npaden
Well-known member
If they changed it simply to where litigants would not receive compensation from ESA litigation relating to wolves it would most likely accomplish the same thing and be a lot more well received.
House of Representatives votes to remove gray wolves from endangered species list
- Thread starter cheeser
- Start date
Is Fish & Wildlife under the thumb of political influence? - High Country News
73 percent of agency scientists say political interference is too high.
www.hcn.org
Eco-enviros are never ending. Always will create obstacles - that's their bread and butter, as we know. The denominator is the ebb and flow of the executive branch and those appointed.
BigHornRam
Well-known member
You were oblivious to the gamesmanship back in 2011, and oblivious to the gamesmanship today. Boebert finally getting off her dead ass and doing something useful is progress IMO.
My meat of my comment was not specific to the 2011 wolf decision, but ok.
BigHornRam
Well-known member
Challenging the swamp to start with tort reform is naive. It won't happen.
SAJ-99
Well-known member
Just saying they could, not that they would. Happy Saturday Mr Sunshine.
T
tjones
Guest
Boebert’s name in the same sentence with the word “science” is damn funny.
And back in 2011 the Montana legislature came within inches of screwing up the delisting. Ben Lamb and some others help kill the nonsense before damage was done.
Legislators involved with wildlife never turns out well.
And back in 2011 the Montana legislature came within inches of screwing up the delisting. Ben Lamb and some others help kill the nonsense before damage was done.
Legislators involved with wildlife never turns out well.
Last edited by a moderator:
Bonasababy
Well-known member
- Joined
- May 16, 2024
- Messages
- 451
More like serial litigants found plenty of evidence that a number of states politicians won't let science drive wolf decisions, and found judges who had a hard time disagreeing.
The biggest barrier to delisting isn't the USFWS (who has tried to delist them multiple times) or even the antis.
bayoublaster7527
Well-known member
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2017
- Messages
- 485
In many instances these serial litigants are the same anti-hunting orgs that “found plenty of evidence” to eliminate bear and mountain lion hunting in various western states. Politicians definitely make things difficult.
BigHornRam
Well-known member
That's your opinion. That wolves have been successfully delisted for over 10 years in Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming is fact.
The science of wolf conservation tells us that grey wolves are not in trouble in the lower 48. Red wolves and Mexican wolves are different.
As for the bill, I doubt such a broad application has support in the senate, and Boebert cashed in on the need to look like she's doing something for re-election besides handshake agreements and popcorn.
As for Simpson/Tester - that bill literally followed the USFWS science on delisting as it only reinstated the 2009 delisting rule, barred judicial oversight of the passage of the rider, and left wolves open to relisting if states messed things up again. It took Wyoming almost 8 years to follow suit due to the issues surrounding dual classification, and then it was only through some significant rule changes to the ESA that it has held up.
EAJA isn't the problem. The vast majority of cases filed under EAJA are individuals and families filing suit against their own government for failing to follow the laws. That right should never be given up in pursuit of causing harm to political adversaries. Once you give the government the power to crush you without any sort of recourse, you damage your own liberty and freedom.
Altering the rules on the ESA if a champion cannot be found to craft a moderate solution is the only way, and the USFWS recent ruling on wolves is a huge step in the right direction, especially for Great Lakes States who deserve state management.
Until such time as the ESA can function as intended - and people stop seeing dollar signs on both sides of the aisle, species like wolves will likely need some kind of legislative action to achieve delisting. States then must live up to their end of the bargain and not go overboard with blood lust to appease the vocal anti-wolf contingent, just as blue states must withstand the onslaught of animal rights advocates to create an unworkable situation for those who have to live with these critters.
As for Grizzlies - States have some work to do to un-mess some stuff that their legislatures have done since wolf-reintroduction & the push to villainize any toothy critter.
As for the bill, I doubt such a broad application has support in the senate, and Boebert cashed in on the need to look like she's doing something for re-election besides handshake agreements and popcorn.
As for Simpson/Tester - that bill literally followed the USFWS science on delisting as it only reinstated the 2009 delisting rule, barred judicial oversight of the passage of the rider, and left wolves open to relisting if states messed things up again. It took Wyoming almost 8 years to follow suit due to the issues surrounding dual classification, and then it was only through some significant rule changes to the ESA that it has held up.
EAJA isn't the problem. The vast majority of cases filed under EAJA are individuals and families filing suit against their own government for failing to follow the laws. That right should never be given up in pursuit of causing harm to political adversaries. Once you give the government the power to crush you without any sort of recourse, you damage your own liberty and freedom.
Altering the rules on the ESA if a champion cannot be found to craft a moderate solution is the only way, and the USFWS recent ruling on wolves is a huge step in the right direction, especially for Great Lakes States who deserve state management.
Until such time as the ESA can function as intended - and people stop seeing dollar signs on both sides of the aisle, species like wolves will likely need some kind of legislative action to achieve delisting. States then must live up to their end of the bargain and not go overboard with blood lust to appease the vocal anti-wolf contingent, just as blue states must withstand the onslaught of animal rights advocates to create an unworkable situation for those who have to live with these critters.
As for Grizzlies - States have some work to do to un-mess some stuff that their legislatures have done since wolf-reintroduction & the push to villainize any toothy critter.
I agree, our system works via collective effort for representatives to take more stock in Lobbyists as well as the Judicial side of organizations stamping their injunctions , etc. That's America... As is the ridiculous forced re-introduction of woofs in Colorado.
Hunt conservation organizations who did not pony up the $ are at fault for that 0.91% loss. Not the nut jobs who gathered signatures from city slicker folk walking out of Denver /Boulder etc al, shopping centers.
That said, that's extremely oversimplified to say the vast majority are mom and pops filing...they follow the often eco-enviros that we each decide if they are extreme or not, just as I follow with RMEF, etc and how people view if extreme or not.
Khunter
Well-known member
Boebert and science in the same sentence is the height of absurdity.
ismith
Well-known member
You prefer the court does? I don't see how it matters which branch of the government dips their wick, honestly.
SAJ-99
Well-known member
No the court doesn’t. I think you have a misunderstanding of how the government and laws work.
ismith
Well-known member
Go gaslight someone else.
Similar threads
