"Red Wolf" restoration scandal

Jett - Have you received any responses from USFWS Lately? It would appear perhaps attorneys may have told them to go radio silent...

A landowner finally, as a last resort, had to exercise his right to use a take permit issued to him by the USFWS. This was done only after efforts by professional trappers to remove the "wolves" proved to be futile. The trapped "wolves" were turned over to the USFWS and they immediately released these same animals within walking distance of this landowners properties. He abided by all instruction and presented the animal to the USFWS biologists as the requirement of the take permit stated. Someone in the USFWS saw fit to "leak" this info the eco terrorists and now this law abiding landowner is being subjected to land invasion and death threats. The people on the pro wolf sites are using this legal take to amp up their media war and "please send $$ to help fight this travesty" .

If this is how the USFWS and the eco terrorists are going to respond to a legal action taken by a landowner that had exercised every other recourse, my recommendation is to just go dark......

And if the landowner is on this site, call me if you need help protecting YOUR property and family from idiots and intruders. I'll gladly stand shoulder to shoulder with you.

If you need any help let me know. I do hate a hippie. I hope he made a damn rug out of the thing.

So someone illegally shoots a red wolf and no one bats an eye. Someone legally shoots a red wolf with a gov't issued permit and gets condemned and threatened. WTF!

Bingo!!!!

GSOHunter said:

So someone illegally shoots a red wolf and no one bats an eye. Someone legally shoots a red wolf with a gov't issued permit and gets condemned and threatened. WTF!

Click to expand...

One can only assume that the outcry depends on your employer and/or your "conservation group" membership. What do y'all think?

Question - Did anyone receive a call from the Red Wolf Coalition inquiring if they "Liked Wolves" and perhaps responded, No?? Im going out on a limb here and say no one received a call.

Perhaps they should report on if that wolf was in any way connected to the 64 illegally released wolves onto private landowners. Just like Sharpton, I'm sure the RWC loves a great tragedy to "Drive Revenue"! Watch for the Crowdrise "Rise"!!

Via Facebook:
Red Wolf Coalition: The mother is dead because the landowner shot her. He doesn't like wolves. He had a permit from USFWS. And, yes, someone is looking into this. The Red Wolf Coalition is. We have been in court twice to protect red wolves. We will do it again if we have to. The "lot of talk" is to help you understand what is going on. What are you going to do to help?
Like · 2 · 2 hrs

If you like wolves and shoot them it's considered death by heartworms. If you don't like them and legally shoot them you are a crook.

So let me get this straight. A wolf dies from an obvious gunshot while coyote hunting is banned. Landowners join together to raise a $52,000+ dollar reward leading to a conviction and the wolf lovers want nothing to do with the idea.
But.....
A landowner shoots a wolf using a red wolf take permit. This is only done after all other avenues of removing this wolf from their privately owned land were exhausted. This upsets the wolf organizations, but not the unsolved unlawful shootings?

Am I reading this right?

This further proves to me that taking over the private land is their goal and landowners are their true target. This humanly constructed wolf is just their mechanism to villanize "we the people".

Expedited FOIA request for`map showing current locations all known "red wolves" in North Carolina

From: Jett Ferebee <jettferebee@aol.com>

To: sharneka_harvey <sharneka_harvey@fws.gov>; d_m_ashe <d_m_ashe@fws.gov>; plm1 <plm1@nc.gov>; Secretary_jewell <Secretary_jewell@ios.doi.gov>; john_hast <john_hast@doioig.gov>; keith_toomey <keith_toomey@fws.gov>; NCAGO <NCAGO@ncdoj.gov> many redacted

Date: Thu, Jun 25, 2015 6:14 am

Dear Ms. Harvey,

I would like a map showing the most current and recent location of all known "red wolves" in North Carolina.

Please include the wolf ID number for each wolf.

Please denote each wolf that is one of the 64 wolves that USFWS biologists illegally released onto private land or one of its offspring, all of which the NCWRC has unanimously demanded to have removed.

Please note the wolves that I have trapped and returned to USFWS.

Please note Federal land on this map, if there is any.

Please also include an individual map for each wolf showing the "core area" used by the wolf. I have received these previously and I know they are readily available. Again note the wolf ID number and if the wolf is one of the 64 wolves that USFWS biologists illegally released onto private land or one of its offspring, which the NCWRC has demanded to have removed. Again, show any Federal land on the "core area" map if it exists.

Wolves in Zoos may be excluded. Wolves in captive pens held by USFWS are to be included and noted as captive.

Here are sections from the Federal Rules regarding these so called "red wolves" in our State:

"It is anticipated that, because of the size and habitat characteristics of the reintroduction area, animals will remain within the boundaries of the refuge and adjacent military lands. The public will be instructed to immediately report any observation of a red wolf off Federal lands to the refuge manager. The Service will then take appropriate actions to recapture and return the animal to the refuge".

"The Service will make every effort to keep red wolves on the refuge, but if an animal leaves the refuge / bombing range area, the Service intends to capture it and return it to captivity"

"The Service currently plans to limit releases to no more than 12 animals"

"Take of animals by the public will be discouraged by an extensive information and education program and by the assurance that all introduced animals will be radio-collared and, thus easy to locate if they leave the refuge. The public will be encouraged to cooperate with the Service in attempts to maintain the animals on the release site".

These maps will expedite USFWS efforts to immediately comply with the demand from NCWRC to remove the 64 illegally released wolves and their offspring.

It will also aid citizens in knowing if a wolf rather than a coyote is using their land so they can "immediately report any observation of a red wolf off Federal lands to the refuge manager."

The maps will then aid USFWS as "The Service will then take appropriate actions to recapture and return the animal to the refuge".

Most importantly, these maps will reveal that the wolf carrying capacity of the Federal land and it's habitat was actually grossly over estimated by USFWS "biologists".

Finally, these maps will insure that a Federal agency that pays absolutely no property taxes on the land it owns in our communities does not further burden the local citizens, who do pay taxes on their land, with inadvertently and unknowingly hosting this Federal program at their expense.

I am a private citizen and will pay the costs up to $1,000 without the need for you to ask my permission.

If I missed something please let me know.

Thanks,

Jett Ferebee
701 Treybrooke Circle
Greenville, NC 27834
(252) 714 2774

PS. Readers, stay tuned for Part 7. I've been delayed by dealing with the intimidation tactics utilized by the anti hunting "wolf cult" in concert with USFWS on the citizens of our communities.

This bill will really work well for the USFWS Red Wolf "Adaptive" Management Plan now won't it&#8230;&#8230;.

114th CONGRESS
1st Session
S. 1081

To end the use of body-gripping traps in the National Wildlife Refuge System.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

April 23, 2015

Mr. Booker introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works

A BILL
To end the use of body-gripping traps in the National Wildlife Refuge System.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the &#8220;Refuge from Cruel Trapping Act&#8221;.

SEC. 2. POSSESSION OR USE OF BODY-GRIPPING TRAP PROHIBITED.

The National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 668dd et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following:

&#8220;SEC. 6. POSSESSION OR USE OF BODY-GRIPPING TRAP PROHIBITED.

&#8220;(a) Definition Of Body-Gripping Trap.&#8212;As used in this section, the term &#8216;body-gripping trap&#8217;&#8212;

&#8220;(1) means any device that is intended to kill or capture wildlife by physically restraining any part of the animal;

&#8220;(2) includes any steel-jaw, padded, or other modified leghold trap, kill-type trap, snare trap, or any modified version of any such trap; and

&#8220;(3) does not include any cage or box trap or suitcase-type live beaver trap.

&#8220;(b) Prohibition.&#8212;No person may possess or use a body-gripping trap in the System.

&#8220;(c) Enforcement Provisions.&#8212;Notwithstanding section 4(f), a person who possesses or uses a body-gripping trap in the System shall be subject to&#8212;

&#8220;(1) in the case of a first offense, a civil fine of not more than $500 imposed by the Secretary for each body-gripping trap possessed or used; and

&#8220;(2) in the case of a subsequent offense&#8212;

&#8220;(A) a civil fine of not more than $1,000 imposed by the Secretary for each body-gripping trap possessed or used;

&#8220;(B) imprisonment for not more than 180 days; or

&#8220;(C) both a civil fine and imprisonment in accordance with subparagraphs (A) and (B).

&#8220;(d) Forfeiture Of Body-Gripping Trap.&#8212;Any body-gripping trap that is possessed or used in violation of this section, and any wildlife captured by the use of the trap, including the pelt or raw fur, shall be subject to forfeiture to the United States in accordance with the provisions of chapter 46 of title 18, United States Code, relating to civil forfeitures.

&#8220;(e) Payment Of Court Costs And Other Associated Expenses.&#8212;A person found to be in violation of subsection (b) shall pay all court costs associated with the violation.

&#8220;(f) Regulations.&#8212;Not later than 120 days after the date of enactment of this section, the Secretary shall issue any regulations necessary to carry out this section.&#8221;.

Trapping Bill may "Halt" Critically Endangered Red Wolf "Adaptive Management" Plan


17 June 2015

The Honorable Rob Bishop The Honorable Raúl Grijalva
Chairman Ranking Member

Committee on Natural Resources Committee on Natural Resources
U.S. House of Representatives U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, D.C. 20510 Washington, D.C. 20510

Re: Opposition of H.R. 2016, Legislation Blocking Wildlife Management and Recreational Opportunities on the National Wildlife Refuge System

Dear Chairman Bishop and Ranking Member Grijalva:

The undersigned organizations strongly oppose H.R. 2016, the “Refuge from Cruel Trapping Act.” The bill would limit appropriate wildlife management and recreational opportunities within the National Wildlife Refuge System by prohibiting use and possession of foothold, snare, body-gripping traps, and other lethal and non-lethal traps on System lands.

We are particularly concerned by the limitations H.R. 2016 creates by blocking the use of traps employed in wildlife management and research. Currently, H.R. 2016 provides no provision for U.S. Fish and Wildlife staff implementing management activities within the System.
Trapping and regulated take are important components of modern wildlife management. The types of traps prohibited by H.R. 2016, which have all been evaluated for their efficiency, selectivity, practicality, safety, and animal welfare, are able to uniquely address a wide-breadth of wildlife management challenges faced within the National Wildlife Refuge System. Legislatively prohibiting their use weakens the ability of the Fish and Wildlife Service to ensure biological integrity of the systems is maintained.

The Secretary of the Interior, through the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, is tasked with ensuring the biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health of the System are maintained for the benefit of present and future generations of Americans. Maintaining the refuges’ biological integrity requires active management and may include the removal and/or harvest of wildlife. Refuges support more than 700 bird, 220 mammal, and 250 reptile and amphibian species; recovery of some threatened and endangered species that inhabit refuges may require the focused
removal of individual predators or species that destroy habitat by employing trapping methodologies.

Lethal trapping is also a primary tool in wildlife damage management programs that involves the eradication of invasive species that cause extensive habitat degradation and threaten refuge ecosystem health. Properly regulated and monitored traps can minimize potential for non-target capture and restore refuges to better support abundant native wildlife populations.

Modified, non-lethal snares and foothold traps are also techniques used to restrain animals in wildlife research, which is an important component of evaluating current wildlife populations in order to best inform future management practices within a refuge.

Furthermore, H.R. 2016 undermines the goal of the National Wildlife Refuge System to prioritize wildlife-dependent recreational activities on Refuges by prohibiting the use of traps essential for recreational trapping. The National Wildlife Refuge System was partly established to ensure Americans the opportunity to participate in wildlife-dependent recreational activities, which generate over $2.4 billion in economic activity in local communities. Regulated furbearer trapping by recreational users is both compatible and sustainable with long-term conservation of wildlife species through population management and monitoring.

By prohibiting recreational trapping, H.R. 2016 sets a precedent that could further limit recreational activities, such as fishing and hunting within the National Wildlife Refuge System, enjoyed by millions of Americans annually.

The National Wildlife Refuge System was created to both conserve fish, wildlife, and their habitats as well as facilitate opportunities for Americans to participate in wildlife-dependent recreation compatible with this mission. H.R. 2016 fundamentally undermines the ability of the Fish and Wildlife Service to conserve natural ecosystems and provide abundant recreational opportunities within the System.

We strongly urge the committee to oppose H.R. 2016 and to enable wildlife professionals within the Fish and Wildlife Service to manage the National Wildlife Refuge System for the benefit of our native wildlife and all Americans.

Sincerely,

The Wildlife Society
National Wildlife Refuge Association
Archery Trade Association
Association of Fish & Wildlife Agencies
Boone & Crockett Club
CampFire Club of America
Congressional Sportsmen's Foundation
Conservation Force
Dallas Safari Club
Delta Waterfowl
Houston Safari Club
Izaak Walton League of America
Masters of Foxhounds Association
Mule Deer Foundation
National Rifle Association
National Shooting Sports Foundation
National Trappers Association
National Wild Turkey Federation
North American Bear Foundation
North American Grouse Partnership
Orion - The Hunter's Institute
Pope & Young Club
Quality Deer Management Association
Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation
Ruffed Grouse Society
Safari Club International
Texas Wildlife Association
Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership
Tread Lightly!
U.S. Sportsmen's Alliance
Whitetails Unlimited
Wild Sheep Foundation
Wildlife Management Institute
Wildlife Mississippi

Leaked Information Leads to Death Threats by Wolf Perverts

http://tomremington.com/2015/06/25/leaked-information-leads-to-death-threats-by-wolf-perverts/

Lots left off this release, why were the USFWS not permitted on the landowners property? Hummm...

The lies, deceit, manipulation of the FWS I'm sure also contributed. In short the FWS and their Sue & Settle "Bed Bug" Buddies should look no further than their own mirror!

Press Release

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Authorizes a Private Landowner to Kill a Red Wolf
June 25, 2015
Contact(s):
Tom MacKenzie, 404-679-7291
tom_mackenzie@fws.gov


The U.S. Fish and Wildlife provided a landowner in the Red Wolf non-essential experimental population (NEP) area with authorization to take a red wolf using lethal means. The landowner had previously received permission to capture wolves on his property. The landowner secured the services of a trapper who captured two wolves last fall. One wolf was returned to the Service and was subsequently released onto a nearby National Wildlife Refuge. The other animal died in the trap.

Wolves continued to be observed on the property and the Service declared efforts to trap the wolves &#8220;abandoned,&#8221; and then authorized the lethal take, which he used to to kill a wolf on his property, in full legal compliance with the Endangered Species Act.

&#8220;This is not an ideal outcome, but it is authorized under the non-essential population designation of the red wolf, when these steps are followed,&#8221; said Pete Benjamin, Field Supervisor for the Raleigh Ecological Services Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Where landowners want wolves removed, but do not want federal biologists on their property, the Service requires that they first try to remove the animal by non-lethal means, such as trapping or harassing the animals off the property before considering other alternatives.

&#8220;That was the case here. We were not allowed on the property, but the landowner did his due diligence in first attempting to capture the wolf using a trapper with our authorization,&#8221; said Benjamin. &#8220;We work with many landowners in the area and we respect their rights and their ability to manage their own property.&#8221;

Designation as a NEP allows for reduced regulatory restrictions off of federal lands, which benefits private landowners, and increases management flexibility for the Service as it works to reintroduce a species into the wild.

The trapping bill will only apply to us, you know the USFWS can't abide by their own rules so how can they abide by anybody else's.

How USFWS Invented the Red Wolf When It Never Existed

From: Jett Ferebee <jettferebee@aol.com>

To: d_m_ashe <d_m_ashe@fws.gov>; suzette_kimball <suzette_kimball@usgs.gov>; roger_helm <roger_helm@fws.gov>; Secretary_jewell many redacted

Date: Fri, Jun 26, 2015 5:27 pm

Director Ashe,

I know these comments from a rather heated meeting of USFWS biologists in1989 are rather technical, so I have put in bold letters the key and shocking revelations regarding the cover up of the red wolf invention. Keep this quote from USFWS Zoologist/Biologist Ron Nowak in mind as you read.
________________________________________________________

&#8203;
The USFWS's $30,000,00.00 "Invention"

"In 1979, US Fish and Wildlife Service biologist Ronald Nowak carefully compared the skulls of grey wolves, and coyotes and noticed that the size and shape of the red wolf skull fell midway between that of the coyote and the grey wolf. Nowak's interpretation of the fossil record further suggested to him that intermediate skulls like that of the red wolf skull first appeared in North America more than a million years ago, well before the first wolves or coyotes." "Nowak concluded that the red wolf was not only a unique species but also the ancient ancestor of both the grey wolf and the coyote."

"Nowak's compelling idea one that persisted almost unchallenged for 10 years, throughout the early years of the Red Wolf Recovery Program."

"But David Mech had a different theory about red wolves." "In a 1970 book , Mech had proposed that the red wolf was neither species nor subspecies but a hybrid produced by interbreeding between the grey wolf and the coyote."

"Into this heated conflict stepped David Mech, one of the world leading wolf experts. In 1989, at an Atlanta meeting of experts on wolf biology, Mech challenged his fellow researches to tell him how they could justify spending so much money rescuing the red wolf when it might not even be a species."

"In 1989, two University of California biologist, Robert Wayne (of UCLA) and Susan Jenks (of UC Berkley), approached the US Fish and Wildlife Service and offered to settle the matter once and for all." "Like Nowak, Wayne was an expert on the morphology and taxonomy of wolves and other canids."

"The government agreed to fund the study, and the two biologist began examining DNA from red wolves, grey wolves and coyotes."

"The two biologist tentatively and somewhat reluctantly concluded that the red wolf was most likely a hybrid of the grey wolf and the coyote."

"Nowak and the other biologist at the US Fish and Wildlife Service could not believe what they were being told." "Maybe, argued the government biologist, Wayne and Jenks had simply missed the DNA sequences that distinguished the red wolf." Maybe they had not looked at enough DNA."

"To put to rest any linger doubts, Wayne and other colleagues turned to special receptive regions of the DNA in the nucleus, called micro satellites." "The results were the same, neither the samples of blood from living red wolves nor the samples from the skins of pre-1930s red wolves showed any unique sequences." "By 1994, Wayne had found no evidence that the red wolf had ever been reproductively isolated from either grey wolves or coyotes."

"The red wolf had to be a hybrid of the grey wolf and the coyote."

"Wayne's genetic data proved to be an embarrassment to the US Fish and Wildlife Service, which had poured millions of dollars into the reintroduction program in the belief that the red wolf was a unique and endangered species." "Yet the agency had acted in good faith." "Until Wayne and his colleagues finished their research, the US Fish and Wildlife Service had no way of knowing that the red wolf was not a species."

"Now the government agency was faced with a terrible dilemma." "Wayne's resulting threaten to discredit the wolf recovery program, strip the red wolf of its endangered status, and further undermine the increasingly battered public image of the federal Endangered Species Act."

*** "To protect the red wolf, the US Fish and Wildlife Service began pressuring Wayne to avoid the word "Hybrid" in his research papers and to substitute the term "intergrade species" and other similar phrases."

"In 1995, the US Department of the Interior issued a legal opinion that said that hybrids would be protected under the Endangered Species Act if Morphological evidence showed that the hybrids ere similar to the endangered "Pure" form."

"In essence, if they looked like red wolves, they would be protected."

"But the genetic data did not support that idea that a "Pure" form of the red wolf had ever existed, certainly not in the last 100 years."

"In issuing this opinion, the agency excluded all the genetic evidence regarding the red wolf's species status." The only question was whether the red wolf looked different from the coyote and the grey wolf."

"It did, and, therefore, until such time as the government acknowledges the genetic data, the red wolf will be considered a species."

https://books.google.com/books?id=c...onald+nowak+red+wolf+map&source=bl&ots=rxq05Z


Director Ashe, the red wolf did not exist so it was "invented" by USFWS through omission of your own Government funded current science.

Ponder this over the weekend, as it is heavily tied into Part 7 due out on Monday.

Sincerely,

Jett Ferebee
(252) 714-2774

PS. I have included Suzette Kimball, DOI Scientific Integrity Officer - Acting Director and Roger Helm Scientific Integrity Officer - USFWS on this email and all future ones.

Watch out for this now that we have exposed USFWS wholesale violation of 10(j) rules:

Red Wolf Coalition Facebook
5 hrs · Edited ·

Before you read this, please read the post below this one that explains the experimental and nonessential designation of the red wolf in the 5-county recovery region. (Outside of the recovery region, the red wolf is endangered where found - which is nowhere, of course, that we know.)

Sara Cope asked a key question: Can the 10(j) Rule be changed? Here is the answer:

The 10(j) rule does not automatically and irrevocably extend into perpetuity. But modifying it would mean a policy change.It can be done. It should be done.

In a letter to USFWS Southeast Regional Director Cynthia Dohner on July 9, 2013, the Red Wolf Coalition urged the Director to join with us in a collective effort to facilitate this process.WE NEVER RECEIVED AN ACKNOWLEDGMENT FROM DIRECTOR DOHNER OR HER STAFF THAT THE LETTER HAD BEEN RECEIVED, LET ALONE A RESPONSE.

Regarding the 10(j) Rule, here is what our unanswered letter to Director Cynthia Dohner said::

"This out-of-date rule should be revisited and revised. It pre-dates the PHVA (1999) and the implementation of the Adaptive Management Plan (2000, updated and revised in 2013); thus, it hampers recovery efforts in the following ways: (1) it does not align with current management strategies to abate hybridization with coyotes; (2) it contains language that no longer promotes conflict resolution and conciliation, but instead diverts time, energy, money, and staffing resources to activities that do nothing to further red wolf conservation and recovery (e.g., the removal of non-problem wolves from private property); (3) it is confusing and misleading to the public’s understanding of the location of red wolves in eastern North Carolina, on island propagation sites, and in western North Carolina and eastern Tennessee; (4) it includes a population (Great Smoky Mountains National Park) that was terminated in 1998; (5) it is unclear in defining the protective status of the non-essential experimental population; and, most importantly, (6) the rule does not provide adequate protection against gross negligence or malicious activities, thus making it difficult to prosecute true violators of the law."

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?st..._index=0&id=50496563143&refid=17&_ft_=top_lev

Doing away with the 10j rule wil only make the program more rigid and more difficult to remove from our state.

It seems to me that the entire government has pretty much decided to do away with all rules, laws, regulations, etc. except when they apply to us "common folk". USFWS is just a part of, and example of governmental lawlessness.

The program is hard to do away with but as one USFWS motorgrader operator has proven the woff is not. Need more heartworms!

Shoot em when you see them, poison em while your sleeping, let the heartworms take care of the rest.

Breaking News - USFWS Violates Scientific Integrity

*** "To protect the red wolf, the US Fish and Wildlife Service began pressuring Wayne to avoid the word "Hybrid" in his research papers and to substitute the term "intergrade species" and other similar phrases."

This is very significant! Google Red Wolf Restoration Scandal for more!

Carolinaguy said:

Doing away with the 10j rule wil only make the program more rigid and more difficult to remove from our state.

Click to expand...

This will throw a wrinkle in that:



Likely they will try to rewrite the existing 10 (j) rules and does anyone think we will have true input?

Does anyone trust USFWS to abide by any rules?

I for one know how they follow their own rules. I have zero trust!!! That started eroding 30 years ago.

USFWS N. Carolina Red Wolf Introduction: This Land is MY Land YOUR Land is MY Land

From: Jett Ferebee <jettferebee@aol.com>

To: suzette_kimball <suzette_kimball@usgs.gov>; ""\"roger_helm <roger_helm\"" <"roger_helm <roger_helm""@fws.gov; d_m_ashe <d_m_ashe@fws.gov>; john_hast <john_hast@doioig.gov>; Secretary_jewell <Secretary_jewell@ios.doi.gov> many redacted

Date: Sat, Jun 27, 2015 8:23 pm


USFWS N. Carolina Red Wolf Introduction: This Land is MY Land YOUR Land is MY Land courtesy of Tom Remington

http://tomremington.com/2015/06/18/...on-this-land-is-my-land-your-land-is-my-land/

Perhaps it's time to bring a lawsuit against USFWS. We've been waiting for action that was supposedto have been annouced in March wasn't it? It is now the end of June. Litigation may be the only option now. Thoughts?

Maybe we need to try Sue and Settle. It seem to work for the Eco- terrorist.

Even our Supreme Court seems to be falling victim to these bleeding heart emotions. I don't know where you go now to find justice. Our constitution says nothing about a right to marry. Marriage was created under common law and then validated by the states. The federal government has no role in this. The Supreme Courts creation was to interpret the constitution. We have already had a war over states rights and I see this as a similar issue. States rights were created to prevent tyranny and this seems to be the direction we are heading.

How does this relate to the issues we private landowners are facing with this "red wolf" situation.

I see it having many similarities. We have fact after fact disproving their theories and proving their illegal actions. The wolfers merely have emotions and lots of "ifs". We're dealing with a USFWS that is out of control and seems to have to answer to no one and continues to waste our money and wildlife with this obviously failed program.

These Gov't Dogs are wiping out our wildlife that is wildlife that our North Carolina WRC is charged with protecting. They are not preying on federally managed migratory waterfowl.

Now keep in mind our rights (personal and property) are being violated by a gov't agency much like the Supreme Court of the United States just ruled the same sex marriage couples personal rights were being violated.

Time will tell

Part 4 via Tom Remington:

Hoping the Problem Magically Cures Itself? Part IV or VII

http://tomremington.com/2015/06/19/hoping-the-problem-magically-cures-itself-part-iv-or-vii/