Michigan AG to US Fish and Wildlife Service: Abandon your flawed proposal on gray wolves

Addicting

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 19, 2017
Messages
2,494
Location
SW Michigan
“On behalf of the People of Michigan”

Not on my behalf, funny I don’t remember seeing this come out on a ballot to poll the state.
 

Ben Lamb

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 6, 2010
Messages
10,380
Location
Helena
Seems like they're arguing the legal points of the delisting order. Maybe USFWS should consider the AG's opinion. She's arguing to delist MI while not messing with other states that haven't met the delisting criteria.

She's arguing the legal parameters of the rule, not the biology.
 

RockinU

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 27, 2019
Messages
260
Location
Texas
She might be arguing the legal parameters of the rule, but she's doing it with hyperbole. I can't imagine any circumstance where any agency, be it state or federal, will allow any recovered wolf population to "be hunted to near extinction again". Stick to the merits of your argument without all the emotional BS and I'd be a lot more receptive to hearing the argument.
 

icebreaker12

Active member
Joined
Oct 28, 2016
Messages
314
Seems like they're arguing the legal points of the delisting order. Maybe USFWS should consider the AG's opinion. She's arguing to delist MI while not messing with other states that haven't met the delisting criteria.

She's arguing the legal parameters of the rule, not the biology.
Yep, extending this delisting rule to all of the lower 48 won't fly.
 

Ben Lamb

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 6, 2010
Messages
10,380
Location
Helena
She might be arguing the legal parameters of the rule, but she's doing it with hyperbole. I can't imagine any circumstance where any agency, be it state or federal, will allow any recovered wolf population to "be hunted to near extinction again". Stick to the merits of your argument without all the emotional BS and I'd be a lot more receptive to hearing the argument.
She's citing the lack of regulatory mechanisms in those states included in this rule. That's a major legal flag, this is also what happens when you let Don Peay/Ryan Benson/BGF/SFW write your rules.
 

Gila

Active member
Joined
Jun 8, 2019
Messages
113
Location
New Mexico
The comment period on the recommendation by the FWS to delist wolves ftom the ESA in the lower 48 states is over with. This Mich AG is just trying to throw a desparate last minute wrench into the gears of the process. Sec. Zinke is expected to endorse the FWS delisting recommendation any day now. Once the wolves are de-listed, Michigan (or any other state for that matter) is free to protect wolves in any manner they wish to.
 

theat

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 28, 2010
Messages
600
Location
NW Montana
The comment period on the recommendation by the FWS to delist wolves ftom the ESA in the lower 48 states is over with. This Mich AG is just trying to throw a desparate last minute wrench into the gears of the process. Sec. Zinke is expected to endorse the FWS delisting recommendation any day now. Once the wolves are de-listed, Michigan (or any other state for that matter) is free to protect wolves in any manner they wish to.

Hmm, for some reason (or many reasons) I just don't see it happening quite like how you are predicting.
 

Schaaf

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 14, 2014
Messages
1,928
Location
Fort Peck, MT
The comment period on the recommendation by the FWS to delist wolves ftom the ESA in the lower 48 states is over with. This Mich AG is just trying to throw a desparate last minute wrench into the gears of the process. Sec. Zinke is expected to endorse the FWS delisting recommendation any day now. Once the wolves are de-listed, Michigan (or any other state for that matter) is free to protect wolves in any manner they wish to.
Secretary Who?
 

Gila

Active member
Joined
Jun 8, 2019
Messages
113
Location
New Mexico
Sec. BERNHARDT 😊 Sometimes it is difficult for me to see who is in the revolving door these days.

Comment period is over with. So where do you folks think this process is to supposed to go? Why don't we just all congratulate each other on a job well done for being able to remove the wolf fom the Endangered Species List.
 

Gila

Active member
Joined
Jun 8, 2019
Messages
113
Location
New Mexico
How does a lawyer argue against scientific data anyway?

 
Last edited:

icebreaker12

Active member
Joined
Oct 28, 2016
Messages
314
Sec. BERNHARDT 😊 Sometimes it is difficult for me to see who is in the revolving door these days.

Comment period is over with. So where do you folks think this process is to supposed to go? Why don't we just all congratulate each other on a job well done for being able to remove the wolf fom the Endangered Species List.
There will be a stay on this decision within a few weeks and it will be overturned within a few months.

If they had said Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin, and Washington, Oregon, and California were delisted we would be looking at a different situation.
 

Ben Sellers

Active member
Joined
Oct 29, 2018
Messages
190
How does a lawyer argue against scientific data anyway?

Easy! The law and science or the law and common sense have nothing to do with each other. Also every case or trial has lawyers arguing both sides saying the opposite of each other. Every single case.
 

Gila

Active member
Joined
Jun 8, 2019
Messages
113
Location
New Mexico
There will be a stay on this decision within a few weeks and it will be overturned within a few months.

If they had said Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin, and Washington, Oregon, and California were delisted we would be looking at a different situation.
Washington?
 

icebreaker12

Active member
Joined
Oct 28, 2016
Messages
314
Washington?
Whats your point? Wolves are still listed as endangered in the western 2/3's of Washington. Also, I din't look far enough into the status in CA, but those wolves should remain on the list. The remainder of OR, and states of MI, MN, and WI should be delisted though.
 

Gila

Active member
Joined
Jun 8, 2019
Messages
113
Location
New Mexico
Easy! The law and science or the law and common sense have nothing to do with each other. Also every case or trial has lawyers arguing both sides saying the opposite of each other. Every single case.
There was a FWS hearing in Minnesota (not a court hearing). Sportsmen do not agree with you environmentalists. You may get another FWS hearing, however I wouldn't expect much more then that this time. The Michigan's AG blurb rings hollow. This is the real McCoy SCI, not the "poser":

 

Ben Sellers

Active member
Joined
Oct 29, 2018
Messages
190

Gila

Active member
Joined
Jun 8, 2019
Messages
113
Location
New Mexico
That was not my intention to indicate tha
I don’t know what gives you the idea that I’m on the side of the wolves. What I said was a longer version of many lawyers will argue BS all day if they’re paid enough. Someone represented Jeffrey Dahmer if you recall.
That was not my intention to put you on one side or the other. I apologize for not being more clear. I was only trying to agree with you and illustrate that your statement is how the environmentalists tend to do things. Often times they can't thwart the science or if do, they try to distort the data to fit a loophole in the law if one exists. Allow me to state the obvious: The USC is boiled down to Federal regulations that allow Federal agencies to function and execute the law. The "rule" in the Federal Register is the way the USFWS executes their plans. The OGC "office of the general counsel" for the DOI, legally approves the proposed rules by the USFWS and defends the FWS/DOI in Federal Court if need be. The enviros found a Federal Judge to put the kabosh on part of a previous plan to de-list wolves in 2017. I am not familiar with what went on then. However, the same argument won't fly this time around.
 
Top