By Andi Elliott

Tonight we had dinner with Senator and Mrs. Jeff Siddoway to discuss the senator’s remarks regarding wolf control which has stirred up quite a bit of controversy. I myself was appalled at the news report depicting the use of “live bait” which is why I contacted the Senator. I attempted to be civil but am sure that my anger came through in my email. So tonight, I found myself talking with a man who is a 4th generation sheep rancher and who has watched his sheep and his guard dogs slaughtered by wolves year after year. Just last week, 30 of his ewes were killed. Imagine the feeling of helplessness and frustration. Yes, the government reimburses ranchers for livestock lost to these predators but of course, the rancher comes out on the short end. Imagine having 40 of your 200 rams in a pen wantonly killed and then having to find replacement animals and the expense incurred in doing so.

The family has experienced ever extending government oversight of ranching to the point that they could be watching the wolves attack their sheep and not be able to defend them because of regulations. In one instance related to me tonight, the senator called three government agencies trying to get permission to shoot wolves that were at that very moment menacing his sheep. By the time approval was given, the pack had left.
They’ve lost a total of 18 guard dogs…Great Pyrenees. The herding dogs (Border Collies/Heelers) are too afraid to even attempt to stay with the flocks. The wolves will kill the young guard dogs by simply crushing their faces. The adult Pyrenees weighing easily 80-120# are no match for the wolves. Mercifully, I haven’t personally seen dozens of sheep ripped to pieces and the dogs mutilated as they tried to protect their sheep. It would break my heart to see so much suffering.

After the introduction of the wolves in the Rocky Mountains, there was no problem for a few years until the wolves began multiplying and forming packs. The regulatory agencies know each pack and their offspring. Colored collars designate the different groups. The wolves are well monitored and I’m amazed how much is known about the individual wolves. My research indicates that contrary to public opinion, these wolves are not indigenous to Idaho but are the results of programs initiated by folks who know little of the reality of the situation. Millions of dollars are dedicated for this purpose.

I have spent some time on the net looking at effective methods of controlling wolves…trying to put myself in the place of a sheep rancher…and I have concluded that none of the “humane methods” were adequate for protecting the livestock and the dogs. And when the wolves attack at night, the sheepherders can hear the wolves and listen to the dogs barking and fighting and the sounds of terrified sheep…but in the dark, they are helpless in protecting their animals. They are not permitted to use adequate lighting or rifles equipped with night vision scopes. The odds are slanted against the ranchers and their sheep and the dogs.

During the dinner, I asked about his “live bait” comment. His response, I could tell, was from the heart. Yes, better wording could have been used; further explanation of his plan would have helped those of us focused only on the “live bait” comment to understand what ranchers are facing. There was no intent on sacrificing “the bait”. The animals would be used to hopefully lure the wolves within range to be shot or trapped…which still gives me a queasy feeling but I am at a loss to suggest a better solution. After hearing firsthand from the Siddoways of their experiences in simply trying to keep their animals safe and the limitations within which they have to work, I must offer an apology to them. They are trying to abide by guidelines established by an over-reaching federal government and have been placed at a terrible disadvantage. I wish that all could have heard what I heard tonight. Hopefully, my comments here will add some perspective to what ranchers are facing. I hate to see the suffering but I have nothing better to offer.

Andi Elliott

Tea Party Patriots Idaho State Co-Coordinator
President of For the Love of Pets Foundation

If you enjoyed this article, consider subscribing to the full-feed RSS.

By Rep. Tom Loertscher, R-Bone

During the legislative session each year there are several organizations that have their meetings in Boise which affords their members a chance to meet and chat with legislators. This week The Farm Bureau had their meetings as did the Idaho Association of Counties. I like these two events because I get a chance to talk to folks from home and hear what is on their minds.

Farm Bureau, of course, has as their focus the needs of rural Idaho and arguably our district is one of the most rural of the state. One of the big issues that was brought up is the Senate bill that would elevate cruelty to animals to a felony. During those discussions it became clear that there is a difference of opinion on the bill even amongst the members. Before this comes before the House, I will be reading the legislation carefully to determine if this is a good idea or not. A couple of years ago when this came up, I was having a conversation in which the person accused all farmers and ranchers of being cruel to their animals. My response was that if farmers abuse their animals, their animals will abuse them back, will not perform well and they are soon out of business.

The counties spent most of the week in Boise for what they call their mid-winter conference. For the most part they are not too visible and we don’t get much of a chance to visit with our local officials. There were a couple of things that stood out this year more than I have seen other years.

I had scheduled a hearing in State Affairs on Wednesday for a bill that would have moved the primary election to August where it resided prior to 1980. I almost chickened out about going ahead with the hearing because I rather suspected that there was not enough support in the committee to get it passed to the floor of the House. And I knew that having all of the county clerks from around the state there, they would more than likely let their wishes be known. But I decided to go ahead knowing that a lot of clerks would have the chance to testify on the bill because they were already in town for their meetings.

When I came into the hearing room I spent some time talking and joking around with the clerks prior to the meeting telling them I hoped they wouldn’t be too rough on me. It was particularly noteworthy that several indicated during their testimony that they had previously not participated in a committee hearing of any kind. Well, at least I was right about one thing, the bill went down in flames.

Later that evening Sen. Tippets, Rep. Gibbs and I met with county elected officials from our district to discuss legislation and rumors of legislation. They wanted to know what the chances were for some matters to pass and wanted us to ease their fears of some of the rumored things they had heard about. I can wholeheartedly recommend these “over a bowl of ice cream” discussions. Come to think of it, when things get a little “hot” around this place maybe we should cool off with a bowl.

If you enjoyed this article, consider subscribing to the full-feed RSS.

By Andi Elliott

I have just now finished reading the AP news story of your proposal this morning in Boise. Did you really propose using live animals as bait in order to attract wolves? It is enough that Sheriff Olsen (yes, I know he is your friend) and Rob Dunn have embarrassed our county nationwide several times before over their indifference to the suffering of animals and now this? I specifically wrote that editorial last week praising them for prosecuting the Roberts man for starving his horses hoping (perhaps against hope) that Jefferson County was stepping up to the 21st Century… but I guess I am wrong.

I’ve been to your home/ranch and have seen your dogs…would you use one of them for “live bait”? And why would you gut the animal torture and cock fighting aspects of the legislation? Are you totally inhumane? Both of our religions teach of our role in caring for God’s creatures. I am appalled that you would condone this much less spearhead this effort. I’m sure you’ve read that the character of a nation is judged by their treatment of animals. Do the honorable thing and resign…we need representatives in Boise that don’t use their position to promote their special interests. We need representatives that will protect those who can’t speak for themselves.

Andi Elliott
President of For the Love of Pets Foundation
Hamer

” … Silence in the face of evil is evil itself. God will not
hold us guiltless, not to speak is to speak, not to act is to act.”
Dietrich Boenhoffer, a German pastor who stood against the Nazis.

If you enjoyed this article, consider subscribing to the full-feed RSS.

Idaho Chooses Life

Kudos to Austin Hill (KIDO Radio – Boise) for his show on the dire threat of Obama’s “contraceptive” mandate. This new exercise of raw federal power shows the dangers of ObamaCare. But contrary to the liberal media spin, this raw power grab impacts much more than the Catholic Church or religious institutions.

Under the new edict, EVERY private employer will have to provide free sterilizations, contraceptives and abortifacients to their employees. Not only will every employer have to provide those “benefits” – they will have to pay the full cost of doing so. President Obama has determined that it is an “unreasonable burden” for employees to cover even a modest co-pay. That makes every private employer, including the many who have pro-Life/Christian values, an unwilling party to the destruction of innocent life.

This is but one example of the grave moral danger associated with the drive in the Idaho Legislature to submit to ObamaCare by creating a state insurance exchange. Regardless of the hype coming from the gaggle of lobbyists pushing greater state power and control over insurance competition – a state exchange is the cornerstone block of ObamaCare. As such, it must adhere, by federal law, to the rules and guidelines issued by the Obama Administration.

A state insurance exchange is an expensive idea whose time may never come; but is downright dangerous now as part of Obama’s drive to remake Idaho.

If you enjoyed this article, consider subscribing to the full-feed RSS.

By Andi Elliott

Folks, we are asking people to send this to their representatives so that Idaho can be certain that candidates that appear on Idaho ballots are actually eligible to be there. It is up to the Chairmen of the political parties to “vet” the candidates. This is not always done. Georgia and Texas and a handful of other states have begun this process and this legislation is modeled after their legislation.

This is a draft of the proposed legislation that folks all over the state are asking their representatives to sponsor/cosponsor.

Feel free to contact me if you have any questions.

Thanks, Andi Elliott
208-662-5808
straighttalkidaho@yahoo.com

A BILL TO BE ENTITLED
AN ACT relating to certification for placement on the ballot of candidates for president or vice-president of the United States.

BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF IDAHO:

SECTION 1. Section_________, Election Code, is amended by amending Subsection (__) and adding Subsection (___) to read as follows:

(a) Except as provided by Subsection (__) or (___), the secretary of state shall certify in writing for placement on the general election ballot the names of the candidates for president and vice-president who are entitled to have their names placed on the ballot.

(d) The secretary of state may not certify the name of a candidate for president or vice-president unless the candidate has presented the candidate’s certified and/or notarized copy of his or her original birth certificate indicating that the person is a natural-born United States citizen.

SECTION 2. The secretary of state shall perform a background check on presidential candidates to ensure they meet the Constitutional qualifications, including whether not they are a NATURAL Born Citizen of the United States – born of 2 U.S. citizen parents within the United States according to the U.S. Supreme Court in Minor v. Happersett, 1875. Candidates for president and vice-president who are entitled to have their names placed on the ballot shall complete the same Federal I-9 form that every other employee in the country is required to complete to prove that they are legally able to work in the United States. The secretary of state shall certify that said Federal I-9 form has been completed.

SECTION 3. An emergency existing therefore, which emergency is hereby declared to exist, this act shall be in full force and effect on and after its passage and approval.

If you enjoyed this article, consider subscribing to the full-feed RSS.

Idaho Chooses Life

The pro-Life community is buzzing with the tremendous news that Planned Parenthood has lost the legitimizing cover of the breast cancer lobby. The Komen Foundation’s decision to end its partnership with the Abortion Industry is a huge blessing – on many levels.

There is the money which Komen has transferred from life-loving citizens to those promoting the death of women and babies. Seeing Planned Parenthood lose several millions in charitable support is certainly encouraging.

And we are all excited by the fact that pro-Lifers will no longer have to argue or wince or boycott fundraising efforts designed to end the scourge of breast cancer. In fact, we encourage our readers to at least send the Komen Foundation an email to express our gratitude; a donation in the name of innocent children would be better. Komen deserves sincere praise for protecting the integrity of the effort to treat and cure breast cancer.

But in the long term, the best aspect of this development is that Planned Parenthood can no longer hide its evil behind the skirt of “fighting breast cancer” – as if it were principally concerned about the health or lives of women. Whenever their killing operations have been exposed, they seek to change the subject by pointing to their work with Komen.

That ruse just got a lot harder.

If you enjoyed this article, consider subscribing to the full-feed RSS.

Idaho Chooses Life

The Board of Idaho Chooses Life has voted to oppose the creation of a state insurance exchange because of the myriad dangers it poses to Idahoans. Implementing ObamaCare, even as we challenge it before the U.S. Supreme Court, just doesn’t make sense. The pending lawsuit provides with a great exit ramp.

But the nation’s best hope is a rejection of Barack Obama at the polls this fall.

We have distributed a “Policy Statement” on the idea of a state exchange to key members of the Legislature and are now meeting to reinforce our message. Rather than voluntarily submit to the edicts of Obama and Secretary Sebelius, Idaho must offer national leadership by choosing a private-sector path to better, cheaper health care.

If you enjoyed this article, consider subscribing to the full-feed RSS.

Idaho Chooses Life

Americans United for Life has released its pro-Life rankings of the states for 2012. They rank Idaho as the 19th “safest” place for preborn children in the country – at least in terms of the legal protections afforded our preborn brothers and sisters. That is an improvement of four spots from the year before, reflecting our strong 2011 legislative session. In 2009, AUL ranked us at 26 among the states.
Leading the list for the past several years has been Louisiana, Oklahoma and Pennsylvania.

A deeper look at the rankings shows that, generally speaking, the states governed by the ultra-liberal 9th
Circuit are the deadliest. California and Washington have been fighting over dead-last for several years. The average ranking for states in the 9th Circuit – without Idaho and Arizona – is an appalling 45th. Part of that phenomenon reflects the Abortion Lobby’s death grip on the political culture in states like Montana, Washington, Oregon and California. But one cannot discount the deleterious impact of 9th Circuit judges on the pro-Life movements operating within their political orbit.

The rankings from AUL are by no means the last word on the subject, as the organization does come at the question with certain biases. However, it does give us a feel for state of the nation and the great disparity between the states.

It also reminds us of the work we have left to do.

If you enjoyed this article, consider subscribing to the full-feed RSS.

By Rep. Tom Loertscher, R-Bone

Sometimes in life timing is everything and it seems like the stars line up. Other times not so much. I have been working for quite some time on a piece of legislation to change the date of the primary election from May to August. The Primary election was held in August before Idaho decided to join in a presidential primary. And now that the political parties will be caucusing to choose their nominees, there is no longer a need for the presidential candidates to appear on the primary ballot, it seemed like a good idea to move the election back to August.

Little did I know that the Supreme Court was about to dispense with the redistricting plan that was adopted by the Redistricting Commission. You can call it foresight, or just plain luck or even coincidence but the agenda for introducing the legislation was in place before I had any idea the court was about to rule. With the commission having to come up with a plan that will pass constitutional muster, the counties will have a tough time complying with the May primary date and to get everything in place for the election. At this moment, legislative candidates don’t know what district they might be in and the filing date is about a month away. Needless to say the bill, House Bill 392 has already stirred things up and everyone has an opinion.

We don’t seem to lack for controversy, even this early in the session. A bill introduced in State affairs twice this week, is scheduled for a hearing to make it unlawful to camp on the Capital Mall or around any other state owned building. There is a group that has tents around the old Ada County Courthouse that is across the street from the capital. We took some testimony from some “occupiers or 99 per centers” as they call themselves. One of the committee members asked a BSU student who spoke before the committee, what event would cause them to be satisfied so they would disband on their own. The fellow stammered a bunch but was unable to come up with an answer. Is it good idea to pass a bill that in effect would evict them from the property? From a PR perspective, probably not. One thing for sure is that there will be no shortage of press coverage on this one and some of us are feeling like this is not a winner no matter how we vote.

Joint Finance is still hearing from agencies and their wish lists, that are in competition for the state’s resources. Committees are dealing with the rules that have come forward since last session. Two years ago we put a resolution in place in an attempt to better define what would constitute a reason for new rules and to try to curb the explosive growth in rules from the agencies. For the last two years we have seen fewer rules instead of more. That’s a good thing and we continue to be optimistic that we will see the cost of this process reduced. I think we can count that as a success. Again, maybe that is due to the stars lining up, or good luck or even coincidence. I’d rather call it success because of the efforts of a citizen of this state, who brought the idea to us.

If you enjoyed this article, consider subscribing to the full-feed RSS.

Idaho Chooses Life

Pro-Lifers will gather once again on Saturday, January 21st to mark the 39th year of our national suffering under the Supreme Court edict legalizing abortion.

In Boise, folks will meet at the Julia Davis band shell at 1 pm. A rally on the steps of the Idaho Statehouse to defend preborn children will follow the march down Capitol Blvd.

Our best estimate is that over 54 million children have lost their lives under the Roe regime. May the Maker of Heaven and Earth reach down and save us from our great national sin.

If you enjoyed this article, consider subscribing to the full-feed RSS.