WY wolves protected again?

[bigeasygator]

Are you man enough to PM Randy?

I don't need to. Randy stated very clearly what the implications of the judges decision were, what needed to be changed, and how he felt about it all.

You, on the other hand, have done none of that. You have done nothing but instigate and challenge people who are saying exactly what Randy has. Thats why your motives and angle is being questioned. I don't claim to be any kind of Wyoming wolf management plan expert. But I have plenty of experience with logic, reasoning, and debate and it is from that angle that your responses have fallen far short of satisfactory. PM Randy isn't getting it done bud. So how about you take one paragraph (like five sentences) and ARTICULATE your feelings on this issue. Cover things like how'd we get in this mess, who's to blame, how serious it is, what needs to happen, how difficult that is, etcetera. You've challenged other people's opinions on all of these things without giving your own. That's all you have to do. Can you do it?

 

[BigRack]

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?

They don't have to change a thing. They just have to codify it into law.

Call him right now.

After you call him, post what he says to you.

 

[BigRack]

I don't need to. Randy stated very clearly what the implications of the judges decision were, what needed to be changed, and how he felt about it all.

Great. What did Randy say needed to be changed in the plan?

 

[bigeasygator]

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

The above is paraphrasing what Randy said, since you like it so much. Maybe it's semantics with regards to what you consider the "plan" but when I read words like "fix", "correct", "address", "more teeth" I hear "change".

 

[JoseCuervo]

They don't have to change a thing.

They just have to codify it into law.

Make up your mind.

 

[cfree]

While hunters fight amongst themselves over petty technicalities the Defenders of Wildlife continue their offensive.

Does anyone here actually think this is the last wolf lawsuit?

http://www.defenders.org/the-war-on-wolves/idahos-war-wolves

 

[shoots-straight]

From the New York times:

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/24/us/protection-for-wolves-is-restored-in-wyoming.html?_r=1

But she said that the state’s management plan was inadequate and unenforceable

I'm no rocket scientist here, but those are the judges words quoted there. So if that's what she says needs fixed, and there's no ruling overturned on the subject, then I would guess (without a degree in Rocket Science) that's what needs fixed.

The bunny huggers on the other hand believe the predator zone will need fixed:

“The decision makes clear that ‘shoot-on-sight’ is not an acceptable management plan for wolves across the majority of the state,” said Dr. Sylvia Fallon, senior scientist and wildlife conservation director at the Natural Resources Defense Council. “It’s time for Wyoming to step back and develop a more science-based approach to managing wolves.”

http://www.thewildlifenews.com/2014/09/23/huge-victory/

I too believe that they are wrong! Not sure where they are getting that from the ruling.

I don't know if they can fix that quickly or not. It's too bad, but as Randy said, they have spent some big bucks for this little bit of gain, and harmed the ESA in the process. Like he said, they don't care cause they are just in it for the $ Talk about cutting your nose off to spite your face.

 

[JLS]

What change does WY have to make in their plan?

Well, I don't consider myself a very smart guy. I'd probably make mdunc8 look like Einstein.

That said, if you were to read through Wyoming's plan, you'll notice that it is very vague (i.e. no detail whatsoever) as to what buffers will actually be in place, what happens if those buffers are encroached upon, what triggers would be in place should the numbers fall short, what level of recovery is needed after numbers fall short, etc. In other words, as the ruling said there just isn't any commitment. Or, as Randy said, there isn't enough teeth to the agreement.

In other words, it isn't as simple as writing it into law. Or, as Ben has tried to tell you, maybe too much is in law. When things are written into law, it takes away the flexibility and adaptivity of the managing agency. They cannot make emergency rules. And, oftentimes they end up with contradictions between policy and law. Keep it simple and allow the Game Commission to handle wolf management instead of the politicians.

The way my simple mind sees it right now, is that Wyoming's promise to manage at 10 BP/100 wolves is the equivalent to me writing a grant proposal that I'll complete a project but never tell you how I'll do it and what will happen if I fall short on my commitment.

Your mileage may vary.

 

[JLS]

From the New York times:

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/24/us/protection-for-wolves-is-restored-in-wyoming.html?_r=1


I'm no rocket scientist here, but those are the judges words quoted there. So if that's what she says needs fixed, and there's no ruling overturned on the subject, then I would guess (without a degree in Rocket Science) that's what needs fixed.

The bunny huggers on the other hand believe the predator zone will need fixed:



http://www.thewildlifenews.com/2014/09/23/huge-victory/

I too believe that they are wrong! Not sure where they are getting that from the ruling.

I don't know if they can fix that quickly or not. It's too bad, but as Randy said, they have spent some big bucks for this little bit of gain, and harmed the ESA in the process. Like he said, they don't care cause they are just in it for the $ Talk about cutting your nose off to spite your face.

We must be in an echo chamber here, as we were typing simultaneously.

I agree, reading the press releases from CBD and Defenders, I wonder if they are smoking some Washington weed to come to the conclusions they did.

Reading the ruling, I think it's highly likely that the predator zone can be maintained, although I fully realize there are many folks on this board that are way smarter than me on this subject.

 

[shoots-straight]

While hunters fight amongst themselves over petty technicalities the Defenders of Wildlife continue their offensive.

Does anyone here actually think this is the last wolf lawsuit?

http://www.defenders.org/the-war-on-wolves/idahos-war-wolves

Idaho was close to going overboard. I think they backed off a little bit and took away the fuel.

Idaho would drag Montana back down as they are linked together I believe.

2 more years is all we need to be free from the over-site, probationary period.

That's why many of us have been asking for cooler heads to prevail all along.

 

[BigRack]

I'm still waiting for someone to contact Randy and post his words here saying he disagrees with me.

 

[JLS]

I'm still waiting for someone to contact Randy and post his words here saying he disagrees with me.

If you're so adamnant on this why don't you put on your big boy pants and do it yourself?

 

[BigRack]

If you're so adamnant on this why don't you put on your big boy pants and do it yourself?

It's up to you prove he disagrees with me.

I'm sorry to say but it's not that difficult to read what the Judge said.

JLS, Call Randy since you will not trust me.

 

[JLS]

It's up to you prove he disagrees with me.

I'm sorry to say but it's not that difficult to read what the Judge said.

JLS, Call Randy since you will not trust me.

I don't need to prove anything. I have read the plan, read the ruling, and gone so far as to graduate beyond one sentence statements to articulate my position and support it.

If I were to call Randy, I'd probably drive over to Bozeman and buy him a Blizzard for all that he does, and then listen to him tell me that you must be smoking Washington weed too if all you think needs to be done is to codify the addendum.

 

[BigRack]

I don't need to prove anything. I have read the plan, read the ruling, and gone so far as to graduate beyond one sentence statements to articulate my position and support it.

If I were to call Randy, I'd probably drive over to Bozeman and buy him a Blizzard for all that he does, and then listen to him tell me that you must be smoking Washington weed too if all you think needs to be done is to codify the addendum.

Great.

1. You don't have the balls to call him.
2. See #1.

Get back to me when you grow a pair.

 

[JLS]

Great.

1. You don't have the balls to call him.
2. See #1.

Get back to me when you grow a pair.

You're mistaking not having balls for not giving a shit because it's pointless. Pointless being the same thing that arguing with you is. Your mind is about as open as a cue ball. You asked me what I thought Wyoming needed to change and I told you. Your brilliant response is that I need to call Randy? I care as much about changing your mind right now as I care how big of a pair you think I have.

Get back to you? Please, your arrogance is insufferable.

Have a good night.

Move over tjones, time to head back to the bench.

 

[BigRack]

You're mistaking not having balls for not giving a shit because it's pointless. Pointless being the same thing that arguing with you is. Your mind is about as open as a cue ball. I care as much about changing it right now as I care how big of a pair you think I have.

Have a good night.

Move over tjones, time to head back to the bench.

You think hunting wolves in Wyoming is pointless?

I'm not happy you didn't have the balls to call Randy or PM him.

 

[bigeasygator]

I'd be happy to PM Randy and ask how his opinion differs from his but I have no clue what your opinion is other than "nothing needs to change" (which everyone knows is wrong) and "PM Randy". Take some time to articulate your position and I'd be happy to PM him. People have been asking you to do that and youv'e refused. Im not sure if your ignorant to the fact that people don't understand what you are trying to say or prove or if you just like pushing buttons. Hunting wolves is not pointless -- trying to get a logical, thought out, comprehensive response from you is. But once again it seems you've missed JLS's point as you appear to miss everyone else's.

 

[noharleyyet]

More piss in this thread than a bus station bathroom floor. Were this about something as insignificant as a resigning AG, it would've already been locked.

fact

 

[BigRack]

I'd be happy to PM Randy and ask how his opinion differs from his.

Please do PM him and report back to me what he says.