WY wolves protected again?

[BuzzH]

BigRack,

Pay attention:

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.

They are going to have to alter their plan to ensure a particular number of wolves be maintained. Read the ruling again.

The plan has to change to address the inadequicies...no way around it, period.

 

[BigRack]

BigRack,

Pay attention:

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.

They are going to have to alter their plan to ensure a particular number of wolves be maintained. Read the ruling again.

No they don't. Please read the Judges decision.

Also listen to Randy on Cam's show tonight.

 

[BigRack]

Buzz,

Which page of the decision says they have to protect more wolves?

 

[BuzzH]

So, in your opinion, Wyoming can take no action and will prevail in the lawsuit against them, will return to State Control, and hunting seasons will move forward???

Wow, thats something.

 

[BigRack]

So, in your opinion, Wyoming can take no action and will prevail in the lawsuit against them, will return to State Control, and hunting seasons will move forward???

Wow, thats something.

They have to codify their plan. No changes are needed.

Did you read the decision?

 

[BuzzH]

Read pages 21-27.

Codifying a plan is not changing it???

Yes, I've read the decision...and you're being pretty obtuse...or in laymans terms, an A-hole.

 

[BigRack]

Read pages 21-27.

Codifying a plan is not changing it???

Yes, I've read the decision...and you're being pretty obtuse...or in laymans terms, an A-hole.

No it's not.

 

[BuzzH]

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.

This needs to change or wolves stay listed...thats why the judge ruled to put them back on the list.

Argue that all you want...with yourself.

 

[BigRack]

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.

This needs to change or wolves stay listed...thats why the judge ruled to put them back on the list.

Argue that all you want...with yourself.

I have a better idea. You can discuss it with Randy since he wrote it.

 

[BuzzH]

No reason to, he's right on target with his statement.

Just so you know, I dont hide behind a computer screen, I've talked to Randy face-to-face about the wolf issue and many others over the years.

 

[BigRack]

No reason to, he's right on target with his statement.

Just so you know, I dont hide behind a computer screen, I've talked to Randy face-to-face about the wolf issue and many others over the years.

Great. Call him up and ask him.

 

[mdunc8]

Is it fair to say that you have yet to read the decision or the management plan for yourself?

 

[BigRack]

Is it fair to say that you have yet to read the decision or the management plan for yourself?

The record reflects that FWS specifically relied on the representations in the Addendum as the basis for its conclusion that Wyoming would do what the agency had determined that it must do: manage above the 10/100 minimum. The Court finds that under those circumstances, the reliance on mere assurances was inappropriate, and it rendered the FWS decision arbitrary and capricious.8 This opinion does not go so far as to hold that the FWS may not ever consider nonbinding statements as part of the mix when assessing the adequacy of a set of regulatory mechanisms as a whole; it finds that it was unreasonable in this instance for FWS to determine that it was necessary for Wyoming to manage for more than ten breeding pairs and 100 wolves as a condition for delisting but then accept a plan that did not commit to that.
9 See Colorado River Cutthroat Trout v. Salazar, 898 F. Supp. 2d 191, 207–08 (D.D.C. 2012) (“while the FWS cannot rely on promised and unenforceable conservation agreements in evaluating regulatory mechanisms . . . its consideration of the Conservation Strategy as part of its overall assessment of ongoing management practices is not inappropriate.”).10 Accordingly, the Court holds that the Service’s determination that Wyoming’s regulatory scheme was adequate under the ESA was arbitrary and capricious.11



In words Buzz can understand, she is saying they have to put it into WY law.

 

[jryoung]

What needs to happen now and how quick is the process? I'm assuming it won't take much to adjust the plan and scrap the addendum (or rewrite it). But, will there be political BS in the way of getting it rewritten? Once it gets rewritten how long does it take to work through the system? Is it a process that USFWS needs to approve, then be subject to potential litigation again? Or does approval need to go through the courts?

 

[bigeasygator]

The record reflects that FWS specifically relied on the representations in the Addendum as the basis for its conclusion that Wyoming would do what the agency had determined that it must do: manage above the 10/100 minimum. The Court finds that under those circumstances, the reliance on mere assurances was inappropriate, and it rendered the FWS decision arbitrary and capricious.8 This opinion does not go so far as to hold that the FWS may not ever consider nonbinding statements as part of the mix when assessing the adequacy of a set of regulatory mechanisms as a whole; it finds that it was unreasonable in this instance for FWS to determine that it was necessary for Wyoming to manage for more than ten breeding pairs and 100 wolves as a condition for delisting but then accept a plan that did not commit to that.
9 See Colorado River Cutthroat Trout v. Salazar, 898 F. Supp. 2d 191, 207–08 (D.D.C. 2012) (“while the FWS cannot rely on promised and unenforceable conservation agreements in evaluating regulatory mechanisms . . . its consideration of the Conservation Strategy as part of its overall assessment of ongoing management practices is not inappropriate.”).10 Accordingly, the Court holds that the Service’s determination that Wyoming’s regulatory scheme was adequate under the ESA was arbitrary and capricious.11



In words Buzz can understand, she is saying they have to put it into WY law.

Sure sounds to me like something needs to change in regards to their wolf management plan. What is it you are trying to prove BigRack? All you seem to do is stoke the flames for the sake of pissing people off. After reading all of your posts on this thread I don't see what your point is or what you're trying to prove. In fact, it seems to have changed about 5 times.

 

[HighDesertSage]

So is a 2014 season possible? The way I see it this is a revise and resubmit kind of issue.

 

[Ben Lamb]

A big part of Wyming's problem is that they put so much of their management plan in to law. If they would have allowed their game agency to do their job, rather than the politicians, it could be as easy as Randy says, but since this will no doubt require a statutory change as well as Commission action, you introduce a political element.

I truly hope it's as easy as Randy thinks it is to correct this. Wyoming was doing a good job inside the trophy zone and they should be commended for their management.

 

[BigRack]

Sure sounds to me like something needs to change in regards to their wolf management plan. What is it you are trying to prove BigRack? All you seem to do is stoke the flames for the sake of pissing people off. After reading all of your posts on this thread I don't see what your point is or what you're trying to prove. In fact, it seems to have changed about 5 times.

I have said the same thing Randy has and people are telling me I'm wrong.

Why aren't they telling Randy he is wrong?

http://trib.com/news/state-and-loca...cle_698ef452-8a17-5959-b55d-5eec9fdf90df.html

 

[bigeasygator]

I have said the same thing Randy has and people are telling me I'm wrong.

Why aren't they telling Randy he is wrong?

http://trib.com/news/state-and-loca...cle_698ef452-8a17-5959-b55d-5eec9fdf90df.html

If you think you're saying the same things as Randy, you're doing a pretty terrible job of it. You seem to have not acknowledged the ranchers role in the current plan and have stated that nothing needs to change. I'm not getting that from Randy's responses. Can you restate your stance in a transparent way by giving more than a one sentence response and saying things like "I'm saying what Randy is saying" because nobody here thinks you are.

 

[BigRack]

If you think you're saying the same things as Randy, you're doing a pretty terrible job of it. You seem to have not acknowledged the ranchers role in the current plan and have stated that nothing needs to change. I'm not getting that from Randy's responses. Can you restate your stance in a transparent way by giving more than a one sentence response and saying things like "I'm saying what Randy is saying" because nobody here thinks you are.

See post #93 and tell me how that differs to Randy's a couple of posts later.

How about when they have to change the plan according to Buzz and you, you can bump this thread and say Randy and I were wrong.