"

Hello Snowcat.ntas, and thank you for your contribution to the article. First, please note that I have re-inserted information that I assume you do not have a problem with. Second, rather than getting into an edit war with you, I would like to propose that we come to consensus about what we're each talking about in reference to this dispute. 

The article content I believe you are disputing is the information about the wolf siting. Is that correct? Can we agree on that?

I would suggest that since the information you have repeatedly deleted is verifiable by reliable sources, it is legitimate for inclusion. The fact that it is testimony from the US Senate makes it notable to the article's topic, no matter what the topic is. You are correct that it should be included in the other article; however, it is notable to this one as well. A way to resolve what you state is ""clearly biased and politically motivated to reflect an anti-environmental view"" is to provide a reliably sourced counter-perspective.

I look forward to your response, and to working out a solution to this dispute. Thanks! • Freechild'''sup?'' "