WY wolves protected again?

[JoseCuervo]

I don't care what HSUS thinks the plan should be or what the stockgrowers think the plan should be. The plan was good enough for the USFW service to sign off on.

I have written plenty of checks to attorneys to sue the USFW, BLM, and FS because of the poor plans the Agencies have tried to implement.


An Agency caving to local ranchers is not a difficult suit to win in front of a judge. Happens all the time, much to the dismay of the local Welfare Ranchers and to the delight of hunters.

 

[JoseCuervo]

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.

FIn,

I have yet to meet a rich environmental attorney. Nobody is abusing the system. Most of the guys I know are sacrificing huge wealth in order to fight, and win, the good fight.


It is easy to blame the attorneys, but that isn't the issue.

 

[6speed]

There isn't a single hunter on this board that supports the position of HSUS.

Nemont

Have you met Jose?

 

[bigeasygator]

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.

"I just glanced through the ruling. Wyoming lost because there was no rule saying they had to maintain a certain number. They just have to put that rule in writing and case closed."

That's what you said. A) that sounds like a change. B) you still haven't said what your point for questioning the ranchers/HSUS/etc has been in all these posts. C) you've been out of line this whole thread.

 

[BigRack]

"I just glanced through the ruling. Wyoming lost because there was no rule saying they had to maintain a certain number. They just have to put that rule in writing and case closed."

That's what you said. A) that sounds like a change. B) you still haven't said what your point for questioning the ranchers/HSUS/etc has been in all these posts. C) you've been out of line this whole thread.

Please look at post #133. The Judge didn't accept the addendum. It just needs to be codified.

Why have I been out of line? I haven't questioned the ranchers.

I have said I don't like HSUS. HSUS wants to take hunting away from you.

Did you even read the link I posted to you earlier?

Have you read the Judges decision?

 

[BigRack]

A big part of Wyming's problem is that they put so much of their management plan in to law.

The judge ruled they didn't make it law enough. Can you please explain what you mean.

 

[shoots-straight]

Big Rack, your opinion and that of the bunny huggers are totally at odds. They believe that the rule will make Wyoming do away with it's dual classification. (The Predator zone)

If the States appeal, that surely will come, is upholds this decision then Wyoming will only have one option. That will be to modifiy there wolf management plan.

Do you comprehend?

 

[BigRack]

Big Rack, your opinion and that of the bunny huggers are totally at odds. They believe that the rule will make Wyoming do away with it's dual classification. (The Predator zone)

If the States appeal, that surely will come, is upholds this decision then Wyoming will only have one option. That will be to modifiy there wolf management plan.

Do you comprehend?

Ask Randy because he has the same opinion I do.

 

[shoots-straight]

Ask Randy because he has the same opinion I do.

That means NO!

 

[BigRack]

That means NO!

What?

Did you ask Randy?

This site has a PM function.

 

[JoseCuervo]

Ask Randy because he has the same opinion I do.

Why don't you answer for yourself.

With a thought out answer that explains what the drunk at the end of the bar tries to get thru your noggin'?

 

[bigeasygator]

That means NO!

Exactly.

 

[BigRack]

Why don't you answer for yourself.

With a thought out answer that explains what the drunk at the end of the bar tries to get thru your noggin'?

Are you man enough to answer the question Jose?

What does WY have to change in their plan?

 

[BigRack]

Exactly.

Are you man enough to PM Randy?

 

[JoseCuervo]

m

Are you man enough to answer the question Jose?

What does WY have to change in their plan?

I hope they don't change a damn thing.
I hope they pretend like they are people of principle and don't cater to DC, but, instead, cater to Welfare Ranchers.

But, let's get back to you.

What is your opinion of what they have to change?

 

[BigRack]

That means NO!

Are you man enough to PM Randy?

 

[BigRack]

m


I hope they don't change a damn thing.
I hope they pretend like they are people of principle and don't cater to DC, but, instead, cater to Welfare Ranchers.

But, let's get back to you.

What is your opinion of what they have to change?

Are you man enough to PM Randy?

I bet not.

 

[Deleted member 20812]

I know you are but what am I

 

[BigRack]

I know you are but what am I

What change does WY have to make in their plan?

 

[JoseCuervo]

Are you man enough to PM Randy?

I bet not.

Why would I need to PM Randy?

If I want to talk to him, I can just dial on my phone...

And likely leave a message for when he gets back from his latest hunt.

Or, just stop by the DQ in Bozeman and have a Blizzard with him.


You ever gonna answer your own question, or just keep stalling until the drunk at the end of the bar sobers up to tell you your opinion?