WY wolves protected again?

[mdunc8]

Wyoming said they intended to manage for a certain number but it wasn't a regulation so it was not binding.

Have you even read their management plan? How many times am I going to have to lead you to the water? To make matters worse, I'm probably one of the least informed idiots on here.

Unfortunately the file is too big, but go here (http://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie...2011/2011-09-14_FinalApprovedWolfMgmtPlan.pdf), download it, and search the document for "100". I think you'll be interested to see what pops up.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Randy,

great info.

On EAJA, I'd be reluctant to do anything that lessens the public's ability to sue their own government. While there are problems with excessive litigation, eliminating my right to seek redress for the wrongs done by the Fed should never be an option.

There are better ways to skin this cat.

 

[BigRack]

Have you even read their management plan? How many times am I going to have to lead you to the water? To make matters worse, I'm probably one of the least informed idiots on here.

Unfortunately the file is too big, but go here (http://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie...2011/2011-09-14_FinalApprovedWolfMgmtPlan.pdf), download it, and search the document for "100". I think you'll be interested to see what pops up.

All I can say is read the judges ruling and Big Fin's post.

 

[mdunc8]

The numbers ARE part of the management plan. The issue is whether the actual mechanisms they have in place will ensure they meet the numbers that Wyoming agreed to manage for. It's the plan itself. Not the numbers. You would be much better off if you took five minutes, that's it, just five, to actually read something for yourself (not on this thread).

I think this picture best describes the situation in Wyoming.

 

[HighDesertSage]

http://wgfd.wyo.gov/web2011/news-1002256.aspx
WY G&F's Response to the Ruling. Sorry if this has already been posted.

On a side note, you should see the celebration on sites like this one:

http://howlingforjustice.wordpress.com/

Did they even read the ruling? I wouldn't consider this a "victory" for wolves. Just a hurdle. WY could still easily have a wolf season in 2014. No wonder they get so many donations....

 

[Big Fin]

Randy,

great info.

On EAJA, I'd be reluctant to do anything that lessens the public's ability to sue their own government. While there are problems with excessive litigation, eliminating my right to seek redress for the wrongs done by the Fed should never be an option.

There are better ways to skin this cat.

I agree with most of that, thus my comment about reforming the EAJA, not getting rid of it.

I don't like non-profits will tens of millions in the bank, getting paid to sue the Federal Government and making a profit while doing so. I doubt many others like it and I doubt the folks trying to do good work at agencies like it.

As currently written, it places a burden of perfection on an agency. That is not a reasonable standard. Hard for good people to do good work when they have the "agents of perfection" following behind with their lawyers.

I think the net asset requirement should apply to non-profits, the same as it does to corporations and individuals. One has to ask, "Why should multi-million dollar enterprises like HSUS, DOW, CBD now get reimbursed for reasonable legal fees when they prevailed on such a small part of this claim; a part that will not change the substance of how Wyoming manages wolves?"

They pay their attorneys $50 per hour, yet the reasonable reimbursement rate might be $250. That's a pretty high mark up and explains why CBD has mostly attorneys on staff, not biologists. The more attorneys you have, the more hours they call "put on the books," the greater the reimbursement.

I think that a prevailing party must prevail on ALL aspects of their claim in order to get reimbursement, requiring people to be more precise in their claims. If they don't prevail on ALL claims made, they don't get paid.

I would go so far as to say under the ESA, the law where most EAJA reimbursement claims are made, each claim must be made as a separate claim, with the loser paying all legal costs. Have these groups have some skin in the game on these ESA lawsuits.

Right now, the EAJA is like being able to sit at the Blackjack table, betting with the other guys money, keeping all winnings and having the taxpayer front the losses. Nice gig to have if you are the guy keeping the winnings.

I can think of many other good reforms that would still allow individuals to sue the Government, yet allow the agencies to go about their duties to manage. The EAJA was passed with good intent. It needs to stay in place, with some targeted reforms. Yet, like most other good legislation, sooner or later, some conniver will figure out a way to scam it.

 

[Ben Lamb]

I agree with most of that, thus my comment about reforming the EAJA, not getting rid of it.

I don't like non-profits will tens of millions in the bank, getting paid to sue the Federal Government and making a profit while doing so. I doubt many others like it and I doubt the folks trying to do good work at agencies like it.

As currently written, it places a burden of perfection on an agency. That is not a reasonable standard. Hard for good people to do good work when they have the "agents of perfection" following behind with their lawyers.

I think the net asset requirement should apply to non-profits, the same as it does to corporations and individuals. One has to ask, "Why should multi-million dollar enterprises like HSUS, DOW, CBD now get reimbursed for reasonable legal fees when they prevailed on such a small part of this claim; a part that will not change the substance of how Wyoming manages wolves?"

They pay their attorneys $50 per hour, yet the reasonable reimbursement rate might be $250. That's a pretty high mark up and explains why CBD has mostly attorneys on staff, not biologists. The more attorneys you have, the more hours they call "put on the books," the greater the reimbursement.

I think that a prevailing party must prevail on ALL aspects of their claim in order to get reimbursement, requiring people to be more precise in their claims. If they don't prevail on ALL claims made, they don't get paid.

I would go so far as to say under the ESA, the law where most EAJA reimbursement claims are made, each claim must be made as a separate claim, with the loser paying all legal costs. Have these groups have some skin in the game on these ESA lawsuits.

Right now, the EAJA is like being able to sit at the Blackjack table, betting with the other guys money, keeping all winnings and having the taxpayer front the losses. Nice gig to have if you are the guy keeping the winnings.

I can think of many other good reforms that would still allow individuals to sue the Government, yet allow the agencies to go about their duties to manage. The EAJA was passed with good intent. It needs to stay in place, with some targeted reforms. Yet, like most other good legislation, sooner or later, some conniver will figure out a way to scam it.

That still leaves groups like Native Ecosystems Council, Wild West Institute and Alliance for the Wild Rockies out there filling frivolous lawsuit after frivolous lawsuit. Sure it might cause groups like CBD to abandon some litigation, but I doubt it.

Earthjustice is the shop most of these groups use, or it's the Western Environmental Law Center. Both do good work at times, and work I disagree with at times. Their lawyers are generally able to command $250 if they were in private practice, and you and I both know what it costs per hour to run a firm that has several employees, etc.

I think we get closer to the root of the problem when we find that these suits are filed as technical issues, and billed as "fighting the good fight."

In that light, if we're looking to eliminate lawsuits, the farm bill provision is a good catalyst for this. It allows projects that are developed and have support to move forward, without litigation, but still including the public.

The same could be said for the Forest Service under Bush II. The Healthy Forests Initiative wasn't all that bad in terms of increasing timber production, protecting some wildlife habitat and eliminating frivolous lawsuits, but again, other external factors come in to play, like the housing bubble and recession. Then their's NAFTA and Canadian imports of soft lumber, which make American lumber less profitable.

It's easy to blame to boogeyman and the far left enviro groups certainly have earned their scorn, but in our desire to reform the system, let's not forget our own rights.

As far this suit and wolves: The USFWS learned a lot on how to write a recovery plan in the Northern Rockies. The legal hang ups aside, this exercise in chest-thumping should show us that 1.) The ESA works; it recovers species well 2.) If you do not have a clearly defined exit strategy, someone will try and keep you in the big muddy.

 

[Elkmagnet]

The EAJA needs to be altered before it generates enough money to seriously sway politicians into keeping it as their new cash cow.

 

[MT_elk]

Here's a great letter from Dave Allen, the RMEF President:

RMEF Members,

Tuesday’s ruling from a federal judge regarding Wyoming’s wolf management plan is not the kiss of death that folks may perceive. It is basically a case of a technicality in how Wyoming and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service established the wolf management plan. We believe that is easily fixed on Wyoming’s end. There are some silver linings within this ruling handed down from Judge Jackson as she ruled against two of the major three claims made by the plaintiffs that the court ruled on, including confirmation of the fact that Wyoming’s wolf population has recovered and is not endangered. We anticipate Wyoming will be able to fix the issue with how its wolf management plan is written to satisfy the court.
The real shame of this continuing litigation and legal maneuvering by HSUS, Defenders of Wildlife, Center for Biological Diversity and others is the amount of American taxpayer money the judge may award them for their legal fees, all in the name of the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA). This is a continued misuse of taxpayer dollars for an ideological agenda that has little to do with wolves. These groups continue to use the gray wolf reintroduction as a fundraising tool by profiting from EAJA payments awarded by courts, yet they do nothing for wolves, wolf habitat, collaring wolves for the sake of research and beyond.
In reality, nothing relative to the gray wolf recovery program is likely to change in the long run as a result of this court case but thousands of dollars will change hands for legal fees. This is not conservation work.



M. David Allen
RMEF President/CEO

 

[shoots-straight]

All I can say is read the judges ruling and Big Fin's post.

It would be nice if that was really all you could say.


Hopefully you digested some of this great info and now have a clearer understanding of what is guiding the situation.

 

[BigRack]

It would be nice if that was really all you could say.


Hopefully you digested some of this great info and now have a clearer understanding of what is guiding the situation.

The situation is WY doesn't have to alter their plan. I understand it fully.

 

[BuzzH]

If Wyoming doent alter their plan, the wolves stay on the list forever...fact.

Wyoming most certainly will alter their plan, probably already have.

 

[bigeasygator]

The situation is WY doesn't have to alter their plan. I understand it fully.

Sounds like you don't understand it anywhere close to fully.

 

[BigRack]

Sounds like you don't understand it anywhere close to fully.

Have you read Big Fin's post?

 

[BigRack]

If Wyoming doent alter their plan, the wolves stay on the list forever...fact.

Wyoming most certainly will alter their plan, probably already have.

What do they have to alter Buzz?

 

[shoots-straight]

Rack, you have proven that even though you've been lead to the water hole, there's no forcing you to drink from it's waters.

I feel so much dumber now that I was involved in this thread.

 

[BigRack]

Rack, you have proven that even though you've been lead to the water hole, there's no forcing you to drink from it's waters.

I feel so much dumber now that I was involved in this thread.

Did you listen to Randy on TV tonight? He said nothing about them having to alter their plan.

 

[shoots-straight]

No I did not. Did he say what they needed to do?

My guess is they will have to get rid of the predator area, or the dual classification if you will.

I see no way out for them on this one. Quit simple really.

 

[BigRack]

No I did not. Did he say what they needed to do?

My guess is they will have to get rid of the predator area, or the dual classification if you will.

I see no way out for them on this one. Quit simple really.

Did you read Randy's post?

I will bump it.

 

[BigRack]

I've spent a couple hours reading the decision and was lucky to get the benefit of some attorneys who have been involved in much of this since the beginning. Here is what I take away from that.

I preface this by stating the obvious - Wyoming has become viewed as the lowest hanging fruit for these litigants; in essence the weakest link in the defense of state management. As such, Wyoming will most likely be the target of lawsuits aimed at changing state control of wolves. Just part of the situation all knew would happen when strategies were adopted by the three states.

The lawsuit has four main complaints:

1. Wolves are still threatened and endangered.

2. Wolves are at risk due to lack of genetic connectivity.

3. Wyoming allowing wolves to be treated as a predator in some areas does not meet the ESA requirements of protections over a significant part of the species range.

4. Wyoming’s regulatory mechanism, as currently stated and adopted to insure a particular number of wolves, are inadequate and represent a non-binding promise.​

The court ruled in favor of the USFWS, in our favor, on items 1, 2, and 3. That is all good news for those of us who want wolves to be managed by the states.

The court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs on item 4; the least important of all the issues. Most attorneys would call # 4 a technicality, in that it can be easily fixed and does not change the data and facts used in the case.

Yeah, it sucks that a technicality is being used to try stop WY from their existing wolf hunts. But, the judge did rule on some important issues and found them to be in favor of the USFWS and stops any additional law suits on those grounds.

• The screwballs lost their claim that there is not genetic connectivity and therefore the USFWS rulings are incorrect. That is big. In the past there was a worry that they would try this route as a separate law suit. This judge has tossed out that claim and ruled in favor of the USFWS.

• The screwballs lost their claim that the wolves are “threatened or endangered” throughout a significant portion of their range. The judge ruled the wolves are not threatened or endangered.

• The screwballs lost their claim that Wyoming classifying some areas of marginal wolf habitat as a “Predator Zone” represents a violation of the ESA. The court ruled the USFWS was correct in finding the Predator Zone represents marginal wolf habitat and that area is not large enough to represent a “significant portion” of the wolf range.​

From all of that, WY loses management control until they correct #4. That is easy to correct and all reports are that they are doing that today. I suspect they will take the steps necessary to codify that which the court found to be non-binding. And if they do that, I suspect they will ask for a stay of the order granted.

These plaintiffs, the serial litigators, spend a lot of their ammo to prevail on one small technicality.

Why would they do that? Because they make money at it.

They make money from donations, and since they prevailed on a slight technicality, the US Government will be responsible for reasonable attorney fees to them under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA).

These decisions make it very obvious that reform of the EAJA must happen and happen soon. EAJA was designed to protect Grandma from the Federal Government. You must have net assets below some level to qualify. That was to prevent wealthy entities from suing the Government and getting reimbursed.

Yet, the EAJA has an exemption for non-profit groups. These plaintiffs have hundreds of millions in net worth and they will get paid more than they incurred in legal expenses. Time to change the EAJA and stop this craziness.

Wyoming will eventually prevail. Just a pain in the butt to get there.

On the bright side, the wingnuts shot a lot of ammo to get very little in return. They just lost one of their big bullets about genetic connectivity. They lost a big issue that a Predator Zone would be considered a "significant portion" of the recovery area. They lost the big picture notion that wolves are "threatened and endangered."

If WY can get the regulatory mechanism fixed and address the issue that was lost in this decision, there is a good chance they can go on with the substance of their plan as approved by the USFWS; albeit with some more teeth to the regulations they must adhere to in maintaining state population minimums.

Personally, I think the wingnuts are window dressing their enthusiasm about this decisions. Privately, behind the curtains, I think they are back to fighting among each other, questions why they would burn so much of their capital to get such marginal results.

Yeah, they got hunting in WY delayed for a period of time. They always claim victory when that happens. Yet, they know they are getting real low on ammo. They took a run at the weakest spot in the entire wolf management issue and all they could come away with was a technicality.

Call me too much of an optimist, but I don't see this as the end of the world. I see this as a chance to bury the bastards once and for all.

And if nothing else, I hope it opens the eyes of people as to how ripe with abuse the EAJA is. Reform of that legislation, as well intended as it was, needs to be a primary focus.

bump.