Wolf lawsuit decision. - Not to say "we told you so"

[44hunter45]

But we told you so. Many of us said that Idaho and Montana Legislators' waging war on Canis Lupis was putting us at risk of ESA restrictions being re-applied. Happy now Jersey Greg?

Judge Malloy noted the legislative interference in wolf management in his decision on ESA protections.

Federal court overturns decision denying Endangered Species protection...

Federal court overturns decision denying Endangered Species protections to wolves

www.dnews.com

 

[Elktrack]

I’d argue that it’s not a result of “waging war “ on them. They would still be pursuing the ESA protection. It’s ridiculous. The fact that they got the judge to dismiss the US Fish and Wildlife Service findings is interesting. The individual states are managing numbers that exceed the required numbers yet this is deemed unacceptable. Let’s face it, they really don’t want any wolves killed/managed and are going to continue with legislation. In their fairytale, Disney utopia there is no need for hunting because the wolves will keep numbers in balance. The whole thing is a joke.

 

[brymoore]

Idaho wolves will remain under state control despite judge's decision

Idaho’s wolves will remain under state authority despite a judge’s recent decision that calls for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to reconsider a previous determination that relisting wolves in Idaho, Montana and Wyoming under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) was not warranted.

idfg.idaho.gov

IDFG’s response. I doubt USFW is going to decide that wolves are an endangered species from its second review. States may be asked to review/change some of the hunting regulations.

 

[Labman]

But we told you so. Many of us said that Idaho and Montana Legislators' waging war on Canis Lupis was putting us at risk of ESA restrictions being re-applied. Happy now Jersey Greg?

Judge Malloy noted the legislative interference in wolf management in his decision on ESA protections.

Federal court overturns decision denying Endangered Species protection...

Federal court overturns decision denying Endangered Species protections to wolves

www.dnews.com

So we are supposed to just accept 10x the number of wolves over and above the minimum required? F that.

You forgot to include the prefix “Liberal activist” in front of “Judge” Malloy.

 

[44hunter45]

@Labman - Betting you have never even shot a wolf. Statistically a good bet, since most Idahoans and Montanans like bitching about wolves more than killing them. Sumbitches are hard to kill. Why did the legislatures of both states override their respective agencies management plans? Because the lazy assed hunters of our states just aren't killing enough F'ing wolves. Just ask any American Farm Bureau member or anyone sitting on bar stool anywhere in Idaho, Montana, or Wyoming.

What my post refers to is that many of us said that when target population maximum numbers were included in the legislation, it was inevitable that the Center for Biological Diversity would find a judge to question the measuring systems. And here we are. These lawyers are making a fat living protecting the fuzzy wuzzies, and the taxpayer is footing the bill. Why would any lawyer give up their cash cow? This will never stop the cycle of lawsuits until EAJA is fixed to cut them off that nipple.

BTW - The number when these bills were passed was that we were at 2X the minimum. You think there are 10X now? Maybe instead of F'ing these wolves, hunters should kill more.

 

[Labman]

Betting you have never even shot a wolf.

How much?…

 

[44hunter45]

How much?…

Happy to eat crow on this, but pictures or it didn't happen. I never have, but I've always got a tag in my pocket. Missed one with my bow once.

 

[Labman]

 

[44hunter45]

View attachment 380834

 

[Bonasababy]

But we told you so. Many of us said that Idaho and Montana Legislators' waging war on Canis Lupis was putting us at risk of ESA restrictions being re-applied. Happy now Jersey Greg?

Judge Malloy noted the legislative interference in wolf management in his decision on ESA protections.

Federal court overturns decision denying Endangered Species protection...

Federal court overturns decision denying Endangered Species protections to wolves

www.dnews.com

Some key statements. Same old same old. Politicians never learn it seems.

the threat posed by inadequate state and federal regulations that often bow to political headwinds.
Molloy wrote that negative public attitudes are “undisputedly expressed in the legislative bodies governing Montana and Idaho,” and said FWS did not consider how those attitudes would impact state commitments to maintaining minimum populations of wolves needed to prevent relisting.
“Management of Canis lupus must not be by a political yo-yo process,” Molloy wrote.

FWS acknowledged that high harvest rates in Idaho and Montana could reduce state populations by 80% to 90%, resulting in “fewer than 100 wolves in each state.”

“Wildlife management agencies are likely to find themselves in a Catch-22 as they cannot escape from mutually conflicting dependent conditions: If the federal agency succeeds in restoring the gray wolf, leading to delisting, then the state agencies will depredate the wolf, leading to relisting, engendering a fruitless cycle of delisting and relisting,” Molloy wrote.

I guess I'd like to see the evidence that states can reduce the population as far as the FWS warned about, lots of doubts on that--but the main lessons are clear and keep showing up again and again.

Recovery goal numbers are just that--NOT levels to decline towards as fast as possible.

Set reasonable regulations, tie them to the best science, show you are monitoring and adjusting effectively based on monitoring results--and acknowledge the goals is to maintain populations at a level safely above the recovery goal.

You'll have a fighting chance in court then.

I'm not sure the politicians care that they are just handing ammo to antis they can turn and use with success in courts--but they get support in that from too many people.

 

[longbow51]

Molloy is the liberal go-to for any far-left cause, and will be a monkey wrench in any management plan until he retires, when, presumably, they will find another. Cash cow for the trial bar.

 

[bayoublaster7527]

The litigants here will never allow any animal to come out from under ESA protections if they think there is any chance the state will allow regulated hunting. For them there is no real recovery level. These are the same folks that push hunting bans in other states. And regardless of what actions state wildlife agencies take, the lawsuits will never stop because that is part of their business model. Without lawsuits there is no fundraising and without fundraising there is no organization. Sounds like they found their guy and that is Molloy.

That being said state wildlife agencies need to help themselves by ensuring their policies are grounded in sound science and defensible.

 

[Bonasababy]

The litigants here will never allow any animal to come out from under ESA protections if they think there is any chance the state will allow regulated hunting. For them there is no real recovery level. These are the same folks that push hunting bans in other states. And regardless of what actions state wildlife agencies take, the lawsuits will never stop because that is part of their business model. Without lawsuits there is no fundraising and without fundraising there is no organization. Sounds like they found their guy and that is Molloy.

That being said state wildlife agencies need to help themselves by ensuring their policies are grounded in sound science and defensible.

The agencies are not the problem!

 

[huntnpack]

I presume they're going to try to put us in mediation, which we'll contest," he says. "Then we'll spend months filing briefs. I doubt that the 9th Circuit hears oral arguments on this until a year from now. And I doubt it issues a decision for another six months after that." - lead lawyer for the Sportsmen's Alliance, Micheal Jean

 

[Lota lota]

@Labman - Betting you have never even shot a wolf. Statistically a good bet, since most Idahoans and Montanans like bitching about wolves more than killing them. Sumbitches are hard to kill. Why did the legislatures of both states override their respective agencies management plans? Because the lazy assed hunters of our states just aren't killing enough F'ing wolves. Just ask any American Farm Bureau member or anyone sitting on bar stool anywhere in Idaho, Montana, or Wyoming.

What my post refers to is that many of us said that when target population maximum numbers were included in the legislation, it was inevitable that the Center for Biological Diversity would find a judge to question the measuring systems. And here we are. These lawyers are making a fat living protecting the fuzzy wuzzies, and the taxpayer is footing the bill. Why would any lawyer give up their cash cow? This will never stop the cycle of lawsuits until EAJA is fixed to cut them off that nipple.

BTW - The number when these bills were passed was that we were at 2X the minimum. You think there are 10X now? Maybe instead of F'ing these wolves, hunters should kill more.

You don't account for how many ranchers/hunters etc. "harvest" out of season or don't report. I had a biologist tell me that they estimate for every wolf killed and reported, there's 3 more that aren't. Some people just shoot and leave them lay...and keep their mouths shut.

 

[Lota lota]

FWS acknowledged that high harvest rates in Idaho and Montana could reduce state populations by 80% to 90%, resulting in “fewer than 100 wolves in each state.”

We could only hope

 

[Elktrack]

You don't account for how many ranchers/hunters etc. "harvest" out of season or don't report. I had a biologist tell me that they estimate for every wolf killed and reported, there's 3 more that aren't. Some people just shoot and leave them lay...and keep their mouths shut.

I’m calling BS on that one

 

[Lota lota]

I’m calling BS on that one

I can't count on both hands and feet how many people I know have done it. I didn't say it, the biologist did. Take it up with her. I'm just reporting what I was told.

 

[texwest44]

I’m calling BS on that one

I bet it varies by area. I have permission to shoot wolves on-sight without any tagging or reporting requirements due to livestock attacks.

 

[Nick87]

You don't account for how many ranchers/hunters etc. "harvest" out of season or don't report. I had a biologist tell me that they estimate for every wolf killed and reported, there's 3 more that aren't. Some people just shoot and leave them lay...and keep their mouths shut.

Finding gut shot wolves in parts of north central Wisconsin seems to be more common than most (myself included) would believe.