Exclusive Jurisdiction Over Wildlife Act
 
GO TO UPDATES PAGE:
 
Wolf Stories of how they impact our way of life.

 
The following legislative bill and supporting documents were written and began circulation in December 2002  by Maury Jones, Box 117, Grover, Wyoming 83122   (307)886-3356  email   After some revisions and reworking by Legislative Services Office in Cheyenne, and revisions by myself and Senator Roberts, they were introduced into the Wyoming Legislative session by Senator Delaine Roberts on January 20, 2003.   Basically, we do not believe that our wildlife, hunting heritage, and economy, can survive with the wolf being protected by the US Fish and Wildlife Service.  The wolf was crammed down our throats and it is now painfully apparent that it will be a wildlife disaster of major proportions.  The moose hunting north of Jackson Hole, Wyoming is all but gone.  The elk will not be far behind.  Please read carefully, with an open mind, to understand concepts and ideas that are contrary to what you have been led to believe.  Then contact me.  I welcome comments and suggestions.  Feel free to circulate it as much as possible, but check back here frequently for changes and updates.  Unfortunately the Legislative Services Office removed the supporting court cases and Constitution references from the original.  I urge all to read the original pasted below and linked as an MS Word document.  It contains a lot of vital supporting data.    Jonesy
 

You may follow the progress of these bills by going to http://legisweb.state.wy.us/2003/billsInfo.htm
We will soon have a joint committee hearing on this bill and other bills dealing with wolves that are going through the legislature.  Keep in contact to lend us some support.
 
 
 
Original bill concept printed out below, but you can access here as MS Word document.
  Please spread it around!  We need to generate controversy over this!  Our goal is to get it passed and it will undoubtedly be challenged in court.  We would love to see it come before the US Supreme Court, as we feel we have Constitutional Law and court rulings on our side.  If anyone has any knowledge of a court ruling that seems to suggest that wildlife is the jurisdiction of the federal government, I would appreciate knowing about it so we can better study the conflicting court rulings, if there are any.  At this point I know of NO court rulings that have dealt specifically with the wildlife issue.
 
This is not the final bill.  Link to it above.  This pasted below is the concept and has much info and supporting data.
2003           STATE OF WYOMING       03LSO-0364W1
BILL NO 
 
 

Exclusive Jurisdiction over Wildlife Act
 
Sponsored by:  We need as many sponsors as possible to
make a political statement!!  Please contact Sen. Delaine Roberts to sign on.
 
 

A BILL  for
 

An Act declaring that Wyoming has exclusive jurisdiction and management of all wildlife within its geographical boundaries.
 
Whereas;
1. State law, Wyoming Statutes: 23-1-03.  Ownership of wildlife;  declares; " . . .all wildlife in Wyoming is the property of the state.",  And Whereas
2.  In Pollard v Hagen the Supreme Court stated  "No principle is more familiar than this, that whilst a state has granted a portion of its sovereign power to the United States, it remains in the enjoyment of all the sovereignty which it has not voluntarily parted with,
And Whereas
3.  Wyoming has never voluntarily parted with jurisdiction over the wildlife within its state boundaries, 
And Whereas
4.  In New York v. United States (1992) Supreme Court Justice O'Conner said "It is in this sense that the Tenth Amendment states but a truism that all is retained [by the states] which has not been surrendered [to the federal government], 
And Whereas
5.  Wyoming has never surrendered its control and ownership of wildlife to the United States Government or to any federal agency, 
And Whereas
6.  The Wyoming Legislature is in possession of extensive documentation consisting of U.S. Supreme Court rulings, government research reports, Constitutional limitations, and other evidence which proves conclusively that federal jurisdiction within Wyoming is limited to those areas where the Wyoming Legislature, by specific legislation, has ceded jurisdiction to the federal government and the federal government officially accepts that jurisdiction, 
And Whereas
7.  The existing wolf population, which was introduced by the federal government over the objections of the Wyoming Legislature, is officially designated as "non-essential experimental", 
And Whereas
8.  This "non-essential experimental" wolf population is having a detrimental effect on Wyoming's wildlife, livestock, and economy,
Therefore, be it resolved
9.  The State of Wyoming officially declares the wolf experiment to be a failure and is most assuredly non-essential, 
And be it Resolved
10.  Upon passage and enactment of this bill, the state of Wyoming will immediately begin exclusive management of all species of wildlife, including wolves, within the geographical boundaries of Wyoming excepting Yellowstone National Park, 
And be it Resolved
11. Wyoming specifically prohibits any officer or employee of any federal agency from attempting to manage wildlife or from interfering with wildlife management by the state of Wyoming.  Wyoming hereby instructs Wyoming County Sheriffs to enforce this act.  Wyoming is a sovereign state and the duly elected sheriff of a county is the highest law enforcement official within a county and has law enforcement powers exceeding that of any other state or federal official, 
And be it resolved
12. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), being responsible for the presence of wolves in Wyoming, is hereby made financially responsible for any and all damages to livestock, pets, and other property belonging to inhabitants of Wyoming, and must reimburse Wyoming inhabitants for losses at fair value, 
And be it resolved
13.  Wyoming holds the USFWS responsible for losses and damages to game animals and other wildlife belonging to the State of Wyoming, as per Wyoming Statute 23-1-03 as quoted above, and must reimburse the Wyoming Game and Fish Department for each loss according to the value as set by the courts in preceding reimbursement cases.  Losses will be determined by the shortfall in cow:calf ratios on big game species and over-all population levels as compared to ten-year historical pre-wolf levels, as will be determined by the Game & Fish Department, 
And be it resolved
14.  Immediately upon enactment Wyoming demands and requires the US Fish and Wildlife Service to immediately begin to remove the "experimental non-essential" wolf population from Wyoming at federal government expense.  Wyoming will allow two years for USFWS to complete the task.  At the end of two years from the date of enactment the USFWS will be fined by the State of Wyoming $10,000 per day until the Wyoming Game and Fish Department verifies that all wolves have been removed from the state, 
And be it Resolved
15.   The US Fish and Wildlife Service will pay a fine of $1,000 for each wolf killed or removed by any person or organization other than FWS, $500 of which will go to the state of Wyoming Game and Fish Department for reimbursement and the remaining $500 will go to the removing individual or organization. 
And be it Resolved
16.  The state of Wyoming urges the general public to assist in removal of wolves from Wyoming by any lethal or non-lethal means, 
And be it Resolved
17. Wyoming specifically prohibits any federal agency, federal employee, or any other individual or group from prosecuting, intimidating, or harassing any individual or organization who is assisting in removal of the wolf.
 
This act is in effect upon passage by both houses and signature by the Governor.
 
This draft bill compiled by Maury Jones, Box 117, Grover, Wyoming  (307)886-3356  Submitted to LSO by Senator Delaine Roberts and assigned a Ref. number by LSO.


 
Letter to Legislators and other interested parties.
RE:  Legislative Bill "Exclusive Jurisdiction Over Wildlife Act"
 
Dear Legislator,
First of all, I apologize for the length of this letter.  I realize you are very very busy, but I honestly feel, and every legislator I have talked with agrees with me, that this issue is THE MOST IMPORTANT CRISIS facing this legislative session.  I have condensed it as much as possible without diluting the message and the necessary documentation contained herein.  Please read it carefully and with an open mind.  Extensive additional documentation is available for the asking.
 
We have a crisis upon us regarding our traditional Wyoming heritage, economic base, way of life, and destruction of our natural resources.  It is painfully apparent that the introduction of the "experimental non-essential population" of wolves into northwestern Wyoming is going to be the greatest wildlife disaster this state has ever known.  Within three or four years the great elk herds near Jackson Hole will be a thing of the past.  Hunting will begin to be curtailed within the next year or two, with a resulting blow to our economy.  As hunting opportunities decrease in the Jackson Hole area, hunting pressure will increase in the rest of the state, necessitating limited quota elk hunting in every area of Wyoming.  Moose are already devastated and continued predation may irreparably harm all species of wildlife.  Millions of nonresident hunting dollars will be lost to our local businesses.  Should you think this is an alarmist scenario, a Montana study showed that in areas of high wolf concentration the elk calf:cow ratio is 0:100.  Yes, that is ZERO, as in NO calves surviving!!  Every hunter and guide I have talked to has reported very very few elk calves in wilderness areas north of Jackson.  They will see 50 elk, with only 2 calves accompanying them.  Do the math;  250 wolves, 1.8 elk kills per wolf per month = 5,400 elk per year fed to wolves.  That is more than we are killing now by sport hunting.
 
Wyoming officials have tried repeatedly to work with the Federal Government agencies on the wolf issue.  Our efforts have been very frustrating, as evidenced by excerpts of a letter from Governor Geringer to the Secretary of Interior, dated March 20, 1995.    "...a disturbing and continuing pattern that typifies actions of the Department of Interior ?media was notified, the Governor was not.  ?continue to dismiss Wyoming's concerns ?.Governor's office informally contacted by park service employee [regarding release of wolves] ?.withdrawing funds for recovery of the black-footed ferret to dedicate those scarce resources to the gray wolf?.unilateral actions with blatant disregard of the partnership?."  
 
It is apparent from this example, and many others, that working with the Federal Government and trying to jump through the hoops to get the wolf delisted will be as futile as Minnesota's effort.  Minnesota now has 3,000 wolves where the original target was 1,000.  The futility of working with the federal agencies should be apparent regarding the grizzly bear. Wyoming now has 600 to 900 grizzly bears.  In 1993 the US Fish and Wildlife Service said in a newspaper article "we are 2-3 years from delisting grizzlies".  We now have twice as many griz and they are still saying "we are 2 to 3 years from delisting".  In short, Wyoming wildlife is being held hostage by Washington, DC, and the result will be a catastrophe!  I predict the wolf will NEVER be delisted in Wyoming.
 
You, our Legislators, are entrusted with safeguarding Wyoming's heritage.  Will you be presiding over this un-natural disaster?  Or will you have the courage to step forward and do something about it?  It is time for true courage by our Wyoming Legislature.
 
The enclosed documentation proposes a course of action, which, if followed with courage and conviction, will give us the means to rescue our big game herds from certain destruction.  The attached "Exclusive Jurisdiction Over Wildlife Act" declares that the Federal Government has illegally usurped authority over wildlife which rightfully belongs to the state of Wyoming and that we, Wyoming, will take back that jurisdiction and will manage our wildlife ourselves without federal intervention.
 
Article I, Section I of the Wyoming Constitution says:
"All power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority, and instituted for their peace, safety and happiness; for the advancement of these ends they have at all times an inalienable and indefeasible right to alter, reform, or abolish the government in such manner as they may think proper." 
The Bill of Rights in the Constitution of the United States says;
Amendment IX " The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
Amendment X "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." [wildlife is not mentioned at all in the Constitution]
James Madison, the Father of the Constitution said;
"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."  The Federalist No. 45, pp. 292-293.
Did the Constitution delegate the authority over wildlife in Wyoming, or anywhere else, to the federal government?   It is not up to the people or the state of Wyoming to prove that the federal government does not have lawful jurisdiction.  Rather, it is up to the federal government to provide bona fide written documentation to the people that it does have jurisdiction over any particular area within a state.
 
On December 15, 1954, an interdepartmental committee was commissioned on the recommendation of the Attorney General of the United States, Herbert Brownell, Jr., and approved by President Eisenhower and his cabinet, named the "Interdepartmental Committee for the Study of Jurisdiction Over Federal Areas Within the States", and charged with the duty of studying and reporting where the United States had legal authority to make someone subject to its jurisdiction.  In June of 1957, the Committee issued "Part II" of its report entitled "Jurisdiction Over Federal Areas Within the States."  The Report makes the following statements:

a. "The Constitution gives express recognition to but one means of Federal acquisition of legislative jurisdiction -- by State consent under Article I, section 8, clause 17... Justice McLean suggested that the Constitution provided the sole mode for transfer of jurisdiction, and that if this mode is not pursued, no transfer of jurisdiction can take place."

b. "It scarcely needs to be said that unless there has been a transfer of jurisdiction

(1) pursuant to clause 17 by a Federal acquisition of land with State consent, or

(2) by cession from the State to the Federal Government, or

(3) unless the Federal Government has reserved jurisdiction upon the admission of the State,

the Federal Government possesses no legislative jurisdiction over any area within a State, such jurisdiction being for exercise by the State, subject to non- interference by the State with Federal functions,"

c. "The Federal Government cannot, by unilateral action on its part, acquire legislative jurisdiction over any area within the exterior boundaries of a State,"

d. "??.the Federal Government ??has no power to punish for various other crimes, [such as shooting a wolf] jurisdiction over which is retained by the States under our Federal-State system of government, unless such crime occurs on areas as to which legislative jurisdiction has been vested in the Federal Government."

 

The plain meaning of the above is that Wyoming has NEVER by specific legislation ceded jurisdiction of wildlife to the federal government or its agencies and the federal agencies don't have authority to prosecute someone who kills a wolf.

 

Many Supreme Court cases re-affirm the above doctrine;

"When this country achieved its independence the prerogatives of the crown devolved upon the people of the States.  And this power still remains with them, except so far as they have delegated a portion of it to the Federal government."   Wheeler v. Smith, 9 How. 33
"Within its legitimate sphere, Congress is supreme;.., but if it steps outside of its constitutional limitations, and attempts that which is beyond its reach, the courts are authorized to. . . annul its encroachments upon the reserved power of the States and the people." United States v. Reese, 92 US 221. 
".....an act of the legislature, repugnant to the constitution, is void."  Marbury v Madison, 1 Cranch 391  
The attempt of Congress in acquiring the power to govern Wyoming's bear and wolf, and by default its elk, moose, deer, bighorn sheep, and all other wildlife through the Endangered Species Act, is therefore unconstitutional and void.  Congress has usurped the inherent power of the State of Wyoming and its people by declaring that Washington, DC is in charge of Wyoming's grizzly bear and wolf.

 
What about the Endangered Species Act?  Doesn't that trump Wyoming's jurisdiction over wildlife?  The answer is a resounding No!  
 
The Endangered Species Act states in 16 USC 1531 (a)(4)(A)  (5)
" ? encouraging the States and other interested parties, through Federal financial assistance and a system of incentives, to develop and maintain conservation programs which meet national and international standards?. and to better safeguarding, for the benefit of all citizens, the Nation's heritage in fish, wildlife, and plants."
The Endangered Species Act is peppered with hints that the State of Wyoming is sovereign, when the power to manage wildlife and predators is at stake.  Title 15, Chapter 1535 starts out stating:
"In carrying out the program authorized by this Act, the Secretary shall cooperate to the maximum extent practicable with the States."
 There is nothing in the Endangered Species Act that demands that the State adhere to mandates issued by Washington, DC. 
 
The Endangered Species Act attempts to gain its credibility through the Treaty clause, also called the Supremacy clause, (Article 6, section 2) of the US Constitution.  [Concerning wildlife, the ESA listed the "Convention on Nature Protection and Wildlife Preservation in the Western Hemisphere" as creating the binding Treaty.]  The misconception of the Supremacy Clause is that "Congress has supreme power."  Congress has only those powers granted by the Constitution and Congress was never granted the power to regulate any State's wildlife and predators.  It can only be supreme in cases consistent with the powers specially granted, and not by way of usurpation.  The purpose of the supremacy clause was to prevent the States from invading those areas which had been specifically delegated to the federal government.  Logical reasoning would conclude that the Federal government could not bind the State of Wyoming to a Treaty with a power that it did not possess, i.e., the regulation of wildlife and predators. 
 
I realize this information may be new to you.  The most difficult mental process of all is to consider objectively any concept which, if accepted as fact, will discard a lifetime of training and experience.  The following is probably one of those concepts referred to.  The Endangered Species Act is an "Act of Congress".  The legal definitions of words and phrases used in the written law are very important.  [Example; "It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is."]  Rule 54 of the federal rules of criminal procedure, as contained in 18 USC Rule 54(c), defines "Act of Congress".  "Act of Congress includes any act of Congress locally applicable to and in force in the District of Columbia, in Puerto Rico, in a territory, or in an insular possession."   This is the official definition as published by the United States government.  Do you see anything in that definition that indicates that an "Act of Congress", has any applicability or force in Wyoming?
 
How about the Commerce Clause?  Haven't the courts ruled that the Commerce Clause controls wildlife?  Department of Justice attorneys routinely deploy the "commerce clause" language as a justification for acts of congress in which no specific citation of Constitutional authorization is made.  It is a catch-all magical phrase conveying unlimited power insofar as any particular victim, state or individual, does not know to challenge its application or that of an act upon which it is based.
 
Within the last decade the landmark cases defining and confining the powers given to Congress through the Commerce Clause are United States v. Lopez, 514 US 549 (1995), and United States v. Morrison, 529 US 598 (2000).  These cases verify that the US Congress has not been granted authority to pass laws for the State of Wyoming.  The US Supreme Court, in the above cases, identified three categories of activities that Congress may regulate through the Commerce Clause:
1)  the use of channels of interstate commerce,
2)  the instrumentalities of interstate commerce,
3)  those activities that substantially affect interstate commerce."
In both Court cases the Acts of the US Congress were found to be unconstitutional because the laws regulated non-economic activities.  Protection of the wolf and the bear is not an economic activity which would affect interstate commerce.  An attempt to use the Commerce Clause to regulate a non-economic activity is not a federal law or a federal regulation that the US Supreme Court will tolerate, as verified in Lopez and Morrison.  A judicial review verified this;
"To say that Congress can regulate predators because of its commercial impact is obviously to say that the commerce power is effectively all power.  What, then, could be the point of the Constitution's enumeration of powers and the Tenth Amendment?"  Judicial Review Under the Commerce Clause. 74 Tex. L. Rev. 719, 729 (1996)
 
But how could we possibly enforce such a legislative act?  The Feds are too powerful!  We believe Wyoming is a sovereign state and the duly elected sheriff of a county is the highest law enforcement official within a county and has law enforcement powers exceeding that of any other state or federal official. (US District Court case No 2:96-cv-099-J This was settled out of court.)  Speaking at a press conference following the settlement, Bighorn County Sheriff Dave Mattis stated that all federal officials are forbidden to enter his county without his prior approval.  "If a sheriff doesn't want the Feds in his county he has the constitutional power and right to keep them out or ask them to leave or retain them in custody.  I am reacting to the actions of federal employees who have attempted to deprive citizens of my county of their privacy, their liberty, and their property without regard to constitutional safeguards."
 
In conclusion, the Wyoming Legislature MUST declare that management of wildlife, particularly predators, is not an interstate economic activity which falls under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution.
 
Wyoming, if we don't know what our rights are, it's the same as not having them.  Let's assert our rights!  We don't need to ask the federal government for permission, but we must declare they have usurped their authority and we will reclaim our sovereign rights over Wyoming wildlife, particularly wolves.
 
Please feel free to contact me for any clarifications or for more supporting data.  One excellent source of compiled information is the publication "In Wyoming, Who Owns the Land?  Federal Jurisdiction Within the States and Our States' Rights to Public Lands" by Daniel DeLany, PO Box 203, Wheatland, Wyoming 82201  (307)322-4120
 
We need sponsors for this bill.  The more sponsors the stronger the statement that we are FED up with the federal government intrusion into our affairs.  Wyoming is a sovereign independent state and is not a federal territory.  This is verified by the Treaty of Hidalgo which acquired several western states, including parts of Wyoming, from Mexico;  ". . . shall be formed into free, sovereign, and independent states and incorporated into the Union of the United States?". 
 
Thank you so much for your public service to the state of Wyoming in your legislative capacity.  I trust you will carefully consider the information.
 
Sincerely,
Maury Jones, Box 117, Grover, Wyoming    (307)886-3356
email  (that is s v w y, as in Star Valley, WYoming)
 
 
 
Additional Supporting Data for the "Exclusive Jurisdiction over Wildlife Act"
1.  The US Constitution is the supreme law of the land, as stated in that Constitution.  Article 1 Section 8 defines the specific 18 powers delegated from the people and the states to the United States (the government in Washington, DC).  None of those 18 powers granted deal with wildlife in any way.  Any powers not enumerated, or spelled out, are reserved to the states or to the people.
Bill of Rights;
Amendment IX "The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
Amendment X.  "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
New York v. United States (1992) Justice O'Conner said
"It is in this sense that the Tenth Amendment "states but a truism that all is retained which has not been surrendered".....[Wyoming has never surrendered its control of and ownership of wildlife]
Justice Story "   this amendment [Tenth] is a mere affirmation of what, upon any just reasoning, is a necessary rule of interpreting the constitution.  Being an instrument of limited and enumerated powers, it follows irresistible, that what is not conferred, is withheld, and belongs to the state authorities."
McCullough v. Com. Of Virginia, 172 U.S. 102 Supreme Court:
 "It is elementary law that every statute is to be read in the light of the constitution.  However broad and general its language, it cannot be interpreted as extending beyond those matters which it was within the constitutional power of the legislature to reach"
Norton v. Shelby County 118 US 425 p. 442 
An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no right; it imposes no duties; affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed.  [there is no Constitutional federal authority over wildlife, therefore the Endangered Species Act does not extend jurisdiction, but is "inoperative" so far as Wyoming is concerned.]
16 Am Jur 2d, Sec 177 late 2d. Sec 256  
No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.  The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose, since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment and not merely from the date of the decision.
Constitution, Article I, Section 8, Clause 17: 
"The Congress shall have Power To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;.." 
Nothing therein says they can purchase or have control over wildlife.  Wyoming did not give its "consent".  In the Constitution the term "United States" refers to the government in Washington, DC and not to the collective States.  [Const. Article IV Sec 4 "The United States shall guarantee to every State?"; also Article VI paragraph 3 "...both of the United States and of the several States?"; also in 28 U.S.C. section 1746 the terms "United States" and "United States of America" are both used in the same statute, for verifications executed "outside the United States under the laws of the United States of America".  They are not one and the same.]  The "United States" does not have jurisdiction over the people who live in the 50 states, but only has legislative jurisdiction over the people residing in 10 square miles of Washington, DC, territories and possessions, postal roads, interstate commerce, and property ceded by a State legislature. 
Constitution Amendment V; 
"...nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
Our elk and other wildlife are "private property" of Wyoming, as compared to "public property" of the nation, and the FWS must reimburse Wyoming for the financial and aesthetic loss of our traditional big game herds for their "taking" of it through introduction of the wolf.  The Federal government says, erroneously, the wolf is no longer a responsibility of states to have or not at their discretion.  The Federal government introduces them like scattering a few weed seeds in your lawn.  Elk, deer, cattle, sheep, llamas, and pets are reduced at increasing rates, as they become wolf food for increasing wolf populations.  The Federal government and radical groups offer paltry and selective compensation for a small amount of the sheep and cattle killed while the wolves get established.  The majority of killed domestic animals are uncompensated and when the compensation stops, there is no obligation to continue.  Soon there will be no way to even begin to compensate for the depredations of doubling and quadrupling wolf pack numbers.
 
2.  US District Court (case No 2:96-cv-099-J);  The out of court settlement came about after Bighorn County Sheriff Mattis & other members of the Wyoming Sheriffs' Association brought a suit in the Wyoming federal court district seeking restoration of the protections enshrined in the United States Constitution and the Wyoming Constitution.  Wyoming is a sovereign state and the duly elected sheriff of a county is the highest law enforcement official within a county and has law enforcement powers exceeding that of any other state or federal official.  Speaking at a press conference following the settlement Bighorn County Sheriff Dave Mattis stated that all federal officials are forbidden to enter his county without his prior approval.  "If a sheriff doesn't want the Feds in his county he has the constitutional power and right to keep them out or ask them to leave or retain them in custody.  I am reacting to the actions of federal employees who have attempted to deprive citizens of my county of their privacy, their liberty, and their property without regard to constitutional safeguards.  I hope that more sheriffs all across America will join us in protecting their citizens from the illegal activities of the IRS, EPA, BATF, FBI, or any other federal agency that is operating outside the confines of constitutional law."  This case is evidence that the Tenth Amendment is not yet dead in the United States.  It may also be interpreted to mean that political subdivisions of a State are included within the meaning of the 10th amendment, or that the powers exercised by a sheriff are an extension of those common law powers which the Tenth Amendment explicitly reserves to the People, if they are not granted to the federal government and specifically prohibited to the States. 
 

3.  Independent Policy Report

WOLF RECOVERY, POLITICAL ECOLOGY, AND ENDANGERED SPECIES  By Charles E. Kay  This report has a great deal of documentation proving that the wolf was not introduced with scientific facts; may be seen at http://www.independent.org/tii/content/pubs/policyrep/wolf.html A quote by Charles Kay  "I am committed neither to having wolves in the West nor to keeping them out.  I am committed, though, to science being used responsibly in policy debates, something I have not yet seen with wolf recovery.  My analogies indicate that the Federal Government and other wolf advocates have taken liberties with the truth, with science, and with the Endangered Species Act.  Because the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service developed its recovery goals of 10 packs and 100 wolves in each area with little, or no, population models and studies regarding possible impact on big game are arbitrary and capricious.  They represent not science but a masterful job of deception."

 
4.  In 1848, the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, Mexico ceded to the United States the vast southwest.  The states of California, Arizona, Nevada, Utah, and parts of New Mexico, Colorado, and Wyoming were carved out of this combination of purchase and treaty.  This treaty contains an interesting section:
". . . shall be formed into free, sovereign, and independent states and incorporated into the Union of the United States as soon as possible, and the citizens thereof shall be accorded the enjoyment of all the rights, advantages, and immunities as citizens of the original states". 
This important historical treaty that confirms the sovereignty of the states should not be allowed to be legally superseded by a convention treaty composed of environmental activists that have their own biased agenda.
 
5.  Pollard v Hagan, 3 How, 212:  "We think a proper examination of this subject will show that the United States never held any municipal sovereignty, jurisdiction, or right of soil in and to the territory, of which?.. any of the new states were formed; except for temporary purposes,?..  they and the original states will be upon an equal footing in all respects whatever.  ? They cannot put their foot in a state to claim jurisdiction without its consent.  No principle is more familiar than this, that whilst a state has granted a portion of its sovereign power to the United States, it remains in the enjoyment of all the sovereignty which it has not voluntarily parted with. [Wyoming has never voluntarily parted with jurisdiction over the wildlife within its state boundaries.]?..The provision of the Constitution above referred to shows that no such power can be exercised by the United States within a state.  Such a power is not only repugnant to the Constitution, but it is inconsistent with the spirit and intention of the deeds of cession."
 
6.  A great deal of legal data is compiled which proves conclusively that unless a State, by specific legislation, cedes jurisdiction to the federal government over a certain area of control, such as wildlife, then the federal government has no jurisdiction therein.  Examples:  40 USCS 255 Note #14: "...any bona fide exercise of federal jurisdiction is extremely limited and circumscribed by definite boundaries".
License Tax Cases 72 US 462 (1866) Supreme Court:  "No interference by congress with the business of citizens transacted within a state is warranted by the Constitution."
Foley Brothers v. Filardo, 336, U. S. 281  Territorial jurisdiction does not include the 50 sovereign states.  It is a well established principle of law that all federal legislation applies only within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States unless a contrary intent appears.
Printz v. US and Mack v. US    ".. the Federal Government may not compel the States to enact or administer a federal regulatory program."   "..the Constitution's conferral upon Congress of not all governmental powers, but only discrete, enumerated, ones."  [wildlife was not 'enumerated']
       Much of this compiled data can be found in the publication  "In Wyoming, Who Owns the Land?  Federal Jurisdiction Within the States and Our States' Rights to Public Lands" by Daniel DeLany, PO Box 203, Wheatland, Wyoming 82201  (307)322-4120
 
7.  When wolf recovery was proposed in 1988, Congress appropriated monies to study the proposed experiment. Congress instructed those who made the request to introduce wolves that: hunting should not be hurt, the local economy should not be hurt, and the Grizzly Bear should not be impacted. With these marching orders from Congress, a team of 15 PH. D's who specialized in Predator/Prey biology came back and published "Wolves for Yellowstone? A Report to Congress and the Department of Interior Vol. 1" in 1991.  They said the 250 square miles in and around Yellowstone could hold 78-100 wolves at full capacity if it was done over a 10-20 year period.  This esteemed body of scientists insisted in 1991 and again in September 1995, because no one knew for sure what impact a new keystone predator would have on the unadapted prey species, that intensive monitoring of the prey should be done, otherwise the Yellowstone Ecosystem would be forever and irreparably harmed.  (See P.11 Peterson, Gassaway & Messier report to Department of Interior dated 9/95).  America deserves to know who authorized the wolf recovery team to ignore the Delphi 15.  The wolf recovery team admitted in the Bozeman Chronicle in the winter of 2000 that these studies were not done each year citing bad weather, lack of funding, lack of equipment, and lack of qualified personnel.
 
8.  Montana Federal Mandates Act would be a good model to use portions of.
Montana Statutes 2-1-401
(1)(a) "?to establish policy in and for Montana pertaining to federal programs mandated in federal statutes."
(b)       "....to vigorously challenge and scrutinize the extent and scope of authority asserted by federal executive branch agencies.."
(c)(ii)  "Any implementation of federal policies in and for Montana by federal executive branch agencies that is contrary to fundamental notions of federalism and self-determination must be identified and countered."
(2)c) ".... the 10th amendment to the United States Constitution directs that powers that are not delegated to the United States are reserved to the states or to the people.  Montana, as one of the sovereign states within the union, has constitutional authority to enact laws protection the environment of the state and safeguarding the public health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of Montana.  However, this authority has too often been ignored by the federal government.  The federal government has intruded more and more into areas that must be left to the states.  It is essential that the dilution of the authority of state and local governments be halted and that the provisions of the 10th amendment be accorded proper respect."
Definitions:  (1) "Federal statute" means a federal statute that is in accord with the United States constitution ?."
 
Compiled by Maury Jones, Box 117, Grover, Wyoming  (307)886-3356  email   I urge you to contact me for additional clarifications.
 
Return to Jackson Hole Outfitters home page.