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.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
USFWS was supportive of delisting. Serial litigants sued and found a supportive judge. Montana and Idaho reps said enough of the games and put an end to it. End of story.
"According to a new survey and report compiled by the Union of Concerned Scientists, 73 percent of Fish and Wildlife scientists say political influence is too high at the agency and a relative majority believes their office is less effective than it was five years ago. Those alarming figures stand out at Fish and Wildlife, compared with other surveyed federal science agencies where staff generally feels scientific integrity is holding firm or on the rise."
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.
Challenging the swamp to start with tort reform is naive. It won't happen.I agree somewhat. If the delisting happened I would be fine with it. However, I don’t like the way this is being done, or the way it was done last time. I would rather they start with tort reform that stopped the FWS delisting.
Just saying they could, not that they would. Happy Saturday Mr Sunshine.Challenging the swamp to start with tort reform is naive. It won't happen.
How dare you.Boebert’s name in the same sentence with the word “science” is damn funny.
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.USFWS was supportive of delisting. Serial litigants sued and found a supportive judge. Montana and Idaho reps said enough of the games and put an end to it. End of story.
That's your opinion. That wolves have been successfully delisted for over 10 years in Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming is fact.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.
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.The vast majority of cases filed under EAJA are individuals and families filing suit against their own government...
You prefer the court does? I don't see how it matters which branch of the government dips their wick, honestly.The FWS proposed delisting but it was blocked by court order. The question is do you want Congress determining what species should be put on or taken off the ESL?
No the court doesn’t. I think you have a misunderstanding of how the government and laws work.You prefer the court does? I don't see how it matters which branch of the government dips their wick, honestly.
Go gaslight someone else.No the court doesn’t. I think you have a misunderstanding of how the government and laws work.