JoseCuervo
New member
Looks like BigWhore was wrong, once again.....
Wolves De-Listed, BigWhore was Wrong, Again.
- Thread starter JoseCuervo
- Start date
shoots-straight
Well-known member
Big Whore I'll take my case of Coors. Bottles are on sale at Town pump. Now make sure that you look at he born on date to make it fresh.. I'll even share some with ya. No hard feelings even though you were wrong! At least the FWP has a new revenue source in tag sales coming up. They've mis managed so much of the rest of our game that sales are slipping in some area's.
Nemont
Well-known member
How soon will the wolf supporters file their lawsuit and a judge issues an injunction to halt the delisting?
Nemont
Nemont
shoots-straight
Well-known member
As I've stated many times before, if there lawsuit had merritt a judge could issue an injunction, I feel really good about the fact that there's not much chance of this. The states have done a good job dotting i's and crossing t's.
But you never know, a sympathetic judge could. There's still a wild card.
JoseCuervo
New member
Different issue.
Filing a suit doesn't mean squat. Only when a Judge makes a decision does it matter. Decisions range from tossing out the suit to issuing a temporary stay.
Nemont
Well-known member
I wonder if the anti wolf delisting groups have been out shopping for a judge that is sympathic to their cause?
JoseCuervo
New member
You can't shop for judges. They are assigned. Sometimes you get ones you like, sometimes you don't.
Here we like it when we get Judge Winmill, we usually struggle with Judge Lodge, but, sometimes Lodge surprises us and rules in favour of the good guys like Jon Marvel and Company.
Nemont
Well-known member
Which Court would have jurisdiction?
JoseCuervo
New member
BigHornRam
Well-known member
"Which Court would have jurisdiction?"
"The court battle could occur in federal court in Missoula, where wolf advocates have filed earlier lawsuits."
"The court battle could occur in federal court in Missoula, where wolf advocates have filed earlier lawsuits."
JoseCuervo
New member
BigHornRam
Well-known member
Rocky Barker's take on this
Wolf battle heats up in the next few weeks
Submitted by Rocky Barker on Wed, 02/20/2008 - 8:02am.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s target date for issuing its decision on removing wolves from the protection of the Endangered Species Act in the Northern Rockies is Feb. 28.
If they meet that date, then 30 days later, wolves would be delisted in Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, eastern Washington, eastern Oregon and northern Utah. The states would take over management and the federal government would step aside and monitor the process for the next five years.
However, environmental and animal rights groups are expected to file a lawsuit quickly, hoping to get an injunction that prevents the final action before March 28. The environmental lawyers group, Earthjustice will represent seven environmental groups including Defenders of Wildlife, the Sierra Club, the Natural Resources Defense Council the Humane Society, the Center for Biological Diversity, the Jackson Hole Conservation Alliance and Help Our Wolves Live.
Their main case will be that the states don’t have adequate legal mechanisms in place to ensure wolves don’t become threatened or endangered again. They will suggest that the stated policies of Idaho and Wyoming are to reduce the wolf populations and that under current regulations the wolf population in the region could theoretically be reduced from 1,300 to 100.
Earthjustice already has challenged the rule chances Fish and Wildlife made official last month that will give states even more ability to kill wolves until they are delisted. I would be surprised if the case isn’t filed in Boise before U.S. District Chief Judge Chief District Judge B. Lynn Winmill.
Ironically, Earthjustice challenged the reintroduction of wolves in Idaho 13 years ago, arguing that it was illegal because of the presence of wild, native wolves in Idaho. At the time they did not challenge the reintroduction in Yellowstone despite evidence there were native wolves there too. Yellowstone's reintroduction was too popular and to the rest of the nation Idaho was simply a footnote.
They lost and the reintroduction has been heralded as one of the great environmental success stories of the 20th Century. Idaho has since become the most productive, safest place for wolves in the region in part because of its huge wilderness and roadless core.
But the delisting process has become messier thanks to the intransigence of Wyoming. Lawsuits delayed delisting in Minnesota for years despite a growing wolf population in the thousands.
The key indicator will be whether environmentalists win a restraining order that stops the delisting process. That means a judge will believe they have a good chance of eventually winning on the merits of the case.
Wolf battle heats up in the next few weeks
Submitted by Rocky Barker on Wed, 02/20/2008 - 8:02am.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s target date for issuing its decision on removing wolves from the protection of the Endangered Species Act in the Northern Rockies is Feb. 28.
If they meet that date, then 30 days later, wolves would be delisted in Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, eastern Washington, eastern Oregon and northern Utah. The states would take over management and the federal government would step aside and monitor the process for the next five years.
However, environmental and animal rights groups are expected to file a lawsuit quickly, hoping to get an injunction that prevents the final action before March 28. The environmental lawyers group, Earthjustice will represent seven environmental groups including Defenders of Wildlife, the Sierra Club, the Natural Resources Defense Council the Humane Society, the Center for Biological Diversity, the Jackson Hole Conservation Alliance and Help Our Wolves Live.
Their main case will be that the states don’t have adequate legal mechanisms in place to ensure wolves don’t become threatened or endangered again. They will suggest that the stated policies of Idaho and Wyoming are to reduce the wolf populations and that under current regulations the wolf population in the region could theoretically be reduced from 1,300 to 100.
Earthjustice already has challenged the rule chances Fish and Wildlife made official last month that will give states even more ability to kill wolves until they are delisted. I would be surprised if the case isn’t filed in Boise before U.S. District Chief Judge Chief District Judge B. Lynn Winmill.
Ironically, Earthjustice challenged the reintroduction of wolves in Idaho 13 years ago, arguing that it was illegal because of the presence of wild, native wolves in Idaho. At the time they did not challenge the reintroduction in Yellowstone despite evidence there were native wolves there too. Yellowstone's reintroduction was too popular and to the rest of the nation Idaho was simply a footnote.
They lost and the reintroduction has been heralded as one of the great environmental success stories of the 20th Century. Idaho has since become the most productive, safest place for wolves in the region in part because of its huge wilderness and roadless core.
But the delisting process has become messier thanks to the intransigence of Wyoming. Lawsuits delayed delisting in Minnesota for years despite a growing wolf population in the thousands.
The key indicator will be whether environmentalists win a restraining order that stops the delisting process. That means a judge will believe they have a good chance of eventually winning on the merits of the case.
JoseCuervo
New member
BigWhore,
You are all over the map.... first you posted that it "could" be filed in Missoula, now you are worried about a possible suit filed in Boise?
How paranoid do those long Winters make you?
You are all over the map.... first you posted that it "could" be filed in Missoula, now you are worried about a possible suit filed in Boise?
How paranoid do those long Winters make you?
BigHornRam
Well-known member
"hoping to get an injunction "
Obama's been getting a lot of miles out of the word "hope" lately. We will see Earthjustice's hand here within a month and whether or not hope becomes reality.
Obama's been getting a lot of miles out of the word "hope" lately. We will see Earthjustice's hand here within a month and whether or not hope becomes reality.
BigHornRam
Well-known member
"But the delisting process has become messier thanks to the intransigence of Wyoming"
I didn't put this comment in bold because I didn't think it was relevent.
but I did put this part in bold..........
"If they meet that date, then 30 days later, wolves would be delisted in Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, eastern Washington, eastern Oregon and northern Utah."
Note that the basis for the huggers suit in the Great Lakes Region is due to inclusion of the delisting of wolves in the Northeast as well. An area where they have little or no population.......same as Washington, Oregon, and Utah. Any "merritt" here?
I didn't put this comment in bold because I didn't think it was relevent.
but I did put this part in bold..........
"If they meet that date, then 30 days later, wolves would be delisted in Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, eastern Washington, eastern Oregon and northern Utah."
Note that the basis for the huggers suit in the Great Lakes Region is due to inclusion of the delisting of wolves in the Northeast as well. An area where they have little or no population.......same as Washington, Oregon, and Utah. Any "merritt" here?
shoots-straight
Well-known member
Paul, again pay attention, our area is a relocated area, the great lakes region is a natural relocation area, different as night and day.. Now, we had specific area's of recovery that where identified as goal recovery area's... Again Non essential experimental population area's,, and 1 natural recovery area. The northwest area of Montana. Utah, Washington, Oregon, Hawaii, and Florida are not now, nor never been in a proposed recovery area. Understand? I hope. The reason, these states are listed is because wolves are likely to naturally colonize them now that we have a recovered population. Gess!
Similar threads
