Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't Wyoming letting hunters kill Wolves before this lawsuit?
WY wolves protected again?
- Thread starter jlmatthew
- Start date
- Status
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't Wyoming letting hunters kill Wolves before this lawsuit?
shoots-straight
Well-known member
How about now?
Yes. Delisting occured, and plaintiffs didn't get an injunction to stop implementation. Wyoming had 2 seasons.
Now they have none.
Because people would rather play politics than get the job done.
So the hunters are hurt because of the people that brought the lawsuit. From reading the article, the wolves were fine before the lawsuit.
Hunters weren't behind the lawsuit.
Correct, Wyoming's plan, as championed by SFW, et al, is why there is a lawsuit.
There is no suit in MT or ID, because our plans fill the statutory requirements for delisting under the ESA, which is the law of the land.
WY is ignoring that law and continues to push an idea that has been struck down, repeatedly now, in court.
If you'd rather tilt at windmills, WY's plan is the way to go. If you want to put management in state hands, bring back the original plan.
shoots-straight
Well-known member
Dude, focus! You said:
The lawsuit was brought about because the door was open for it. Courtesy of the Wyoming stockgrowers and SFW. Yes they threw hunters under the bus.Originally Posted by Ben Lamb
How's that working out for them?
WY Stockgrowers often say they couldn't care if the wolf is listed or not. Their interests are looked out for.
They're screwing over hunters, and with a willing partner in SFW.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't Wyoming letting hunters kill Wolves before this lawsuit?
Last edited:
There is no suit in MT and ID because they let the Feds dictate what happens in their State.
I don't know the specifics of the suit, but why did it affect hunting?
Couldn't the judge just say they have to have a limit on the number killed?
Or the people bringing the lawsuit threw hunters under the bus.
Why did lawsuit affect hunting?
shoots-straight
Well-known member
The people who brought the lawsuit could care less about hunters. SFW should but it's all about the money.
I'm sure SFW and BGF are opening new bank accounts as we speak. This is going to be a money maker for them.
YOu are wrong.
MT spent considerable time and effort drafting a plan based on stakeholder input. It was a plan that Montanans made, and stuck too, and defend every session against SFW and their band of fools.
The suit sought to overturn the delisting because WY's plan did not meet the statutory requirements for delisting under the ESA.
Judges cannot manage wildlife from the bench, and honestly, do you really want that?
That is why you have a state plan that adequately manages wolves. It's the job of the state to draft a plan that passes legal muster rather than think you can have a judge do it for you. The state of Wyoming can do a wonderful job managing wolves, and I think their sensitivity to wolves in the trophy zone shows that they are active and adaptable.
The problem, however, doesn't lie with that. The problem is that they are not putting forward a plan that passes the statutory requirements necessary to return management to the state.
It's how we do things in America. Federal law trumps state law, as defined under the supremacy clause of the Constitution.
Why didn't the suit address the classification of wolves in WY instead of delisting?
shoots-straight
Well-known member
After the 2nd Amendment, few in the NRA, SFW or it seems even Wyoming go on to read the Constitution. So don't be clouding the issue with that nonsense.
Did you get to the 10th yet?
D
Deleted member 20812
Guest
Because it is up the STATE to provide an acceptable management plan that provides for adequate protection after delisting. It is not up the FEDS to do this for them.
smarandr
Well-known member
You mean there's a constitutional basis for "the feds telling them what to do?"
And I'm anxiously awaiting your defense of BigRack accusing you of being in league with HSUS and the Michigan lawsuit.
I didn't accuse him of anything. I asked him his position on HSUS and Michigan. I find it odd he isn't commenting on that.
'
There is a Constitutional basis for the States also. It's in the bill of rights.
Michigan just did a great job of kicking HSUS in the nuts by passing a bill that allows their game commission to designate what's a game animal and what is not. This was a direct result of the lawsuit filed there.
it was championed by groups like the National Wildlife Federation, RMEF, etc.
http://abc10up.com/michigan-senate-passes-nrc-wildlife-management-bill/
It could serve as a model for the other states where politics tends to trump scientific management.
- Status
Similar threads
