Wolves and Politics

[Ten Bears]

Don't they have to file their lawsuit in the Circuit the questionable act occurs in. I don't think you can just pick a Circuit Court to file your suits in..... If that was the case only the green/hugger wing would file suits in the 9th.....

 

[shoots-straight]

BHR

Again, you look at the issue as if, the Montana plan is a National plan, it's not.
This is the state plan, MDFW& parks didn't ask for comment from the whole of the US populous to determin how they manage the animals of this state.
Your confusing the issue. The animals are the states to decide on how to manage,and once the wolf is delisted then it will only be up to the people of the state of Montana to manage. Public acceptance comes from within. Just like watching a movie with a woman with PMS. They see it entirerly different. What show did you watch?

You got a D- on comprehension.

 

[JoseCuervo]

Ten Beers,

Strangely enough, you are correct. Excaliper doesn't have a clue what he was talking about. That is why I wondered how he was going to move Wyoming to New England so he could get Wyoming in another circuit.

 

[BigHornRam]

S.S.,

Did you follow the bison issue? Schweitzer thought it would be wise to listen to the New York/D. C. crowd and pulled the plug on it right out of the shute. After getting a lot of "fan" mail closer to home he decided he'd better listen to those that actually voted for him. Let's hope he learned something from that experience and carries it over to wolf management.

 

[Ten Bears]

I hope MT stays the course their on; it's the only one that makes sense for the FUTURE of their elk and OURS. I wish WY would pull their heads out, and get over their own insignificance in the matter. WY reminds me of a little kid at the park that wont play with the other kids until they get their own way, but in reality the other kids could do just fine without them (if they were allowed to have management). I wish there was some way for the feds to release managament (hunting) to MT & ID, but still keep control over WY's woofs (for not knowing how to play well with others).

This is like trying to run a three legged race while tied to a corpse: All 3 legs have to be on the ground, and the good 2 are not allowed to carry the third nor leave it behind. If we don't win the race for control/management we will lose our vast hunting opportunities (the race), and until WY wakes up their just dead weight.

As for those idiots in ID & MT that think we should join WY in some kind of lawsuit, wake up and smell the camp coffee - it's burning. Both states have acceptable management plans; let's keep it that way.

If Idaho gets approval to kill woofs in central Idaho I think it would be great, but I don't think the proposal is outside their bounds to request it. Killing those woofs will not jepordize the woof population in ID. Like some else noted here the proposed killing would kill 3/4 of the existing woofs in that area, not to kill all the woofs.

 

[cmiddleton]

i'm still with you gov dave and bhr all you out of staters can make your own rules but wyoming should make what is right for wyoming and all the josa's and ten bears on here won't change it. you guys are the whiners.
i don't care if you guys want to kill a wolf. tell hell freezes over i'm not budging on the subject.
wyomings plan is the right plan the feds are wrong court or no court wyoming game and fish should tell the feds to get them out or accept a logical and scientific plan that will work.
id and mt already made thair bed and now they will lie on it and in the future they will discover its wrong and won't be allowed to change it.
we spent many years and mega bucks getting our deer and elk populations up now the feds think they need reduced. we can't control the elk population with hunting but winters do and its those winters that we don't wont the woofs.
right now with few wolves we are losing to many young and mid age elk to wolves but in the bad years its going to be devistating.
i still stand for no wolves outside designated areas at all.
i to wish the feds would let mt and id off the hook but wyoming should and will stand firm with our own plan we don't roll over for one biologests personal opinion.

 

[sreekers]

Middleton, Not everyone in Wyoming thinks that we should be fighting the feds, myself included. We are going to lose. Its not that hard to draft a new plan, one that will give us very liberal seasons with the trophy status.

Would you buy a tag? I know I sure would and I would do my best to limit out.

 

[BigHornRam]

Sreekers,

If enough Wyoming residents vote for Ray Hunkins in November you will get your wish. But there will be a lot more hurdles to clear after Wyomings plan is accepted before you and Ten Beers can buy a "Woof" tag.

 

[MNHunter]

With the Dem candidate espousing the role one would think the Rep candidate would have and vice versa, many voters might have to think before voting instead of the reflex to simply find the name next to the (D) or (R) and check it!

 

[Excaliber]

Ten Beers,

Strangely enough, you are correct. Excaliper doesn't have a clue what he was talking about. That is why I wondered how he was going to move Wyoming to New England so he could get Wyoming in another circuit.

lawsuits like this eventually end up in the United States Supreme Court. That's where this case is destined to end up once it's found it's way through the appeals proccess.

 

[JoseCuervo]

lawsuits like this eventually end up in the United States Supreme Court. That's where this case is destined to end up once it's found it's way through the appeals proccess.

Uhhhh... they really don't. On what grounds do you think the Supreme Court would choose to review "lawsuits like this"? They tend to be pretty selective in what cases they hear. You can't just appeal cases to the Supreme Court.

But, given that you think this will end up at the Supreme Court, why do you think it matters which Circuit the original suit is filed in?

 

[MNHunter]

Each Supreme Court justice is responsible for an area of the country to hear appeals. If that justice thinks it is worth hearing the case they will take the writ of certiorari to the Court. If 4 justices agree to hear the case, it will be heard. Very rarely will a justice step on the toes of another to hear a case from their area. So, the hurdles are
1) the Justice to whom WY would appeal to had better be sympatetic to states' rights (Anyone know who it is?)
2) 3 other Justices must agree to hear it
3) 5 members must agree with WY

Sounds like an uphill battle for WY. I bet the SCOTUS refuses to hear an appeal relating to woofs.

I should note that since WY will be a party to the suit, the SCOTUS could have original jurisdictionbut 4 justices will still have to agree to hear it.

 

[JoseCuervo]

1) the Justice to whom WY would appeal to had better be sympatetic to states' rights (Anyone know who it is?)
.

The Tenth Circuit has Justice Breyer, a Clinton appointee.

And there still has to be a reason for the Supremes to take up the matter. I don't think they would take up the case just because some six-toed redneck from Wyoming is afraid of a wolf chasing the elk farther from his roads and ATVs.

 

[Excaliber]

Uhhhh... they really don't. On what grounds do you think the Supreme Court would choose to review "lawsuits like this"? They tend to be pretty selective in what cases they hear. You can't just appeal cases to the Supreme Court.

But, given that you think this will end up at the Supreme Court, why do you think it matters which Circuit the original suit is filed in?

I may be wrong about taking it to another Court in another Circuit but a case of this magnitude will most likely makes it's way all through the appeals process.

MNHunter seems to be well informed on how this may or may not play out in the future.

 

[JoseCuervo]

I may be wrong about taking it to another Court in another Circuit but a case of this magnitude will most likely makes it's way all through the appeals process.

MNHunter seems to be well informed on how this may or may not play out in the future.

What is the "magnatude" of this case? Do you think there is any "magnatude" to the gun control lawsuits? When was the last time one of those went to the Supreme Court? (I'll give you a hint, you weren't alive yet....).

And what do you think would ever make this to the Supreme Court? They don't hear cases because they are bored, they have to have a reason to hear a case.

 

[Excaliber]

The Tenth Circuit has Justice Breyer, a Clinton appointee.

And there still has to be a reason for the Supremes to take up the matter. I don't think they would take up the case just because some six-toed redneck from Wyoming is afraid of a wolf chasing the elk farther from his roads and ATVs.

Maybe we should not even worry about Wolves at all by your thinking. I really could care less one way or the other now. We as hunters will never get anything accomplished when it comes to uniting on any issue. The Pro wolfers own us and it's all too apparent when 40,000+ comments come into IDF&G about killing Wolves in the Selway and only 3,000 were from hunters or in favor of killing the Wolves.

At least they are not in my areas I hunt yet and I don't think they will be until they run out of Elk here.
Like them or not there here to stay and when the Elk populations get to the point where there is not enough surplus animals for us and the Wolves, guess who's going to still get your share.

We'll see in about 10 years who was right about Wolves.

 

[BigHornRam]

"The Pro wolfers own us and it's all too apparent when 40,000+ comments come into IDF&G about killing Wolves in the Selway and only 3,000 were from hunters or in favor of killing the Wolves."

Excaliber,

Where did you get this information? If it's accurate, that's not a good sign.

 

[JoseCuervo]

Excaliber,

Where did you get this information? If it's accurate, that's not a good sign.

BHR,
Read his previous posts, the probability of his numbers being accurate is very low.

 

[MNHunter]

Stephen Breyer, huh? I wouldn't put much hope in him taking the case to the full court for consideration unless it is the feds who lose. Besides, based on the history of the court in dealing with wildlife issues (as with gun control issues) the Court will most likely pass. Lastly, I really don't see a Constitutional argument that would merit a hearing with the Supreme Court.

 

[IDHunters]

BHR's numbers are right. The numbers come from public comments received regarding controlling wolf numbers in the clearwater area. I believe the actual "against" comments were 41,000 with over 40,000 of them coming in from a "form e-mail" created by defenders of wildlife and forwarded to the IDFG. Its management by opinion and the opinion of the locals doesn 't matter.

Its ironic that 40,000 identical e-mails make an impact in the process but 40,000 signatures by Idaho residents to get rid of the wolves are dismissed.