U.S. Rep. Denny Rehberg and U.S. Sen. Jon Tester are clashing over who can claim credit for returning wolf management to Montana game officials this year, with the senator’s office and the Montana Democratic Party accusing Rehberg of “lying” in a TV interview last week.

Rehberg, a Republican challenging Tester in the 2012 election, told KPAX-TV in Missoula last Friday that he “helped lead the effort” to undo a federal court ruling that had taken management away from Montana and canceled a planned 2010 hunting season.

“Everything that was put into place was done in the House,” he said. “There would be those in the Senate that tried to take credit for it.”

The language that passed Congress in April and ultimately overturned the court ruling — and allowed Montana to reinstate its wolf hunting season this year — was inserted into a bill by the Senate.

Tester, a Democrat, says he worked closely with colleagues on the Senate Appropriations Committee to insert the language, which was an amalgamation of proposals from Tester, U.S. Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., and Rep. Mike Simpson, R-Idaho.

Tester voted for the larger budget bill that contained the language and Rehberg voted against it; the bill passed Congress and President Barack Obama signed it into law April 15.

“Congressman Rehberg voted against Jon’s bipartisan wolf legislation, and now the congressman wants everyone to believe he somehow led the charge and the Senate didn’t even pass a bill?” said Tester’s spokesman, Aaron Murphy. “It’s downright lying, and he got caught.”

Rehberg defended his statements by noting his long, very public record of pushing to remove wolves from the Endangered Species Act listing and overturn the 2010 court ruling.

He also said the language that passed is only a “temporary solution,” but is a good step toward solving the problem of wolves listed as an endangered species. He said he supported the language, but opposed the overall bill that contained it for other reasons.

“I’m a big believer in the old adage that you can accomplish a lot when you don’t care about who gets the credit,” he said. “I’ll leave it to the political spin doctors to bicker about who gets credit for what.”

Rehberg sponsored a bill this year to remove wolves entirely from the jurisdiction of the Endangered Species Act. It never reached a vote in committee.

Like many contentious issues that wind their way through Congress, the path of the wolf language that overturned the court decision is a tortuous one.

Tester and Baucus introduced a bill a year ago to overturn the court ruling and return management of the wolf to Idaho and Montana wildlife officials, and then a second bill in February.

Rep. Simpson of Idaho also introduced his own slightly different version, which was inserted into a House-passed budget bill in February that was rejected in the Senate, with Tester and Baucus voting no.

The Senate then inserted the Simpson language, plus some of its own, into a final spending bill in April that ultimately passed. Tester claims credit for persuading congressional leadership and Obama to include the language in the bill.

The language removed wolves from the endangered species list in Montana and Idaho and returned management of the wolf to each state’s respective wildlife agencies.

Montana has had a management plan in place for the wolf since 2004.

Passage of the bill allowed Montana to schedule its second annual wolf hunting season this year, beginning Saturday and possibly stretching into December. The state has a hunting quota of 220 wolves.

(2) comments

Matthew Koehler
Matthew Koehler

While Tester and Rehberg argue, it's worth noting the exact words US Judge Molloy had for Congress' wolf-delisting rider:

• “The way in which Congress acted in trying to achieve a debatable policy change by attaching a rider to the Department of Defense and Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act of 2011 is a tearing away, an undermining, and a disrespect for the fundamental idea of the rule of law.”

• “Political decisions derive their legitimacy from the proper function of the political process within the constraints of limited government, guided by a constitutional structure that acknowledges the importance of the doctrine of Separation of Powers. That legitimacy is enhanced by a meaningful, predictable, and transparent process.”

• “Inserting environmental policy changes into appropriations bills may be politically expedient, but it transgresses the process envisioned by the Constitution by avoiding the very debate on issues of political importance said to provide legitimacy. Policy changes of questionable political viability, such as occurred here, can be forced using insider tactics without debate by attaching riders to legislation that must be passed.“


Dear Denny,
Try to be man enough to give credit where credit is due!

Howlin' Mad Denny Needs A Hug!

A Montana congressman who's an ineffective jester
Has a boil on his record that's starting to fester
You see, Ol' Denny can't claim
Any wolf rule changing fame
Because it was all accomplished by Senator Tester!

In his tenure, Denny's only sponsored a few bills
Rumor is, he spends his time stewed to the gills
Because while in Kazakhstan
He was the first Congressman
To become infamous for his drunken horse spills!

But he's a leader at the nighttime boat races
And he's great at filing frivolous court cases
But if it's legislation you want,
Denny's record is real gaunt
In the legislation game, Denny's runnin' in braces!
Charles Ulysses Feney

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.