# Idaho takes " No prosecution stance" on wolves



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

This is going to get real interesting,,,,
Idaho saying screw endangered species act.,,Shoot all wolves!
No investigations or prosecutions!!!WOW! -8/- //dog// 

BOISE, Idaho — After talks with the federal government over a public wolf hunt collapsed, Gov. C.L. "Butch" Otter ordered Idaho wildlife managers Monday to relinquish their duty to arrest poachers or to even investigate when wolves are killed illegally.
Otter rejected the wolf management Idaho has conducted for years as the federal government's "designated agent" after a federal judge in Montana returned wolves to Endangered Species Act protections earlier this year.

This means Idaho Department of Fish and Game managers will no longer perform statewide monitoring for wolves, conduct investigations into illegal killings, provide law enforcement when wolves are poached or participate in a program that responds to livestock depredations.

With U.S. District Judge Donald Molloy's ruling in August, Idaho and Montana have had to cancel public hunts. That's especially irked Otter, who contends the first legal harvest that started in 2009 and ended earlier this year demonstrated that states could manage wolves responsibly.

In an angry letter to U.S. Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, the Republican governor said withdrawing from wolf management will keep Idaho hunters and their money from subsidizing the federal program.


----------



## Bo0YaA (Sep 29, 2008)

*Re: Idaho takes " No possicution stance" on wolves*

Good for him, let the slaughter begin!!!


----------



## HunterGeek (Sep 13, 2007)

*Re: Idaho takes " No persecution stance" on wolves*

Yeah, the governor of Idaho has notified the Dept. of The Interior that Idaho will no longer enforce federal wolf protection laws. Interesting.

News story: http://www.idahostatesman.com/2010/10/1 ... -wolf.html
Here's a link to the actual letter: http://gov.idaho.gov/press/webnews/2010/wolves.pdf


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

*Re: Idaho takes " No possicution stance" on wolves*

Wow....this is really starting to get interesting. This is like we are going back 150 years in time. States are now ignoring federal regs....civil war here we come!!


----------



## muleydeermaniac (Jan 17, 2008)

*Re: Idaho takes " No persecution stance" on wolves*

That sounds like a Blast!!!!!


----------



## Bo0YaA (Sep 29, 2008)

*Re: Idaho takes " No persecution stance" on wolves*

Well if the Federal Government wont recognize the damage they are causing then is it not our duty as American Citizens to take control of the situation? Remember, the Government works for us ( or so Ive been told )


----------



## gitterdone81 (Sep 3, 2009)

*Re: Idaho takes " No persecution stance" on wolves*

Now if we can do the same with Obamacare....

Good for Idaho. Federal law - federal problem - federal enforcement. If they want to move the agents off of the border down south, and out of the pot farms, and protect the cute cuddly puppies, they can supply federal agents to monitor and investigate.


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

*Re: Idaho takes " No persecution stance" on wolves*



Bo0YaA said:


> Well if the Federal Government wont recognize the damage they are causing then is it not our duty as American Citizens to take control of the situation? Remember, the Government works for us ( or so Ive been told )


H*** yes! Between this and illegal immigration, to name a few, the government has been really letting us down.


----------



## gitterdone81 (Sep 3, 2009)

*Re: Idaho takes " No persecution stance" on wolves*

I guess this means that we can all legally chase wolves in Idaho now correct?


----------



## HunterGeek (Sep 13, 2007)

*Re: Idaho takes " No persecution stance" on wolves*



gitterdone81 said:


> I guess this means that we can all legally chase wolves in Idaho now correct?


I think it means that you'll still be in violation of federal law and that the feds might prosecute but that Idaho will not help them do so. In other words, Idaho won't investigate, write citations or prosecute wolf killings.


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

*Re: Idaho takes " No persecution stance" on wolves*



gitterdone81 said:


> I guess this means that we can all legally chase wolves in Idaho now correct?


Well I guess it's a "does a tree make a sound when it falls in the forest" kind of situation. If you break a law and there is no one there to investigate did you really commit a crime? That's a personal decision I suppose.


----------



## huntingbuddy (Sep 10, 2007)

*Re: Idaho takes " No persecution stance" on wolves*

Maybe this will help the federal govt understand that we aren't going to continue to play along with their BS*. I will shoot any BIG coyotes I see in Idaho.


----------



## lehi (Sep 13, 2007)

*Re: Idaho takes " No persecution stance" on wolves*

Ballsy move by Idaho.


----------



## duckhunter1096 (Sep 25, 2007)

*Re: Idaho takes " No persecution stance" on wolves*

Okay...here is where I come in and play devils advocate...If it is FEDERALLY illegal to kill a wolf, but the state won't prosecute...is it really okay to kill them? Don't federal laws over-ride state and local laws? So aren't you still breaking the law?

"If consequences dictate your course of action, then it doesn't matter what's right...IT'S ONLY WRONG IF YOU GET CAUGHT!"

NOW...here is my REAL stance on the wolves...I don't want them. I hate them. They are destructive little S.O.B.'s...however, they are protected...So my brain says leave them alone.

MORALLY speaking...Screwing an animal isn't illegal in all 50 states...are you going to do that? I for one...NOPE! I bring this in because everyone that has posted ahead of me has said they would POACH a wolf...but I'll be dipped in POOP...if someone poaches a 30" wide 4 point buck out of our mountains....OFF WITH HIS HEAD...right? What is the difference?


----------



## jahan (Sep 7, 2007)

*Re: Idaho takes " No persecution stance" on wolves*



duckhunter1096 said:


> Okay...here is where I come in and play devils advocate...If it is FEDERALLY illegal to kill a wolf, but the state won't prosecute...is it really okay to kill them? Don't federal laws over-ride state and local laws? So aren't you still breaking the law?
> 
> "If consequences dictate your course of action, then it doesn't matter what's right...IT'S ONLY WRONG IF YOU GET CAUGHT!"
> 
> ...


+1


----------



## ntrl_brn_rebel (Sep 7, 2007)

*Re: Idaho takes " No persecution stance" on wolves*



> What is the difference?


A lot

For starters-
When is the last time a 30" buck killed cattle/sheep etc.???


----------



## duckhunter1096 (Sep 25, 2007)

*Re: Idaho takes " No persecution stance" on wolves*



ntrl_brn_rebel said:


> > What is the difference?
> 
> 
> A lot


So, again, just playing :twisted: Devils Advocate :twisted: here...it's okay to selectively break LAWS?


----------



## ntrl_brn_rebel (Sep 7, 2007)

*Re: Idaho takes " No persecution stance" on wolves*

In this case......I believe so.

If 90% of the population of this state thought it was the right thing to kill deer year around and eradicate them, in a democracy this should be how it is.........the government is the people, in this case the government is a bunch of liberal nut jobs telling me and you what is better for us...........Something wrong here.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

*Re: Idaho takes " No persecution stance" on wolves*

I'm not in any way saying I approve of taking animals illegal.....

But here the difference, The federal government is controlling wolves,,
And it's a freaking DISATORE!
Idaho and Wyoming have pretty much had it, There Pizzed!
I believe Montana is not quite to that point yet, but its just a matter of time.

Utah now,,Well,, If we have the same problem in 4 or 5 years with wolves
completely devastating our elk herds????????????
I cant even IMAGAIN? Utahans will go BALLISTIC!
Can anyone say "Wild, Wild West?" It would be crazy as anti predator Utah is..


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

*Re: Idaho takes " No persecution stance" on wolves*



duckhunter1096 said:


> I bring this in because everyone that has posted ahead of me has said they would POACH a wolf...


I never said I would...but what can I say here? If I saw someone else do it would I turn them in? Well I've never seen a wild wolf so I'd hate to turn in a guy that just shot a big coyote and start trouble. :mrgreen:


----------



## Bo0YaA (Sep 29, 2008)

*Re: Idaho takes " No persecution stance" on wolves*

I see your point about which laws are "ok" to break and agree to some extent but on the same hand if we sit back and wait for the Feds to pull their collective heads from their poopers there may not be anything left to fight for. We have to take a stand against the the complete devastation of what little deer and elk heards we have now.


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

*Re: Idaho takes " No persecution stance" on wolves*



Bo0YaA said:


> I see your point about which laws are "ok" to break and agree to some extent but on the same hand if we sit back and wait for the Feds to pull their collective heads from their poopers there may not be anything left to fight for. We have to take a stand against the the complete devastation of what little deer and elk heards we have now.


It is hard because you want to believe in the system. If you preach the "law" then you can't pick and choose which ones you feel you should live by. Having said that I think there is a difference in a law that is supported by local, state, and federal officials and laws that simply put are not. This is a case where a federal law is obviously not appropriate and now you have local and state officials that are choosing to ignore it along with a vast majority of the general population that do not back the law. I would certainly say this is a special circumstance that leaves some decision making up the individual.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

*Re: Idaho takes " No persecution stance" on wolves*

Another interesting event, The Utah Wildlife Board had a meeting
today ,,Addressing "Wolf Legislation" I don't believe this meeting was scheduled
when I looked last week?

Utah Wildlife Board Meeting
Electronic Meeting
Anchor Location - DNR, Soldier Hollow Conference Rm.
1594 W. North Temple, Salt Lake City, Utah
REVISED October 18, 2010
AGENDA
Tuesday, October 19, 2010 - 1:00 pm
1. Approval of Agenda ACTION
- Rick Woodard, Chairman
2. Board Position Letter on Federal Endangered Species Act Wolf Legislation ACTION
- Rick Woodard, Chairman
3. Other Business CONTINGENT
- Rick Woodard, Chairman
Board Members in attendance:
Rick Woodard - Chairman
Ernie Perkins - Vice-Chairman
Bill Fenimore
Keele Johnson
Jake Albrecht
Board Members participating by telephone:
Tom Hatch
Del Brady
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act - Persons needing special accommodations (including auxiliary communicative aids and services) for this meeting, should contact Staci ***** at 801-538-4718, giving her at least


----------



## jahan (Sep 7, 2007)

*Re: Idaho takes " No persecution stance" on wolves*

Thanks for the info Goofy elk, that is interesting.


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

*Re: Idaho takes " No persecution stance" on wolves*

How I see this however, is that the decision to introduce and propogate wolves in Idaho and Montana was not made by Congress. It was made by individuals within the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, not even at the Department Level. So this decision was made by someone with no political accountability, but a bureacrat. So the decision by a state to not follow that decision is not going against Congressional direction - it is going against agency decision. Congress has NEVER voted to protect wolves.

Now that said, be very careful pushing the democracy thing. If it were to go to a national vote, us hunters would come out on the wrong side. Heck, even in Utah, we would be very dissappointed with how our neighbors would vote on this one - we are in the minority here.

Here is my last stab right now with an incredibly ironic twist - Arizona is getting crap for saying that ARE going to start enforcing Federal law, and Idaho is taking crap because they say they ARE NOT going to enforce it. Funny world we live in.


----------



## Slim (Sep 28, 2010)

*Re: Idaho takes " No persecution stance" on wolves*



GaryFish said:


> Here is my last stab right now with an incredibly ironic twist - Arizona is getting crap for saying that ARE going to start enforcing Federal law, and Idaho is taking crap because they say they ARE NOT going to enforce it. Funny world we live in.


And the "not so ironic twist" about this is that the federal government is right in the middle of both those messes. Very frustrating


----------



## TEX-O-BOB (Sep 12, 2007)

*Re: Idaho takes " No persecution stance" on wolves*



duckhunter1096 said:


> ntrl_brn_rebel said:
> 
> 
> > > What is the difference?
> ...


Sometimes, now and throughout history, civil disobedience is, and has been an absolute necessity. This is one such case. Kill em all! Those things are nothing more than cancer to an otherwise healthy eco system. They have NO place in the lower 48!


----------



## blackdog (Sep 11, 2007)

*Re: Idaho takes " No persecution stance" on wolves*

The feds reneged on the deal they had with Idaho. So Idaho has every right to take the stance they are taking. In 1995 when wolves were reintroduced back into Idaho and Yellowstone the deal with Idaho was that when wolves reached a certain number they would be taken off the endangered species list and Idaho was to manage wolves to that number. Well now the wolf population in Idaho is 10 times that number. Idaho is keeping their part of the agreement and the Feds are not. So I think it's OK to break federal laws to protect Idaho's assets(deer, elk, & moose) when the feds can't even keep their word on a simple agreement.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

*Re: Idaho takes " No persecution stance" on wolves*

And there it is folks,Ole TEX lays out the best quote of the day!

And I for one believe that is exactly were this wolf issue is heading,,,
A large sale of 22-250s at the local Wal-mart and "Wolf" control
at the "civil disobedience" level........In FULL COLOR!,,,Could get ugly on both sides.


----------



## luv2fsh&hnt (Sep 22, 2007)

*Re: Idaho takes " No persecution stance" on wolves*

I agree with Tex. To answer the devils advocate question free men are not obligated to abide by an unjust law,quite the opposite,free men are obligated to ignore unjust laws. In this case I believe the law to be unjust and at the very least we are all obligated to ignore the law. I will not seek a wolf out but I do intend to chase some yotes this winter and if a wolf or wolves come into the fawn distress call I will take appropriate action.


----------



## bigbr (Oct 24, 2007)

*Re: Idaho takes " No persecution stance" on wolves*



duckhunter1096 said:


> Okay...here is where I come in and play devils advocate...If it is FEDERALLY illegal to kill a wolf, but the state won't prosecute...is it really okay to kill them? Don't federal laws over-ride state and local laws? So aren't you still breaking the law?


The United State Constitution states and implies that any troops or for that matter federal agents can only assemble with in a states boundaries if they have been ratified or invited by the Governor of that state and or the state legislator. So constitutionally speaking states have the power to expel all federal troops and most likely all federal agents if they so choose to enact or expel. Would be fun to see a state such as Idaho do this because like most are largely subsidized by federal dollars, however NV is a different story&#8230;.Big


----------



## DBCooper (Jun 17, 2008)

*Re: Idaho takes " No persecution stance" on wolves*



duckhunter1096 said:


> Okay...here is where I come in and play devils advocate...If it is FEDERALLY illegal to kill a wolf, but the state won't prosecute...is it really okay to kill them? Don't federal laws over-ride state and local laws? So aren't you still breaking the law?
> 
> "If consequences dictate your course of action, then it doesn't matter what's right...IT'S ONLY WRONG IF YOU GET CAUGHT!"
> 
> ...


"Whensoever the General Government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force."
-- Thomas Jefferson, Draft Kentucky Resolutions, 1798. The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, (Memorial Edition) Lipscomb and Bergh, editors, ME 17:380

"I consider the foundation of the Constitution as laid on this ground that 'all powers not delegated to the United States, by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states or to the people.' To take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specially drawn around the powers of Congress, is to take possession of a boundless field of power not longer susceptible of any definition."
-- Thomas Jefferson, Opinion on the Constitutionality of a National Bank, February 15, 1791

"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite."
-- James Madison, Federal No. 45, January 26, 1788

"[The purpose of a written constitution is] to bind up the several branches of government by certain laws, which, when they transgress, their acts shall become nullities; to render unnecessary an appeal to the people, or in other words a rebellion, on every infraction of their rights, on the peril that their acquiescence shall be construed into an intention to surrender those rights."
-- Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia Q.XIII, 1782. The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, (Memorial Edition) Lipscomb and Bergh, editors, ME 2:178

RESOLVED: That the principle and construction contended for by sundry of the state legislatures, that the general government is the exclusive judge of the extent of the powers delegated to it, stop nothing short of despotism; since the discretion of those who administer the government, and not the constitution, would be the measure of their powers:
That the several states who formed that instrument, being sovereign and independent, have the unquestionable right to judge of its infraction; and that a nullification, by those sovereignties, of all unauthorized acts done under colour of that instrument, is the rightful remedy.
-- Thomas Jefferson, 1799

"It could probably be shown by facts and figures that there is no distinctly native American criminal class except Congress."
-- Mark Twain, 1894

# "The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States." ."
-- Noah Webster


----------



## bigbr (Oct 24, 2007)

*Re: Idaho takes " No persecution stance" on wolves*

Great post DB!


----------



## Mike Honcho (Oct 15, 2008)

*Re: Idaho takes " No persecution stance" on wolves*



duckhunter1096 said:


> Okay...here is where I come in and play devils advocate...If it is FEDERALLY illegal to kill a wolf, but the state won't prosecute...is it really okay to kill them? Don't federal laws over-ride state and local laws? So aren't you still breaking the law?
> 
> "If consequences dictate your course of action, then it doesn't matter what's right...IT'S ONLY WRONG IF YOU GET CAUGHT!"
> 
> ...


Under the "Supremacy Clause" of the United States Constitution (art. VI, cl. 2) federal law trumps state law. Furthermore, federal laws also trumps local laws because local governments derive their authority from the state government. Therefore, although Idaho may elect to not enforce its state laws (or federal laws), the federal laws in place to protect wolves are still valid and are the controlling law of the land. In short, killing a wolf is still a violation of federal law and will expose an individual to possible prosecution in federal court.

We can compare the developing situation in Idaho with the ongoing battle over cannabis in California. California has elected to "legalize" some uses of cannabis under state law. However, under the federal "Controlled Substances Act" cannabis is a controlled substance and its possession and distribution are illegal. Therefore, although possession of cannabis may not violate California law, it does violate federal law. Consequently, possession of cannabis in California remains "illegal."


----------



## lehi (Sep 13, 2007)

*Re: Idaho takes " No persecution stance" on wolves*



Mike Honcho said:


> duckhunter1096 said:
> 
> 
> > Okay...here is where I come in and play devils advocate...If it is FEDERALLY illegal to kill a wolf, but the state won't prosecute...is it really okay to kill them? Don't federal laws over-ride state and local laws? So aren't you still breaking the law?
> ...


I could have sworn Obama ended the Federal persecution of people in possession of Medical marijuana? Or was it just something proposed?

Legalize weed, and the killing of wolves. :mrgreen:


----------



## xxxxxxBirdDogger (Mar 7, 2008)

*Re: Idaho takes " No persecution stance" on wolves*

I used to be a C.O. so I'll chime in with one thought: a federal prison is a much kinder, gentler place than a state prison. Think before you act. :O//:


----------



## Mike Honcho (Oct 15, 2008)

*Re: Idaho takes " No persecution stance" on wolves*

Last week Eric Holder, who is the Attorney General of the United States, said that the federal government will continue to prosecute possession and distribution of marijuana in California. Mr. Holder said that this will continue to be true even if voters in California approve Proposition 19, which will legalize the recreational use of marijuana in California.

To add to what BirdDogger said, federal prisons are "kinder" and "gentler" because there is no parole in the federal system. You do the crime, you serve the time. All of it.


----------



## bigbr (Oct 24, 2007)

*Re: Idaho takes " No persecution stance" on wolves*



Mike Honcho said:


> duckhunter1096 said:
> 
> 
> > Okay...here is where I come in and play devils advocate...If it is FEDERALLY illegal to kill a wolf, but the state won't prosecute...is it really okay to kill them? Don't federal laws over-ride state and local laws? So aren't you still breaking the law?
> ...


I would hold some reservation about your interpretation of Article VI, where as the Federal Government derives it powers by vestment from we the people through the State (s) collectively and solely. To assert that the supremacy clause gives the federal government total and complete power over the power of the State or the individual would in a sense be voiding the rest of the constitutional document scripted and the bill of rights ratified and adopted. The supremacy clause intent was to recognize debts and treaties per scripted and entered into prior to the adoption and ratification of the constitution as being legal and binding against the states and that all laws there after being per scripted under and within constitutional constraints would be binding to each state. In no way does the Supremacy clause exclude a state or an individual from their first and second amendments or supersede the tenth amendment as it relates to state powers and authority. To make this claim would in fact make most if not all judicial findings at the state and local level null and void.

For this reason medical tort reform cannot be initiated at a federal level because tortes are a matter of state jurisdiction.

You example of California being in violation of federal law due to the controlled substance act has holes, because Alaska has enacted laws for legal use of cannabis for over thirty years and it has with held the federal muster. I believe that the interstate commerce clause which is another miss understood and miss applied portion of our constitution may be the problem for California. Again my assertion is that we the people have all the power vested in government and that the States are vested most powers from the people and that article I section 8 outlines the lion share of federal powers contained in the constitution of the United States and that the tenth amendment reserves all remaining authority to the states and to the individual&#8230;..Respectfully Big


----------



## MadHunter (Nov 17, 2009)

Well said big!

Going back to the failure of federal government to act or enforce...


GaryFish said:


> Here is my last stab right now with an incredibly ironic twist - Arizona is getting crap for saying that ARE going to start enforcing Federal law, and Idaho is taking crap because they say they ARE NOT going to enforce it. Funny world we live in.


The root of both of these states, one enforcing federal law and the other refusing to enforce it, stems from the federal government's failure! Equally at both extremes it is failing to provide the appropriate measure of attention and enforcement.

Continueing with the topic of shooting wolves on site, I will not incriminate my self by stating what action I will take when encountering a wolf but I recommend that those that do follow a few simple steps....
1.- If you shoot a wolf go to it and remove your bullet. It can be matched to your gun.

2.- Cary a small spray can or bottle of ammonia and spray the wolf to conceal any DNA you may have left there.

3.- Wear gloves when retrieving your slug or spray the ammonia on your self if you got any wolf blood on you.

4.- For your own sake speak to no one about what you did and live with the personal satisfaction of having done some good.


----------



## Mike Honcho (Oct 15, 2008)

BigBr,

Thank you for your response.

First, I should clarify that my statements about the Supremacy Clause were not my interpretation of the clause. Instead, I was simply paraphrasing the generally recognized view of the clause. Second, I did not mean to suggest that the Supremacy Clause overrides the Tenth Amendment. My only intent was to explain what law controls when there is a conflict between state and federal law. However, in retrospect I should have explained the current operation of the Supremacy Clause in more detail. I will correct that mistake now.

The Supremacy Clause states, "This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding." (U.S. Const. art. VI, cl. 2). Although the states and the federal government share power, the Supremacy Clause issue arises whenever there is a conflict between state and federal law. 

There are three instances when state and federal laws conflict: (1) where there is an actual conflict between the state and federal law (e.g. state laws regarding marijuana), (2) when the state law prevents the achievement of a federal objective, and (3) where there is clear Congressional intent to preempt state law (e.g. immigration). When a conflict between a state and federal law arises under one of these three situations the Supremacy Clause applies and the federal law controls. This is why regardless of what Governor Otter may do the wolves in Idaho are still protected under federal law. It is also why anyone who illegally kills a wolf in Idaho may be prosecuted in federal court even if the state agencies look the other way.

State laws regarding the possession of marijuana for medical use are a perfect example of how the Supremacy Clause operates. Marijuana is listed as a "Schedule I" drug under the Controlled Substances Act ("CSA"), which was enacted by Congress. Therefore, under federal law it is illegal to possess or distribute marijuana. Although California, Alaska, and other states have legalized some uses of marijuana, these state laws conflict with the CSA (federal law). Consequently, the Supremacy Clause is triggered and the federal law controls. The possession or distribution of marijuana remains illegal in every state.

Finally, the Commerce Clause is not the issue in California. Several years ago there was a case from California that challenged the federal government's authority to prosecute individuals who were growing marijuana for their personal medical use. The argument in that case was that the federal government exceeded its authority under the Commerce Clause by prohibiting intrastate production, possession, and consumption of marijuana. The Supreme Court rejected that argument and held that where Congress possesses constitutional authority under the Commerce Clause (Congress had authority under the Commerce Clause to enact the CSA), it may use that authority, along with its authority under the Necessary and Proper Clause, to regulate local activities if it reasonably believes this is necessary to protect interstate commerce. Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1 (2005).


----------



## clean pass through (Nov 26, 2007)

With this new development, could you get prosecuted for taking a wolf in Idaho? Yes, By the feds. Is it still aginst the law? Yes, according to the feds. However, I see it is Idaho will not put forth resourses (money) to back a law that is taking money (tag sales that won't happen as a result of wolves) out of Idaho's budget. Pretty simple to me.


----------



## jahan (Sep 7, 2007)

*Re: Idaho takes " No persecution stance" on wolves*



luv2fsh&hnt said:


> I agree with Tex. To answer the devils advocate question free men are not obligated to abide by an unjust law,quite the opposite,free men are obligated to ignore unjust laws. In this case I believe the law to be unjust and at the very least we are all obligated to ignore the law. I will not seek a wolf out but I do intend to chase some yotes this winter and if a wolf or wolves come into the fawn distress call I will take appropriate action.


I feel that the speed limit in my neighborhood is an unjust law so why should I follow it? Some people think murder is okay, some people think taking it to a sheep in normal. If it was left up to individuals there would be no order or control. Once again playing devils advocate. I am irritated as hell with the Federal Government inadequate response to this wolf issue.


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

*Re: Idaho takes " No persecution stance" on wolves*



jahan said:


> luv2fsh&hnt said:
> 
> 
> > I agree with Tex. To answer the devils advocate question free men are not obligated to abide by an unjust law,quite the opposite,free men are obligated to ignore unjust laws. In this case I believe the law to be unjust and at the very least we are all obligated to ignore the law. I will not seek a wolf out but I do intend to chase some yotes this winter and if a wolf or wolves come into the fawn distress call I will take appropriate action.
> ...


I think the difference in this case is at the government level, not the individual level. The elected state government is disagreeing with the fed's stance and that says something. That's not just one person thinking the law is unjust. The state government represents the people of Idaho. In concept the state government does and should know what's better for the people and wildlife that live inside it's borders.

Yes you could make the argument that there should be some federal intervention on natural species that live in this country and states shouldn't get to pick from a menu what gets to live and what doesn't. But the Candadian wolf isn't native first of all and second the re-intro objectives have been met several times over and the goal line keeps moving. The state is taking a stance.


----------



## duckhunter1096 (Sep 25, 2007)

Bullsnot...You just said it best...The feds THINK they know what is best...but the state is saying NO WAY, JOSE! I do believe in most cases, the state law should over-ride the federal law...as the state is far more in touch with their people.

All along in my arguments, I was playing Devils Advocate. I don't like the wolves...but what I dislike more is the "Vigilante" type attitude. Laws are in place for a reason...to protect us. My dad is a UHP Sergeant, so I was raised to respect laws...no matter what they are. No matter how dumb we may think they are, they are there for US. Unless you need a liquor store for more Jagermeister at 11:00 on a friday night...that law is just flat out stupid. Can I go just break in to a liquor store whenever I want? NOPE. So I just have to abide by it...


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

I think a thing worth noting in this entire deal, is USFWS DID push, and yield management to the States of Idaho and Montana. It was Judge Malloy in Missoula that rolled USFWS in response to the lawsuit. USFWS is now responding to that court decision made by one man that overruled everything USFWS did, as well as the States of Idaho and Montana.


----------



## broncbuster (Jul 22, 2009)

I think if all hunters just set on their thumbs on this Wolf case then we won't have anything to hunt in a couple of years.
We need to do our part to protect our wildlife.
Our Children are going to pay the price from us not taking action now and killing wolves when we get the chance.
Right or Wrong this will be the case.


----------



## jahan (Sep 7, 2007)

broncbuster said:


> I think if all hunters just set on their thumbs on this Wolf case then we won't have anything to hunt in a couple of years.
> We need to do our part to protect our wildlife.
> Our Children are going to pay the price from us not taking action now and killing wolves when we get the chance.
> Right or Wrong this will be the case.


Wrong, the only way to get this fixed is to do it through the legal system and make it stick. Going out vigilante style is going to solve nothing but give the wolf lovers more ammunition and piss off the general public. Keep in mind boys, we are a minority.


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

True Jahan. But like I asked in the other thread, what action will get wolves delisted? What action that Idaho or Montana or Wyoming could do, would result in delisting and return of control to the States?


----------



## broncbuster (Jul 22, 2009)

Wrong again.
The Feds don't care if we have wildlife to hunt in the future.
Everyone has a different opinion. Who is right and who is wrong.
Personally i think it is the hunter that needs to keep the Wolf in check.


----------



## jahan (Sep 7, 2007)

broncbuster said:


> Wrong again.
> The Feds don't care if we have wildlife to hunt in the future.
> Everyone has a different opinion. Who is right and who is wrong.
> Personally i think it is the hunter that needs to keep the Wolf in check.


I don't disagree with you that hunters need to keep them in check, I just disagree with you on how to get there.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Now Montana is getting in the act today..........

http://www.standard.net/topics/politics ... ecies-list


----------



## DBCooper (Jun 17, 2008)

duckhunter1096 said:


> Bullsnot...You just said it best...The feds THINK they know what is best...but the state is saying NO WAY, JOSE! I do believe in most cases, the state law should over-ride the federal law...as the state is far more in touch with their people.
> 
> All along in my arguments, I was playing Devils Advocate. I don't like the wolves...but what I dislike more is the "Vigilante" type attitude. Laws are in place for a reason...to protect us. My dad is a UHP Sergeant, so I was raised to respect laws...no matter what they are. No matter how dumb we may think they are, they are there for US. Unless you need a liquor store for more Jagermeister at 11:00 on a friday night...that law is just flat out stupid. Can I go just break in to a liquor store whenever I want? NOPE. So I just have to abide by it...


With all due respect, ask Sergeant duckhunter1096 if our founding fathers were good law abiding citizens of...England.


----------



## duckhunter1096 (Sep 25, 2007)

DBCooper...So are you suggesting that we go back in time a couple hundred years? I forgot who posted this comment, but if we as hunters go Vigilante Style on the wolves, then P.E.T.A. and all of those other D-Bag animal rights groups more ammo against us.


----------



## duneman101 (Nov 6, 2009)

I have a deer tag for Northern Idaho, gonna be there from Nov 5-14th.... Just sayin!


----------



## flyfisher117 (Jun 29, 2009)

*Re: Idaho takes " No persecution stance" on wolves*



gitterdone81 said:


> I guess this means that we can all legally chase wolves in Idaho now correct?


no false, the FEDS will still nail ur rear end if they catch you but if an idaho fish and game catches you in the act of illegally harvesting a wolf they will not take you into custody and also if you shoot a wolf and leave it and a PETA finds it and reports it to the fish and game they will not investigate the killing.

if i can find it i will but butch otter also said he does not want people now just driving around and shooting wolves because of the FEDS they are still lurking in the hills

ADDED: here it is

http://missoulian.com/news/state-and-re ... 03286.html


----------



## luv2fsh&hnt (Sep 22, 2007)

Screw the feds! They all have their heads so far up their rears they ain't seen the sun in decades. Federal court or state court the jururs are goimg to be from your respective state and all you need is one outdoors person out of twelve to get a mistrial. Besides that they are so incompetent they can't stop thousands of people from entering the country illegally. Why would anybody worry about them being able to catch a guy killing a mangy wolf in a remote wilderness as long as you keep your yap shut after the fact.


----------

