Wolves in Court

[blacktailslayer]

Yes, it will...the case is "Defenders of Wildlife v. Salazar". The 60-days is up June 2, 2009. The clock started on April 2nd, the day the decision was published in the Federal Register. If anyone wants to read their reasons I have provided a link to thier website outlining the actual Notice Letter of Intent to Sue:

http://www.defenders.org/resources/p...pril_2009).pdf

[blacktailslayer]

http://www.defenders.org/resources/publications/programs_and_policy/in_the_courts/60-day_notice_letter_on_gray_wolf_delisting_(april_2009).pdf

This should work.

[blacktailslayer]

Another link.

http://www.earthjustice.org/news/press/2008/twelve-conservation-groups-challenge-federal-wolf-delisting.html

[stevebeilgard]

the first thing i did was read who filed the suit. these are the same fine folks who want to end all hunting. the wolves are just one tool. if you go back to 1985, when the feds first wanted to introduce wolves, they agreed that 10 packs of wolves were adaquate. well, once 10 packs were there, they wanted more. and more. now, what they really want is wolves everywhere, with no limits to how many packs.

the wolves job was initially to control elk in yellowstone. well, they were highly successful. and they got to the bighorn sheep, the deer, the coyotes, and eveything else, including the ranchers stock. the feds said initially that they would repay the ranchers for lost stock. and they did. some. what they didn't say was just how little the budget was. ranchers had to record fully the kill, proove it was wolves, and file a claim. history now tells us that the allottment to pay for lost stock is generally used up within 3 weeks, (in january each year) and ranchers get paid nothing for the rest of the year.

without getting into great detail, we must look at the history of the wolves. simply go back to what the feds wanted in 1985 to what they want today. big change. actually, just a lie to get what they wanted. the real issue here is states rights. the neighboring states, complete with their professional wildlife biologists, are all getting pushed to the wayside with what they want, in favor of what the courts want. the courts, of course, go with "feelings" of what's right and what popluar opinion wants. the biologists for the animals only use facts. and facts will fail to feelings. it happens every time in our courts.

i'd love to transplant wolves and grizzly bears into new yorks central park. lots of rats, wild dogs, etc. to eat. and they are needed there just as much as they are needed in yellowstone park.

[buckee]

Steve B. pretty much covered it. All of the organizations listed in that lawsuit are anti-hunting organizations. They have always based their assumption on false facts, and false innuendos .

They even have their own phony, Bigoted, so-called biologists.

I wish the government and the courts in both the USA and Canada would recognize these organization for what they really are, instead of what they pretend to be.

[blacktailslayer]

There are however correct about wolves not legally being treated the right way with the ESA. I think they may win the legal battle about the way the wolves have been de-listed. I do believe that the wolf genetics are plenty diverse and we don't need the high population counts they listed in their paper.