Michigan AG to US Fish and Wildlife Service: Abandon your flawed proposal on gray wolves
- Thread starter cheeser
- Start date
Addicting
Well-known member
“On behalf of the People of Michigan”
Not on my behalf, funny I don’t remember seeing this come out on a ballot to poll the state.
Not on my behalf, funny I don’t remember seeing this come out on a ballot to poll the state.
Ajax2744
Well-known member
I'm so glad we are at a point where lawyers know more about animal recovery and conservation than biologists and employees of the U.S. fish and wildlife.
Seems like they're arguing the legal points of the delisting order. Maybe USFWS should consider the AG's opinion. She's arguing to delist MI while not messing with other states that haven't met the delisting criteria.
She's arguing the legal parameters of the rule, not the biology.
She's arguing the legal parameters of the rule, not the biology.
She might be arguing the legal parameters of the rule, but she's doing it with hyperbole. I can't imagine any circumstance where any agency, be it state or federal, will allow any recovered wolf population to "be hunted to near extinction again". Stick to the merits of your argument without all the emotional BS and I'd be a lot more receptive to hearing the argument.
icebreaker12
Active member
Yep, extending this delisting rule to all of the lower 48 won't fly.
She's citing the lack of regulatory mechanisms in those states included in this rule. That's a major legal flag, this is also what happens when you let Don Peay/Ryan Benson/BGF/SFW write your rules.
Gila
Well-known member
The comment period on the recommendation by the FWS to delist wolves ftom the ESA in the lower 48 states is over with. This Mich AG is just trying to throw a desparate last minute wrench into the gears of the process. Sec. Zinke is expected to endorse the FWS delisting recommendation any day now. Once the wolves are de-listed, Michigan (or any other state for that matter) is free to protect wolves in any manner they wish to.
theat
Well-known member
Hmm, for some reason (or many reasons) I just don't see it happening quite like how you are predicting.
Schaaf
Well-known member
Secretary Who?
Gila
Well-known member
Sec. BERNHARDT 
Sometimes it is difficult for me to see who is in the revolving door these days.
Comment period is over with. So where do you folks think this process is to supposed to go? Why don't we just all congratulate each other on a job well done for being able to remove the wolf fom the Endangered Species List.
Sometimes it is difficult for me to see who is in the revolving door these days.Comment period is over with. So where do you folks think this process is to supposed to go? Why don't we just all congratulate each other on a job well done for being able to remove the wolf fom the Endangered Species List.
Gila
Well-known member
How does a lawyer argue against scientific data anyway?
elknetwork.com
South Dakota: No Plans to Establish Wolves
South Dakota Game, Fish and Parks (GFP) recently issued a news release reminding citizens within the state that gray wolves remain under the umbrella of [...]
elknetwork.com
Last edited:
icebreaker12
Active member
Sec. BERNHARDT
Comment period is over with. So where do you folks think this process is to supposed to go? Why don't we just all congratulate each other on a job well done for being able to remove the wolf fom the Endangered Species List.
There will be a stay on this decision within a few weeks and it will be overturned within a few months.
If they had said Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin, and Washington, Oregon, and California were delisted we would be looking at a different situation.
cheeser
Well-known member
Ben Sellers
Well-known member
- Joined
- Oct 29, 2018
- Messages
- 573
How does a lawyer argue against scientific data anyway?
South Dakota: No Plans to Establish Wolves
South Dakota Game, Fish and Parks (GFP) recently issued a news release reminding citizens within the state that gray wolves remain under the umbrella of [...]
Easy! The law and science or the law and common sense have nothing to do with each other. Also every case or trial has lawyers arguing both sides saying the opposite of each other. Every single case.
Gila
Well-known member
Washington?
Problem Wolves to be Removed in Washington
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Director Kelly Susewind reauthorized WDFW staff to lethally remove wolves from the OPT pack, which has repeatedly preyed on [...]
elknetwork.com
icebreaker12
Active member
Washington?
Problem Wolves to be Removed in Washington
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Director Kelly Susewind reauthorized WDFW staff to lethally remove wolves from the OPT pack, which has repeatedly preyed on [...]
Whats your point? Wolves are still listed as endangered in the western 2/3's of Washington. Also, I din't look far enough into the status in CA, but those wolves should remain on the list. The remainder of OR, and states of MI, MN, and WI should be delisted though.
Gila
Well-known member
There was a FWS hearing in Minnesota (not a court hearing). Sportsmen do not agree with you environmentalists. You may get another FWS hearing, however I wouldn't expect much more then that this time. The Michigan's AG blurb rings hollow. This is the real McCoy SCI, not the "poser":
USFWS Extends Comment Period On Proposed Gray Wolf Delisting | Safari Club
www.safariclub.org
Ben Sellers
Well-known member
- Joined
- Oct 29, 2018
- Messages
- 573
Sportsmen do not agree with you environmentalists. You may get another FWS hearing, however I wouldn't expect much more then that this time.
USFWS Extends Comment Period On Proposed Gray Wolf Delisting | Safari Club
I don’t know what gives you the idea that I’m on the side of the wolves. What I said was a longer version of many lawyers will argue BS all day if they’re paid enough. Someone represented Jeffrey Dahmer if you recall.
Gila
Well-known member
That was not my intention to indicate tha
That was not my intention to put you on one side or the other. I apologize for not being more clear. I was only trying to agree with you and illustrate that your statement is how the environmentalists tend to do things. Often times they can't thwart the science or if do, they try to distort the data to fit a loophole in the law if one exists. Allow me to state the obvious: The USC is boiled down to Federal regulations that allow Federal agencies to function and execute the law. The "rule" in the Federal Register is the way the USFWS executes their plans. The OGC "office of the general counsel" for the DOI, legally approves the proposed rules by the USFWS and defends the FWS/DOI in Federal Court if need be. The enviros found a Federal Judge to put the kabosh on part of a previous plan to de-list wolves in 2017. I am not familiar with what went on then. However, the same argument won't fly this time around.
That was not my intention to put you on one side or the other. I apologize for not being more clear. I was only trying to agree with you and illustrate that your statement is how the environmentalists tend to do things. Often times they can't thwart the science or if do, they try to distort the data to fit a loophole in the law if one exists. Allow me to state the obvious: The USC is boiled down to Federal regulations that allow Federal agencies to function and execute the law. The "rule" in the Federal Register is the way the USFWS executes their plans. The OGC "office of the general counsel" for the DOI, legally approves the proposed rules by the USFWS and defends the FWS/DOI in Federal Court if need be. The enviros found a Federal Judge to put the kabosh on part of a previous plan to de-list wolves in 2017. I am not familiar with what went on then. However, the same argument won't fly this time around.
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
-
-
6.5 CM Savage barrel, dies, brass and 420+ bullets
- Latest: Justabirdwatcher
-
