I read The Gazette article "Feds propose to separate wolves' status in Wyoming" with interest, especially career fed-employee-turned-fed-lobbyist Jamie Rappaport Clark's comments concerning the political, legal and lobbying surge over forcing yet more protected wolves into Montana, Wyoming and Idaho. Clark, executive V.P. of Defenders of Wildlife, of course lives in urban Washington, D.C., rather than locally or even rurally.
My counterproposal is a simple one. "Sophisticated" Washington, D.C., has the most radical and unconstitutional anti-gun laws in America; so, if wolf safety is truly the issue at hand, wouldn't it seem wiser for the wolves to be there rather than here? Is it too much to ask of the politicians and their lobbyist dinner buddies to water the wolves' own liberty tree with an occasional pet Chihuahua or stray gerbil? Or does "Do unto others … " yet again not apply to the tight pack of elitists back East
shaping and making the laws for us insolent, "redneck" Montanans?
Perhaps Congress, instead of having an 8 percent approval rating, would truly be the claimed "shining beacon on the hill," governing by selfless example rather than selfish brute force and the cowardly rulings of certain sympathetic court appointees if adopting my proposal?
Better yet, I promise to leave the feds to their "busy" schedules, rather than exhorting them at paid-for champagne dinners. Everything I've to say policy-wise can be learned without fuss or fee just by reading this letter to the editor.