So why didn't this lawsuit in WY address classification instead of kicking hunters in the nuts?
WY wolves protected again?
- Thread starter jlmatthew
- Start date
- Status
So why didn't this lawsuit in WY address classification instead of kicking hunters in the nuts?
D
Deleted member 20812
Guest
Because that's how the delisting process process works. If the states provide an adequate measure of protection, then the delisting occurs and management is turned over to the state. It's an all or none process.
Wyoming could petition to have wolves delisted in the area of the state where they are managed under harvest quotas, but in reality it would be much easier and better for them if they simply rewrote their original plan.
Read the lawsuit and then tell me what it was about.
smarandr
Well-known member
Now, I know my reading comprehension isn't up to BigRack levels, but this sure looks like an accusation to me.
Accusations don't have question marks behind them.
D
Deleted member 20812
Guest
Because the people filing this lawsuit could care less about hunters. They were looking for an avenue to keep federal protection over wolves and Wyoming gave them the ammunition they needed.
As much as you like to perpetuate the meme that Montana and Idaho did what the feds dictated, the reality is that they both have defensible management plans and hence the reason they were able to separate themselves from Wyoming's debacle with the USFWS.
You tell me what they were asking for?
Take 10 minutes and read it. It won't bite.
smarandr
Well-known member
Sure they can: BigRack, have you stopped beating your wife yet?
The lawsuit asked for Federal control. Why didn't they ask for a change in classification?
shoots-straight
Well-known member
Then move on to the "Endangered Species Act".
You really should read the lawsuit. You're making assumptions, and we all know what that means.
Grin,
I'm going by this. Is the press wrong?
http://www.oregonlive.com/pacific-n...f/2012/11/environmentalists_file_federal.html
RobG
Well-known member
BigRack - I'm not trying to be argumentative, but your comments indicate to me that you have missed some of the background on this so maybe this will help (Ben knows way more about this than me, but I'll try). Basically when the population objectives were met Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming were supposed to take over management so when the population objectives were met these states put together plans.
Unfortunately Wyoming's plan was so extreme that the courts wouldn't allow it and the wolf remained on the ESA for a few years. In other words, Wyoming was screwing it up for everyone because of the "kill them all" attitude of their leaders, which was simply politics - a show for the voters that they were not going to be pushed around by the feds or "wolf lovers." In addition the wolf advocates were running their own interference campaign.
Some leaders, Rehberg comes (painfully) to mind, put together bills so extreme they didn't have a chance of passing - again, politics to impress the simplistic folks and the groups like SFW that just saw money in keeping the issue alive while simultaneously appearing to the simpletons that they were making progress.
Finally Tester/Simpson - people who actually wanted a solution - put together a reasonable rider that took the animals off the ESA and allowed Montana and Idaho (and Minnesota, Wisconsin?) to manage wolves within their borders. They were criticized by the simpletons because it didn't have the "kill them all" mentality, but it was solution.
It was also a big FU to Wyoming, since they were not allowed to be a part of it because of their extreme plan. Eventually Wyoming toned it down enough for one of the judges to allow them to manage their wolves, but Ben Lamb (and I'm sure others here) has been saying for years that it wasn't good enough and someone would successfully sue. And he has been proven correct.
I've known Ben for a dozen years and he has been closely involved with this issue much longer than that so pay attention to what he says...
Unfortunately Wyoming's plan was so extreme that the courts wouldn't allow it and the wolf remained on the ESA for a few years. In other words, Wyoming was screwing it up for everyone because of the "kill them all" attitude of their leaders, which was simply politics - a show for the voters that they were not going to be pushed around by the feds or "wolf lovers." In addition the wolf advocates were running their own interference campaign.
Some leaders, Rehberg comes (painfully) to mind, put together bills so extreme they didn't have a chance of passing - again, politics to impress the simplistic folks and the groups like SFW that just saw money in keeping the issue alive while simultaneously appearing to the simpletons that they were making progress.
Finally Tester/Simpson - people who actually wanted a solution - put together a reasonable rider that took the animals off the ESA and allowed Montana and Idaho (and Minnesota, Wisconsin?) to manage wolves within their borders. They were criticized by the simpletons because it didn't have the "kill them all" mentality, but it was solution.
It was also a big FU to Wyoming, since they were not allowed to be a part of it because of their extreme plan. Eventually Wyoming toned it down enough for one of the judges to allow them to manage their wolves, but Ben Lamb (and I'm sure others here) has been saying for years that it wasn't good enough and someone would successfully sue. And he has been proven correct.
I've known Ben for a dozen years and he has been closely involved with this issue much longer than that so pay attention to what he says...
roadhunter
Banned
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2013
- Messages
- 719
About the same as it did when Montana decided it wasn't' going to have a speed limit on interstates. We all know how that worked out.
mdunc8
Well-known member
I'll save everyone the legwork.
I think you have summed it up correctly. I have a problem with the lawsuit asking for Federal control vs having Wyoming change their plan.
Thank you.
- Status
Similar threads
