WY wolves protected again?

[cantgetdrawn]

There are those who see this as all politics, and granted when BGF/SFW got involve it probably became more political. I am no fan of these organizations and believe they corrupt.

Sometimes however you have to fight for what you think is right. I don't live in Wyoming but it is obvious that there are a great many people who simply do not want wolves at all or want them isolated in the Yellowstone region. Sure they could compromise, kill a few wolves and hope they can keep them from population at reasonable numbers in other parts of the state.

Instead they choose to fight, yesterday they lost a battle and they will probably lose the war. Personally I admire them for sticking to principles and not bending over.

In the mean time my guess is the governor of Wyoming will instruct state officials not to enforce these laws and it will be up to the Fed to police people killing wolves.

 

[Nemont]

They can't sue MT and ID because of Federal law or else they would have.

This lawsuit wasn't about changing the plan or helping hunters.

The judge made the wrong ruling.

Why would the HSUS file a lawsuit that would result in helping hunters? The lawsuit was about relisting Wyoming wolves because Wyoming has basically a shoot on sight management plan.

If the judge ruled incorrectly then it should be overturned on appeal.

Why wasn't Wyoming included on the Simpson-Tester Amendment that keeps the HSUS from suing Montana and Idaho? Answer that question first and all the other ones you have asked will be self evident why Wyoming decided to crap where it eats.

Nemont

 

[Ben Lamb]

They can't sue MT and ID because of Federal law or else they would have.

This lawsuit wasn't about changing the plan or helping hunters.

The judge made the wrong ruling.

This is pretty far off from the truth.

People can still sue the USFWS over delisting of wolves in MT & ID, but they cannot sue over the delisting rule. The elimination of judicial review under Simpson-Tester meant that you can't sue to pull back the delisting decision, because technically, you cannot delist a distinct population segment based on any boundary other than the DPS boundary. The 2009 delisting rule violated that by delisting only MT & ID.

The litigants can still sue over the technicalities of plans, and especially on the issue of genetic connectivity. Their case is pretty weak given the research done by Hebbewhite which shows we reached genetic connectivity between isolated populations (central ID & GYE) by 2005 with approximately 450 wolves. The 15 breeding pair/150 wolves number gets thrown around a lot, but the genetic connectivity argument will trump that in court, since science isn't static and things change (plus, you need all three components, genetics, min population & an approved plan). Further more, any significant changes to MT or ID's plan could result in litigation to relist, or at the very least, cause a review of status under the ESA.

Wyoming's plan might have been approved by the Feds, but it falls short of the ESA, which is the law of the land.

The judge may well have ruled in error, but that's for an appellate court to decide, not armchair jurists.

 

[Nemont]

Instead they choose to fight, yesterday they lost a battle and they will probably lose the war. Personally I admire them for sticking to principles and not bending over.

That's the spirit, stupid government and all the sheeple


Nemont

 

[BigRack]

Why wasn't Wyoming included on the Simpson-Tester Amendment that keeps the HSUS from suing Montana and Idaho? Answer that question first and all the other ones you have asked will be self evident why Wyoming decided to crap where it eats.

Nemont

Randy already addressed that.

I'm not debating the merits of Wyoming's plan. I am debating Ben when he blamed it on ranchers. I am blaming it on HSUS because they are not suing to change the plan. They are suing to stop wolf hunting all together.

 

[BigRack]

This is pretty far off from the truth.

People can still sue the USFWS over delisting of wolves in MT & ID, but they cannot sue over the delisting rule. The elimination of judicial review under Simpson-Tester meant that you can't sue to pull back the delisting decision, because technically, you cannot delist a distinct population segment based on any boundary other than the DPS boundary. The 2009 delisting rule violated that by delisting only MT & ID.

The litigants can still sue over the technicalities of plans, and especially on the issue of genetic connectivity. Their case is pretty weak given the research done by Hebbewhite which shows we reached genetic connectivity between isolated populations (central ID & GYE) by 2005 with approximately 450 wolves. The 15 breeding pair/150 wolves number gets thrown around a lot, but the genetic connectivity argument will trump that in court, since science isn't static and things change (plus, you need all three components, genetics, min population & an approved plan). Further more, any significant changes to MT or ID's plan could result in litigation to relist, or at the very least, cause a review of status under the ESA.

Wyoming's plan might have been approved by the Feds, but it falls short of the ESA, which is the law of the land.

The judge may well have ruled in error, but that's for an appellate court to decide, not armchair jurists.

The point is HSUS sued to stop wolf hunting, not change the plan.

 

[Ben Lamb]

The point is HSUS sued to stop wolf hunting, not change the plan.

Glad you admit you were wrong.

HSUS sued in Michigan, and their suit was wrong. The Great Lakes States all had approved plans that included components about hunting and those states have done a great job balancing the desires of livestock producers, hunters and wildlife advocates. There were some technical hangups on the USFWS end that precluded a delisting there.

HSUS wasn't the only party to the WY suit. That was CBD, Defenders, etc. as well, so let's be sure we don't elevate one litigant over the others.

The lawsuit was brought against Wyoming's wolf management plan. The litigants cannot state demands in legal action, they can only bring suit against what they believe are violations of the law. In this case, it means that WY will have to change their plan to meet the decision, so in effect, yes, the sued to change the plan.

it certainly is a side benefit for them that wolf management in Wyoming is now back in the hands of the Feds.

As to my point about it being "ranchers" fault. I didn't say that. I said it was the Wyoming Stockgrowers Assn, Wyoming Wool Growers Assn, Farm Bureau and SFW who teamed up to force a political plan that had little chance of surviving litigation so they could prove a point. I know several ranchers in WY who would advocate for trophy game status, similar to what MT has, and what was originally proposed (All within the current trophy zone and all whom have suffered from depredation).

Well, they proved it. And now Wyoming has to re-negotiate a 3rd or 4th time to get a new plan.

 

[cantgetdrawn]

That's the spirit, stupid government and all the sheeple


Nemont

I guess you are being sarcastic. That type of sarcasm is usually the sign of a small mind, but I will assume you are the exception to the rule.

 

[BigRack]

As to my point about it being "ranchers" fault. I didn't say that. I said it was the Wyoming Stockgrowers Assn, Wyoming Wool Growers Assn, Farm Bureau and SFW who teamed up to force a political plan that had little chance of surviving litigation so they could prove a point. I know several ranchers in WY who would advocate for trophy game status, similar to what MT has, and what was originally proposed (All within the current trophy zone and all whom have suffered from depredation).

Well, they proved it. And now Wyoming has to re-negotiate a 3rd or 4th time to get a new plan.

I don't care what HSUS thinks the plan should be or what the stockgrowers think the plan should be. The plan was good enough for the USFW service to sign off on.

 

[jryoung]

The plan was good enough for the USFW service to sign off on.

Why shouldn't that be subject to judicial review?

 

[Dave N]

I think I need some popcorn.

 

[Ben Lamb]

I don't care what HSUS thinks the plan should be or what the stockgrowers think the plan should be. The plan was good enough for the USFW service to sign off on.

Twice. USFWS signed off on Wyoming plans twice.

And both have failed to pass judicial review.

So here we go again, because Wyoming would rather stick it to the fed than manage wolves.

As far as Stockgrowers, it's their plan Wyoming is defending.

 

[BigRack]

Twice. USFWS signed off on Wyoming plans twice.

And both have failed to pass judicial review.

So here we go again, because Wyoming would rather stick it to the fed than manage wolves.

As far as Stockgrowers, it's their plan Wyoming is defending.

I just glanced through the ruling. Wyoming lost because there was no rule saying they had to maintain a certain number. They just have to put that rule in writing and case closed.

 

[BigRack]

Why shouldn't that be subject to judicial review?

It should be. I should have read the ruling before. The court said there was nothing wrong with the plan other than a rule written on paper saying they "must" maintain a certain number.

The way Ben had posted about the stockgrowers plan being bad had nothing to do with this case or the classification of them in Wyoming. It looks like Ben was blaming Stockgrowers even though they had nothing to do with losing this case.

 

[Big Fin]

I've spent a couple hours reading the decision and was lucky to get the benefit of some attorneys who have been involved in much of this since the beginning. Here is what I take away from that.

I preface this by stating the obvious - Wyoming has become viewed as the lowest hanging fruit for these litigants; in essence the weakest link in the defense of state management. As such, Wyoming will most likely be the target of lawsuits aimed at changing state control of wolves. Just part of the situation all knew would happen when strategies were adopted by the three states.

The lawsuit has four main complaints:

1. Wolves are still threatened and endangered.

2. Wolves are at risk due to lack of genetic connectivity.

3. Wyoming allowing wolves to be treated as a predator in some areas does not meet the ESA requirements of protections over a significant part of the species range.

4. Wyoming’s regulatory mechanism, as currently stated and adopted to insure a particular number of wolves, are inadequate and represent a non-binding promise.​

The court ruled in favor of the USFWS, in our favor, on items 1, 2, and 3. That is all good news for those of us who want wolves to be managed by the states.

The court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs on item 4; the least important of all the issues. Most attorneys would call # 4 a technicality, in that it can be easily fixed and does not change the data and facts used in the case.

Yeah, it sucks that a technicality is being used to try stop WY from their existing wolf hunts. But, the judge did rule on some important issues and found them to be in favor of the USFWS and stops any additional law suits on those grounds.

• The screwballs lost their claim that there is not genetic connectivity and therefore the USFWS rulings are incorrect. That is big. In the past there was a worry that they would try this route as a separate law suit. This judge has tossed out that claim and ruled in favor of the USFWS.

• The screwballs lost their claim that the wolves are “threatened or endangered” throughout a significant portion of their range. The judge ruled the wolves are not threatened or endangered.

• The screwballs lost their claim that Wyoming classifying some areas of marginal wolf habitat as a “Predator Zone” represents a violation of the ESA. The court ruled the USFWS was correct in finding the Predator Zone represents marginal wolf habitat and that area is not large enough to represent a “significant portion” of the wolf range.​

From all of that, WY loses management control until they correct #4. That is easy to correct and all reports are that they are doing that today. I suspect they will take the steps necessary to codify that which the court found to be non-binding. And if they do that, I suspect they will ask for a stay of the order granted.

These plaintiffs, the serial litigators, spend a lot of their ammo to prevail on one small technicality.

Why would they do that? Because they make money at it.

They make money from donations, and since they prevailed on a slight technicality, the US Government will be responsible for reasonable attorney fees to them under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA).

These decisions make it very obvious that reform of the EAJA must happen and happen soon. EAJA was designed to protect Grandma from the Federal Government. You must have net assets below some level to qualify. That was to prevent wealthy entities from suing the Government and getting reimbursed.

Yet, the EAJA has an exemption for non-profit groups. These plaintiffs have hundreds of millions in net worth and they will get paid more than they incurred in legal expenses. Time to change the EAJA and stop this craziness.

Wyoming will eventually prevail. Just a pain in the butt to get there.

On the bright side, the wingnuts shot a lot of ammo to get very little in return. They just lost one of their big bullets about genetic connectivity. They lost a big issue that a Predator Zone would be considered a "significant portion" of the recovery area. They lost the big picture notion that wolves are "threatened and endangered."

If WY can get the regulatory mechanism fixed and address the issue that was lost in this decision, there is a good chance they can go on with the substance of their plan as approved by the USFWS; albeit with some more teeth to the regulations they must adhere to in maintaining state population minimums.

Personally, I think the wingnuts are window dressing their enthusiasm about this decisions. Privately, behind the curtains, I think they are back to fighting among each other, questions why they would burn so much of their capital to get such marginal results.

Yeah, they got hunting in WY delayed for a period of time. They always claim victory when that happens. Yet, they know they are getting real low on ammo. They took a run at the weakest spot in the entire wolf management issue and all they could come away with was a technicality.

Call me too much of an optimist, but I don't see this as the end of the world. I see this as a chance to bury the bastards once and for all.

And if nothing else, I hope it opens the eyes of people as to how ripe with abuse the EAJA is. Reform of that legislation, as well intended as it was, needs to be a primary focus.

 

[mdunc8]

I just glanced through the ruling. Wyoming lost because there was no rule saying they had to maintain a certain number. They just have to put that rule in writing and case closed.

I'm not entirely sure, but I'm 99.9% certain that wasn't/isn't the case. Well maybe 85%

 

[mdunc8]

I just glanced through the ruling. Wyoming lost because there was no rule saying they had to maintain a certain number. They just have to put that rule in writing and case closed.

After spending 20-30 seconds reviewing the WY management plan, I'm now 100% sure that is incorrect. It's neat seeing what a little refresher will do for your perspective.

 

[Deleted member 20812]

It should be. I should have read the ruling before. The court said there was nothing wrong with the plan other than a rule written on paper saying they "must" maintain a certain number.

The way Ben had posted about the stockgrowers plan being bad had nothing to do with this case or the classification of them in Wyoming. It looks like Ben was blaming Stockgrowers even though they had nothing to do with losing this case.

Well, if it was the Stockgrower's plan that did not articulate managing for a certain number in a binding agreement, and was challenged in court and found to be invalid, then wouldn't one logically assume the Stockgrowers did indeed have something to do with this?

God forbid we attach any culpability or responsibility to them in this case. They provided the opening, the anti-hunting groups took advantage of it.

 

[BigRack]

Well, if it was the Stockgrower's plan that did not articulate managing for a certain number in a binding agreement, and was challenged in court and found to be invalid, then wouldn't one logically assume the Stockgrowers did indeed have something to do with this?

God forbid we attach any culpability or responsibility to them in this case. They provided the opening, the anti-hunting groups took advantage of it.

Wyoming said they intended to manage for a certain number but it wasn't a regulation so it was not binding.

They just have to write a regulation and case closed like Big Fin said.

 

[Nemont]

I guess you are being sarcastic. That type of sarcasm is usually the sign of a small mind, but I will assume you are the exception to the rule.

Good assumption that I am the exception.

Nemont