individual situation, but on whether or not you would continue to violate the law if the courts disagreed with you. The question was purposefully isolated and was ment to be as simple and straight forward as it was.

Sure, if you and your buddies never has to worry about wolves again, thats nifty neat-o for you and I dont think you would continue to kill wolves. At least I would hope not. Sometimes I wonder... Conversely, if the wolf is still an issue, you will continue to violate the law.

Thats all. You need not make things more complicated than they are.

If the legal situation is not to your benifit (i.e, "favorable or not"), you will ignore the law. Is this correct?

Simple yes or no answer will suffice.

[Sundles]

sgathak,

You wrote: "you need not make things more complicated than they are" Well sir, you are making them simpler than they are. If we arent going to discuss reality, then why have a discussion? Your question becomes less than moot, ridiculous actualy, if you say the question matters, but the question doesnt matter in how it relates to individual circumstances.

You are in effect trying to put words in my mouth by saying, that I would do a certain thing. (kill a wolf) I in turn am saying I would only do a certain thing based on the circumstances. Do you really think I should let wolves move into my pasture, make a den, raise pups and eat my horses? Of course you dont think I should do that, (not if you are sane) but those are the real life circumstances bud. That scenario actualy played out not far from here. If i were to shoot the wolves in my pasture, I would be guilty under the question you asked, but if you realize the wolves are killing my horses and endangering my family, I would be quite innocent in any rational persons mind. RIGHT???

I'll repeat: Your question becomes moot and ridiculous (entrapment) if you dont apply it to the exigent circumstances at hand.

You never answered my question about the legal term of "competing harms" Do you know what it means?

You seem to be saying that I am some type of scoff law that only obeys laws I like. You couldnt be further from the truth. I live in reality and I dont pose questions that become meaningless by applying them to nothing but the question itself. Get real. The entirety of life itself would have no meaning or purpose if we didnt have individual circumstances.

[Sgathak]

Firstly, do not refer to me as "bud". We are not.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Competing Harms:
Conduct which a actor believes to be necessary to avoid imminent physical harm to himself or another is justifiable if the desirability and urgency of avoiding such harm outweigh, according to ordinary standards of reasonableness, the harm sought to be prevented by the statute defining the crime charged. The desirability and urgency of such conduct may not rest upon considerations pertaining to the morality and advisability of such statute.</div></div>Im am neither attempting to under nor over simplify any question, nor am I attempting to affect any false answer from you. Surely you can use the above definition and see that any answer you present to my question would have some form of legal backing. This is neither a court of law, nor are you under oath. I dont understand your fear, and if not fear, your inability to answer straight.

The question is quite simple. I will refrain from asking it again. Im sure you understand it, but for fears of "entrapment" are refusing to answer. Thats quite all right. Your point has been made, and your lack of direct response is quite telling.

Thank you very much and have a wonderful day.

[Sundles]

Sagathac,

I did not mean bud as an abbreviation for buddy. You would have to live out here in the country to know how I meant bud and I'll call you what I please.

I did give a direct answer to your question. More than once. It was not the answer you expected, so you refuse to aknowledge it as a direct answer. For you to ask a question without any context is foolish and without meaning--the context or circumastnace can be everything. Even the courts recognize that fact as you just pointed out. Further, I have no "fear" when it comes to your question. That is why I answered it. If I had fear, I wouldnt have shot a wolf and took the feds to it. I wouldnt have done a bunch of other things either, like the natureswolves web site. Hell, bud, I get death threats and hate mail on regular basis, (got three today) so dont pat yourself too hard on the back thinnking you posed a question I am afraid to answer. Your question was simply without reason until I put it in context of the circumstances.

[Sgathak]

I knew exactly how you ment it... Us city folk do 'cazunally walk outside und such. We have words like that too. I however will not stoop to using them.

You never once answered my question, you side stepped it. Granted, in so doing you made your point... though since you never actually said anything, no one can come right out and say "you said this". Its a slick way of handling things, Ill give you that. But dont pat yourself too hard on the back for it.

Yes yes, I know, people threaten your life. you get hate mail. it was brave to put up a website. the feds didnt scare you. ok.

I genuinly hope you make it to court.

[Sundles]

Sgathac,

You will however "stoop" to tyring to entrap some one into your pre concieved belief about them. Stooping is only bad when you pin it on the other guy, but when you do it, it is OK. Got it.

[Sgathak]

Sundles, are you getting upset? You seem to be having difficulty typing. Im not trying to get you upset, honest. Its ok for you to simmer down and not read some vast anti-tim sundles conspiracy to into everything.

[Sundles]

Sgathac,

Not upset, just puzzled at your unreasonable question. Plus, trying to squeeze this conversation into a rather busy day. My wife tells me I waste my time on this stuff. I do believe she is correct.

[Sgathak]

I tend agree that a discussion with you on anything is a waste of time.

You may have felt the question was unreasonable, however I, being left only to "imagine", have come to some interesting conclusions.

[steve]

She's wrong, Tim--and you know it. With the liberal take-over of television and newspaper; all we have left is radio and internet.

Principled men are a dying breed and will soon be totally phased out of this country. The cancer has spread too far and too deep.
Look at the lack of support that you get here with regard to your concerns with the Federal government. Very similar to the lack of support that Judge Moore received-did you notice?

You may win this battle of yours, but you will lose the war. The ten commandments went quietly and the constitution will soon follow. Sad but true. Some say we are in a post-Christian era now and, although I don't believe in a Christian nation, I do believe that God's hand is lifted from this country and we will reap the consequences of our turning from decency to Jerry Springer, if you will.

Anyone looking can see that all signs are there that this country, as we knew it, is about to fold.
No, don't go quiet on us now, just focus on what is really important--righteousness.

Bud always,
Steve

[Sundles]

sagathac,

Stooping again?

[Sundles]

Steve,

Good to hear from you. Thanks.

[Sgathak]

Stooping? Tim, get off it. The conversation is done... but if you so desperatly need the last word, please have it.

[Sundles]

folks,

A point of clarification is perhaps in order. The law suits that will soon be filed against the USFWS and others, are not my lawsuits. Ive had a little input into them and I was the first person to really push the Idaho Anti Wolf coalition to bring a suit, but they are doing it along with the Pacific Legal Foundation. I will of course be signing on, as one of the suits will be a class action.

Kevin,
Care to fill Tim in on who "really" comes out ahead on a class action suit.

[Tim in Nevada]

Boone, I'd guess the answer you're looking for is the attorneys, but it may also solve the problem in the process.(illegal actions by public employees).

Tim in Nevada,

[Kevin]

Once a class is certified, the attorneys are guaranteed payment. Great work if you can get it, but not the kind of work that I do.

Tim in Nevada,
Sorry Tim, bad click. I agree 100% in solving the problem ... it's how some people go about it. If a law is bad or wrong, it should be addressed. I just have a hard time with people placing a monitary value on everything these days. Get it straight, pay the just &amp; due fees, and get on with it. After all ... who funds the government?
boone

Kevin,
>>>
"...but not the kind of work that I do."
>>>
You have no idea how pleased I am to hear that. I know it makes little difference to you, but in my eyes, you just went "up" a notch.
boone

[TheSimpleton]

Just for the heck of it--I have no idea what Sundles and SgtHawk are arguing about. Sounded like everything was answered pretty directly to me.

I was thinking after I wrote that it's necessary to have people like Tim taking on one front with a rifle. If armed, contankerous, independent men didn't exist the government would fear nothing--which we see as they grow fewer and fewer. I was just thinking of opening a second media front on the same issue to flank them. Naturally people of a different sort would be needed in each position.

The principle of our nation, as founded on a revolution is this: Unjust laws should not be obeyed but rebelled against. By petition (as the colonies tried endlessly with KGIII) or by non-violence/non-support, or if necessary, by arms. That's the whole point of encoding the right to bear arms and was often mentioned by all the founders, for example Jefferson saying that there might need to be a revolution every generation to keep Liberty new.

We all ignore unjust or inconvenient laws every day. I know none of you speed, go fishing without a licence, drive uninspected cars, or fail to report minor offenses (like neighbors and relatives who smoke pot) to the police. The laws are so onerous right now even the normal ones are becoming impossible to follow (like speeding) leading to selective enforcement, selective justice and the bankruptcy of law and respect for the law altogether.

This has a chilling effect on the whole nation, as young people grow up without respect for law and authority that is bankrupt and corrupt, and forced to break laws in the course of daily business to accomplish the most simple things. It leads to ignoring law altogether and doing everything by political wrangling and expedience.

When that happens, then law has no business going out that far and should be reined back into reason. We think of law as being absolute but throughout the code there are phrases such as "Reasonable person would think" and "Show just cause" which are loopholes large enough to drive Patton's 3rd army through. But so far, citizen's attempts to put law and court redress back within reason have failed. For example, the new movie "Child Star" was sued by Wham-O for showing David Spade unsafely crashing on a dry Slip and Slide. County parks here are "no trespassing" because if people swim, the county can be sued for having a river. I'm sure another is on the front page every day. The upshot is in order to have the "reasonable life" of our theoretical "Reasonable person" you are now compelled to break the law regularly.

Sundle's case is just the leading edge of a battleship that's bearing down on all of us. Already here you cannot work (plow, build, grade, etc) near a stream or wetland or face exorbinant EPA and DEC (state) fines--although they refuse to define what a "stream" or "wetland" is in comparison to a ditch or a low patch in your lawn, and refuse to legally tell you even if you call and ask. --It's selective enforcement with draconian penalties.

When this happens it is inevitable that the people will develop underground methods of doing ordinary things, like keeping their house from being washed away by the protected ditch or preserving the ranch from bankruptcy. The job of the Government is to try to protect people and property. When they fail to do this, they are morally and functionally bankrupt and a burden people avoid and ignore and resist paying taxes to. If the government persists, the people will begin to develop a shadow government and out of the trusted in their family and community, which leads to the armed disputes between the vying camps--something I hope we all fear and would like to avoid by reforming the perfectly good government we have.

We may not be there yet, but lately we seem to be headed to tyranny, corruption, and bankruptcy by the shortest possible route and you can see the people suffering already, in the west were the Feds tell you to go hang yourself, but in smaller doses everywhere else too.

What's the point of talking about the sancity of law when it's impossible to fully obey it? Even lawyers among you must see this. There's no entrapment here. It's just tomfoolery.

TS

[Sundles]

TS,

Well said.

boone,

Pacific Legal foundation is non profit. They are taking the Wolf/ESA/USFWS suit pro bono--so much for you theory about the lawyers getting everything. The only expenses to the plaintiffs will be out of pocket costs, but no legal fees. Pacific Legal foundation has already beaten the USFWS several times on ESA/constitutional issues. It may take a few years, but this tyrannical/unlawful use of the ESA to take away peoples rights is going to be challenged over and over till we prove with out doubt that the feds have been operating outside the law for decades with extreme enviro intentions.

Gee Tim, I wonder how I could have been so confused on such a thing?

Posted by Sundles -- Sept 4, 2003
>>>
The Cent Id. Wolf Coalition is presenting a lawsuit seeking among other things restitution. As a retired CEO who dealt w/ mass tort litigation and whose company spent $50 million in legal fees dealing w/ 80,000 asbestos lawsuits, I have a fair amount of understanding as to the viability of an action. Helen Franklin &amp; her team has built a magnificent case for The CIWC.We are joining and recruiting others like wild fire.Montana fines poachers $8,000 per bull.You need a mighty big calculator to determine restitution for the tens of thousands of elk,sheep, deer,moose etc these animal rights/environmental extremists have deliberatly taken out of our 3 state economies.There is precedent in the making with Pygmy owl/ESA fraud and litigation brought in AZ. I expect restitution and possibly INDIVIDUAL culpability. We hope to own the homes of officers and directors of "Defenders" "Turner Endangered Species Fund" Et Al. when this is over.In your leadership position in Idaho we hope you can encourage all those damaged parties to join the suit. Most Respectfully, R.T.Fanning Chmn &amp; Founder "Friends of the Northern Yellowstone Elk Herd,Inc. P.O. Box 142 Pray, Montana 59065 3,742 members
----- Original Message -----
From: Jvshep@aol.com
To: rtfanning@worldnet.att.net
Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2003 10:59 AM
Subject: Re: Fw: 09-04-2003 Statesman letter
>>>

Thanks for making it clear,
boone

[Sundles]

Boone,

If you knew who the person sending the email was, you wouldnt be so confused. Once again, you can get on email lists that will keep you updated on all wolf happenings.

Sundles,
Thanks Tim, but wolf happenings are not a big enough issue in my life to get on e-mail listings. For now, I'll just leave it up to you to keep us "informed".
boone

So, he potentially f'd up 80,000 peoples' lungs with asbestosis? I'll pass on knowing him.

One of my projects is on Berylliosis, trying to help folks like that out.

Ya, I keyed in on the asbestosis right away, just didn't have the time or energy to go there.

[Kevin]

Boone,

Not all lawyers are leftists. Sometimes I feel like a pilgrim in an unholy land.

I know the feeling kevin. Believe me, I know the feeling.

[Stan]

Not to change the subject, but if anybody is really interested in "asbestosis", go to <a href="http://www.junkscience.com" target="_blank">http://www.junkscience.com (http://www.junkscience.com)</a> and do a search for asbestos. For the unfortunate few actually affected, what a hideously obscene and useless cost for all. But, scams and hysteria like this keeps the EPA in business...

[TheSimpleton]

It would be a little different if anyone KNEW asbestos could cause lung cancer at the time--and even then there was a problem because Asbestos was so useful and universal it provided a benefit that couldn't be ignored until replacements could be developed. I don't know if this guy (like so many CEOs) went ahead ignoring a KNOWN asbestos hazard, (does anyone know if it's more dangerous than auto exhaust, for example?) but it's a pretty big conclusion to jump to.

I mean, if they pass a law against making left turns today, should you be able to be retroactively sued for all the turned you made before?

That's what a lot of the pollution squabbles are about, and while you sort of have to make the company clean it up (it's their monster) you also have to recognize that it's sort of illegal to punish them for doing something that was legal at the time they did it.

I'd have to look deeper to see if this guy is a PoS or not--maybe we could give him initial courtesy and a sharp eye until we can prove otherwise. ...Just saying.

TS

Sure, I'll give him the benefit... but CEO's are generally PoS in my book. Yeah, I'm a bigot, so what. I don't like racists either.

Stan, few? And what do the quotes mean?

http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/images/w7asbf1.gif

Oh, Simpleton, I agree with you on the lawsuit part. Can't ever get your health back anyway.

All I was saying was I'm a bit selective in choosing my friends. Not much to debate on that one.

[Stan]

Anybody who cares to spend more than 5 minutes of research on asbestosis will find an incredible amount of information about scientific ignorance, deception and outright lies on this issue. All stemming from the mineralogic, industrial and health impact differences to the several asbestos-form minerals and which of those are actually around your pipes or being dug out of the ground. The "quotes" ? Here's just one reason: how many of those people who died of "asbestosis" were smokers, as many (most?) miners (and miner's families who lived near asbestos mines) in that time period were/are? The disease exists David, only it is not the horrible public menace the politicians and the so called EPA "scientists" made/make it out to be. First turned on to this scam, sham and outrageous waste of money by a mineralogy professor who did his dissertation on an aspect of asbestos.

Gotta run for a few days, so, if you desire, I graciously give you the last word on this. Saludos.

No, not a public menace, but a private menace, usually affecting those who directly work in factories that produce asbestos containing products. Folks with a known history of exposure.

Just as berylliosis affects many workers who milled the stuff for cold-war reactors. We can step up to help these people who were instrumental in building up the defense of our country or dismiss it as unimportant because it is not a public health issue.

Not knowing the details of the 80,000 law suits, I'm guessing that more than a few were people who actually were diagnosed with the disease and worked at the company. Maybe thats a big jump to some of you. Whatever.

I do not doubt your claims that it has been blown out of proportion. That does not make the disease less serious or important to the people who have it. It is not a numbers game to them.

[DH]

That does not make the disease less serious or important to the people who have it. It is not a numbers game to them.

Sounds like the rational I use when enviros quote wolf/livestock kills statistics. :-)

DH, absolutely.

And although Stan is correct that berylliosis, slicosis, asbestosis, is easily confused with particulate damage from smoking, we can still use the esteemed Dr. Kay's logic that these things are additive or perhaps even more than additive like multiple predator species in the environment.

[Stan]

And... folks (factory workers, like miners) who have a known history to smoke more than the general public...

Not public?, HOGWASH! What about the BILLIONS spent to remove or encapsulate it in schools and public building?

Of course, asbestosis is serious and the sufferers deserve help - the sufferers, who, by the way (and all those others included as "sufferers"), who have been taken advantage of for EPA politics, money and kingdom justification.

Now, darn it, I gotta go!

Stan, as usual, we agree in our own uniquely contentious style.

[TheSimpleton]

Not knowing the incidence of asbestos, I asked a guy who works in a power plant here. He says it's common among the older guys and I guess it's pretty clear when it's asbestos and not another cause, so I amend my doubt on how serious it is.

On the other hand, he did mention that most of these guys worked with it for years, pulling it out of pipes by hand with no mask and all. I wonder if we'll find this out about fiberglass and drywall dust later--I can tell you they ain't any too good for you. So would that mean we can sue Home Depot for selling it to us while it's legal? I'll sell my part-share in that future class-action for $50 if anybody's interested.

TS

TS,
If it ever comes about, and it could in todays world, it will be Dow Corning and USG, not Home Depot ... just like the tobacco industry, not the corner quick stop.

[Stan]

TS,

Anything in excess will kill you (well, almost anything). Experienced marathon runners die from drinking too much water. The asbestos minerals used since WWII are soft white fibers that your lungs easily expell, at "normal" concentrations. There is absolutely zero threat to you from asbestos around your pipes, behind your woodstove or in your brake linings. Your second paragraph is the key - working in an concentrated environment without proper protection is a no-no. Instead of just focussing on proper safety for those working with asbestos, the EPA, in all of it's sleazy junk science dependency, anti-earth-resources industry mentality and need to feed the hoards of sleezy lawyer-vultures that hang out sunning themselves on the rooftops of the EPA bunkers, they declare an incredibly useful naturally occurring substance harmful (where are the graphs that show how many lives have been SAVED from asbestos or how many trillions of dollars have been SAVED by fire protection?) and we (the public) spend billions for removal and lawsuits. This is one of the granddaddies of "science" fraud out there - if more of the public knew what a sham it is (was) and how much of their money was wasted on it, I doubt if a single EPA office would remain unrazed.
Although, since half the voting public did vote for Algore, education is probably a lost cause...

And on another front, I see (thanks to Range) that after a 12 month USFWS review, the California spotted owl doesn't warrant any federal protection. Seems it occurs thru-out all of it's historical range. Environmental groups are threatening to sue to reverse the decision...