Latest APR. SENT TO me by a friend

[Nameless Range]

Those goofballs, along with the Western Environmental Law Center, are leading the charge in the courts for the protection of the environment. They represent a variety of organizations you may support (or at least think are not goofballs) in various cases. I get that any individual may not agree with every case they fight. I certainly don't. Reasonable people can disagree, and politics makes strange bedfellows (yes, we all know this is political). Montanans that punish the APR or anything else because of a bias against the legal firm making the fight seems like a great plan for losing. If someone wants to create a legal firm that pays the staff meager wages for a ton of work that will only represent their specific interest, I will applaud the effort.

Montanans will punish you for the company you keep, for both good and bad reasons. Outside of my own personal opinions on the issues, being represented by a group that is diametrically opposed to the large majority of Montanans on some of our leading conservation issues (wolves, grizzlies, timber harvest, etc.) is going to fortify the believers and increase distrust in the skeptics that APR is no bueno.

I suppose the miracle here is that EJ and other litigious organizations are all of a sudden pro public land grazing.

 

[SAJ-99]

Montanans will punish you for the company you keep, for both good and bad reasons. Outside of my own personal opinions on the issues, being represented by a group that is diametrically opposed to the large majority of Montanans on some of our leading conservation issues (wolves, grizzlies, timber harvest, etc.) is going to fortify the believers and increase distrust in the skeptics that APR is no bueno.

I suppose the miracle here is that EJ and other litigious organizations are all of a sudden pro public land grazing.

In some ways I get it. All I can say is that holding that view is going to result in getting your teeth kicked in. Hunters and outdoors people don't have many legal organizations to represent them, because they are too bust fighting on the internet. The changes in NEPA reviews will mean everything that can be logged, mined, or drilled has little stopping it from happening. You also need people in your corner when individual parcels are sold or transferred to the highest bidder, or highest briber. That is coming. I would love to live in a world where we debate these things and determine if the cost is worth the benefit. This isn't the Great Depression or WWII where eminent domain can be implemented toward an end goal with little consideration of future consequences. Unfortunately I believe that time is gone. Lawyer up.

 

[bayoublaster7527]

Not true. Montana hunted grizzlies until 1993 or 1994 when they were listed as threatened. They were listed in 1975...so almost 2 decades Montana hunted a threatened species.

Fair point but I believe they were referencing this:

• 2017–2018: Earthjustice led a coalition in a lawsuit to block scheduled grizzly bear trophy hunts in Wyoming and Idaho after the Yellowstone population was delisted.

And I will admit I am pretty skeptical when a person or organization leads with “I am not anti-hunting, I just oppose trophy hunting”. Because that is the leading phrase we hear time and time again from the rabid anti-hunting activists here in Colorado as they try to eliminate harvest of pretty much everything.

I am not in any way trying to say that APR is anti-hunting, it seems to be quite clear from folks with real world experience that APR provides access to numerous hunters annually. Earthjustice has clearly taken up anti-hunting positions. However, that seems to be a small portion of their partners/clients, most of it is standard environmental work. I did see all the usual anti-hunting suspects listed on their website: CBD, Humane Society, Sierra Club, etc, along with hundreds of others unrelated to hunting/animal welfare.

Earthjustice might a be killer lawfare group, just not an organization I would donate to.

 

[bayoublaster7527]

In some ways I get it. All I can say is that holding that view is going to result in getting your teeth kicked in. Hunters and outdoors people don't have many legal organizations to represent them, because they are too bust fighting on the internet. The changes in NEPA reviews will mean everything that can be logged, mined, or drilled has little stopping it from happening. You also need people in your corner when individual parcels are sold or transferred to the highest bidder, or highest briber. That is coming. I would love to live in a world where we debate these things and determine if the cost is worth the benefit. This isn't the Great Depression or WWII where eminent domain can be implemented toward an end goal with little consideration of future consequences. Unfortunately I believe that time is gone. Lawyer up.

I agree hunters absolutely need more legal organizations to file suit or defend on their behalf. The only ones that come to mind recently is Sportsman's Alliance in WA, SCI and Sportsman's Alliance in CO, and BHA corner crossing in WY.

 

[Straight Arrow]

“I am not anti-hunting, I just oppose trophy hunting”

The group is not broadly "anti-hunting," but they are anti-trophy hunting of endangered or threatened species.
It's disingenuous when your failure to complete the entire statement is perpetrated merely to hold your skewed ideology.

I am not in any way trying to say that APR is anti-hunting, it seems to be quite clear from folks with real world experience that APR provides access to numerous hunters annually.

'Sounds like some sort of concession of fact that took much to convince you. Likely your bias against AP was fueled by the longstanding irrational myths which have been lied.

Earthjustice might a be killer lawfare group, just not an organization I would donate to.

That is certainly your prerogative, and mine as well. However, as pointed to, it's really the deep pockets that fund the successes.
('Don't mean to be disrespectful if you are a deep pockets guy.)

 

[Straight Arrow]

I agree hunters absolutely need more legal organizations to file suit or defend on their behalf. The only ones that come to mind recently is Sportsman's Alliance in WA, SCI and Sportsman's Alliance in CO, and BHA corner crossing in WY.

According to the AI Chatbot referenced above, EJ has been such an organization. Not suggesting that you should therefore donate; but maybe put that one among those "that come to mind".

they (EJ) have recently won cases (such as the 2025 "corner crossing" ruling) that actually expanded access for hunters to reach millions of acres of "landlocked" public land in the West.

 

[mtmuley]

Lawyer up.

There it is. mtmuley

 

[BuzzH]

There it is. mtmuley

What choice do you have? Do you really think WYBHA wanted to raise 250K to fight corner crossing?

I'm not bitching because it was money well spent and our attorneys did it cheap, but the point is, that's how we do battle on these issues.

However, what I will bitch about is Hunters and Anglers as a whole are cheap asses when it comes to putting their money where there mouths are.

You don't see Sportmen offering up money to fight this BS BLM over reach in AP's case regarding their grazing rights.

 

[mtmuley]

What choice do you have? Do you really think WYBHA wanted to raise 250K to fight corner crossing?

I'm not bitching because it was money well spent and our attorneys did it cheap, but the point is, that's how we do battle on these issues.

I get it. Not happy it has to come to litigation for so many issues like this. Not surprised though. Kudos for WYBHA. Thanks. mtmuley

 

[BuzzH]

I get it. Not happy it has to come to litigation for so many issues like this. Not surprised though. Kudos for WYBHA. Thanks. mtmuley

Totally agree it does suck but the Sportsmen's community is missing the boat by not having a central litigation fund, group, etc.

If you want to play ball, you need to have a team.