Wolves, sacrificed on the altar of the "bipartisan" budget deal.

[MadHound]

"The White House is poised to accept a budget bill that includes an unprecedented end-run around Endangered Species Act protections for gray wolves in five Western states — the first time Congress has targeted a species protected under the 37-year-old law.

Lawmakers describe the provision in the spending bill as a necessary intervention in a wildlife dilemma that some say has spun out of control. Sixty-six wolves were reintroduced to the Northern Rockies from Canada in the mid-1990s; there are now at least 1,650.

But legal experts warn the administration's support of lifting protections for the animals opens the door to future meddling by lawmakers catering to anti-wildlife interests."
<http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/ap_on_re_us/us_endangered_wolves_politics>

Would it kill the president to lift a finger to save these magnificent animals? Is it really necessary to sacrifice an entire species on the altar of "bipartisan" politics.

For those of you who haven't seen a wolf in the wild, I suggest that you make haste, they could well be gone in a matter of a few years, if not sooner. The first big wolf hunt is scheduled for the fall.

[Drale]

1. This won't be the last word on the wolves

There are hundreds of powerful groups including the Sierra club that will not take this sitting down.

[ClarkUSA]

2. WTF are you blaming President Obama? Democratic Senator Tester of MT is the one behind this move.

Democratic Governor Schweitzer of Montana is gung-ho behind hunting wolves, too.

[MadHound]

3. Because I agree with the following statement,

"The president could have used some political capital to influence this and he didn't," said Patrick Parenteau, a professor of environmental law from the Vermont Law School. "The message to the environmental community is, don't count on the administration to be there" for the protection of endangered species."

The president, in all the wheeling and dealing that took place on this budget deal could have easily dealt wolves out of the pack, so to speak.

Of course this is the administration that appointed Ken Salazar as Sec of Interior.

Any other question?

[ClarkUSA]

21. He's a whiner. It's easy to point fingers when you're not responsible.

[MadHound]

23. Umm, this isn't about people, it is about wolves

Wolves whose existence is going to be needlessly endangered because Obama and the Dems decided to play politics with their very lives, and decided that, in the balance, giving the wolves over to the tender mercies of 'Pugs was OK, since they could then consider the budget deal to be some sort of "success".

How very callous of you, and the Dems. Not only does the party not stick up for the least among us, the humans, it doesn't even stick up for endangered species.

And you wonder why people abandon the party in droves.

[ClarkUSA]

26. Tell it to Senator Tester, who wouldn't budge despite tons of emails and calls to his office.

I've been a member of Defenders of Wildlife for years. He and Gov. Schweitzer are pro-wolf hunting advocates and no one was able to change their minds. Tester is in a tenuous position for re-election and this issue was obviously a tipping point type of decision for him.

[MadHound]

28. Oh, so you're saying that this is all the fault of one Senator?

Somehow I doubt that. Somehow I also doubt that if Obama and other Democratic "leaders" had brought their weight to bear, that the Senator wouldn't have caved. "You want to get Democratic support Senator Tester, then you let the wolves live." Somehow I think the good Senator Tester would have started loving wolves at that point.

But instead, they were sacrificed on the altar of politics.

No excuse for this, none at all.

[ClarkUSA]

38. Yes. And his co-sponsors.

[MadHound]

42. Hah!

So in other words you think Obama is powerless then, has no weight in his party then.

Then why did we elect him to be our leader?

LBJ he isn't.

[ClarkUSA]

44. How many strawman fallacies can you fit into one subthread?

<< So in other words you think Obama is powerless then, has no weight in his party then. >>

Where did I say that? Quote me.

[MadHound]

49. Oh, I'll let the rest of the community to peruse this thread

It is a wonderful example of what I'm saying.

[ClarkUSA]

55. Yawn. Meaningless rhetoric always bores me. Buh bye. Have fun trying to blame Obama!!!

[joeybee12]

24. You're right...he got rid of Wyden's provision for healthcare choice easily enough...

Wolves are big donors and he needs that one billion.

[ClarkUSA]

27. Prove it. Why do you never mention Congress' role in government?

[MadHound]

29. Why do you continue to understate the power of the Presidency?

Listening to you, one would have to conclude that the president is no more than a figurehead. Forget what the last "unitary executive" did, or other strong presidents, according to you, this president is powerless to do anything.

Sorry, but that excuse is wearing thin, quickly.

[Mojorabbit]

31. I know, right. Everything was Bush's fault a few yrs ago

but with Obama, it seems suddenly the President has no power.

[ClarkUSA]

39. Republicans voted lockstep w/Bush on everything but immigration. Dems don't do that w/Pres. Obama.

[MadHound]

47. If Obama can't control members of his own party to that degree,

Then he has a serious political flaw. Like I said elsewhere, LBJ he isn't.

[ClarkUSA]

52. That's your opinion. I disagree. What did you do to prevent this from happening?

BTW, objective analysis of the budget deal proves you wrong so this garbage OP is a bullshit blame game.

[MadHound]

53. LOL,

Sadly typical from you.

Can't deny the facts, so you try and smear the messenger.

Been nice playing with you, thanks for kicking this thread, but I've got more productive things to do.

[ClarkUSA]

56. You did nothing yet it's all Obama's fault? Figures.

[ClarkUSA]

37. When did I do that? You're the one blaming Pres. Obama for Sen. Tester's brain fart.

It's funny how people pretend as if Congress doesn't exist to make law as a co-equal branch of government.

[MadHound]

43. Funny how Obama supporters pretend that Obama has no power to influence member of his own party

Obama was in on the budget negotiations, or was he simply playing tiddlywinks at all those WH meetings? He couldn't put a call in to the man from Montana and say "look bub, we've got to protect endangered species, let's work a deal here?"

Apparently, what you're saying, is that Obama is clueless about realpolitik, how things get done in DC. A major flaw in a president.

[ClarkUSA]

46. Wrong. Never said that. Strawman Fallacy #2.

[MadHound]

48. Your posts speak for themselves,

Own them, deal with it. We all know where you're coming from.

[ClarkUSA]

54. lol! As does yours. I asked you for a quote and you have nothing.

It's funny how Obama critics have to resort to cherrypicking outrage in order to drown out the general praise for Pres. Obama's handling of the budget deal.

[Name removed]

32. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

12. Because he went along with it.

[ClarkUSA]

22. How do you know he "went along with it"? Perhaps he couldn't change Tester's mind.

Magic wand went missing, apparently. :sarcasm:

[MadHound]

25. No, not a magic wand,

Just the ability, and willingness, to fight for what is right. We've seen this sort of caving time and again, the public option, tax cuts for the rich, etc. etc.

Obama is a product of the modern Democratic party, he lacks a spine.

[ClarkUSA]

35. He did a damned good job of fighting for what was right in this budget bill.

You're cherrypicking this one item he wasn't responsible for because you can't acknowledge that fact.

[MadHound]

51. No, not cherrypicking,

Simply bringing up this issue in order to highlight it because it is important to many people across the country.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

33. Well, if he didn't go along with it, will he veto the bill?

Or, will he sign it?

[ClarkUSA]

34. What's the final vote in the Senate?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

57. Would it matter if he vetoes it?

[sasha031]

4. this part of the agreement saddens me terribly

[Cleita]

5. I used to love it when we camped in the area of

the Cabinet mountains between Montana and Idaho. There was a lone wolf pack that the locals left alone. I loved to hear them howl at night. It was very spiritual. The trouble is urbanites don't give a crap about wildlife because the closest they get to other species is pigeons and squirrels in the park and exotic wildlife in the zoo. We really need to protect and respect our own native wildlife before they all become extinct.

[mitchtv]

7. the trouble goes beyond urbanites

It lies with ranchers and farmers who think they can sterilize the land(much of it federal property), without so much as an attempt to control the problem, God forbid they hire a cowboy,shepherd or at least some guard dogs. time to raise the rents on leased federal property.

[Cleita]

8. I totally agree on the rents and that goes for

lumber companies and mining companies using federal lands as their own and without a thought for conservation.

[mitchtv]

10. of course

we need royalties here in Calif

[Vanje]

41. True!

[jmowreader]

6. Why is the wolf stuff in a BUDGET bill?

Aren't the Republicans always "keep unrelated things out of budget bills"?

[Cetacea]

9. Contrary to what they say, they hate life.

And all living things that aren't making them a profit.

[Ignis]

30. ^^^ This.

[MadHound]

14. Why didn't the Dems take it out of the budget bill?

Makes you wonder if anybody in DC truly gives a damn about this sort of thing. Judging by actions, not words, I would have to say that the answer is no.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

11. Don't worry, Obama the environmentalist will veto the bill.

[Auntie Bush]

13. It makes me sick every time I think of this. I love wolves!

I'm going to donate again to the Sierra Club and NRDC. I want the polar bear protected too. I fear they will throw another rider in some future bill that will let them drill in the Artic.

[deaniac21]

15. Time periods in the history of life on Earth during which

exceptionally large numbers of species go extinct are called mass extinctions. These extinctions are quite different from the rate of extinction, which occurs even when the diversity of life is increasing. Many species vanished in five cataclysmic mass extinctions and today, 99.9 percent of all species that have existed on Earth are extinct.

[MadHound]

17. And your point is? n/t

[deaniac21]

18. We are all going to die. Especially within 2.5 billion years when

the sun turns into a red dwarf. I personally have always loved wolves, even the male human kind.

[MadHound]

19. Yes, we are all going to die, and species do go extinct,

But we shouldn't allow humanity to hasten along that extinction process. If we do, we simply hasten our own demise.

[deaniac21]

20. I had a wolf turn me into a newt.

[jmowreader]

36. I see you got better, though.

[and-justice-for-all]

16. This is so fucking unnecessary..nt

[flvegan]

40. I'm not as upset with the WH/Congress as I am with the douchebags who will be hunting them.

[MadHound]

45. Except the WH/Congress could prevent douchebags from hunting them,

But instead threw the wolves on the altar of political expediency.

[flvegan]

50. Oh, I completely agree.

But my expectation(s) of them are so low that at this point, I can really only hate on the "enduser" in this case.