Lawsuit would prevent the WDFW from killing more wolves preying on cattle

[pianoman9701]

I'm just so damned angry that it seemed obvious to everyone that putting these people on the WAG wouldn't be wise. And what a coincidence, it turned out to be unwise. Now, every step the WDFW takes to control wolves is going to be challenged. They're going to spend tens or hundreds of thousands of $ on litigation now every time they want to justify killing wolves.

[WSU]

Not if they did it right.  If it truly is a challenge to SEPA and the EIS, the issue will be put to bed if they prevail.  Similarly, if they can show their actions weren't arbitrary and capricious (basically taken without any good reason), the issue is put to bed. 

The plaintiffs have a high bar to prove their case.  WDFW will get deference to their expertise from the court and should win if they did their job. 

[JLS]

Not if they did it right.  If it truly is a challenge to SEPA and the EIS, the issue will be put to bed if they prevail.  Similarly, if they can show their actions weren't arbitrary and capricious (basically taken without any good reason), the issue is put to bed. 

The plaintiffs have a high bar to prove their case.  WDFW will get deference to their expertise from the court and should win if they did their job.

Yep


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[JLS]

It isn't the WAG's job to make sure WDFW follows state law regarding conducting an EIS, is it? 

Yes and no.  The WAG is to help direct WDFW policy within the parameters of the wolf plan.  However, on an issue as contentious and litigious as this, everyone should always be asking if the actions are legally defensible.

Hence my assertion that every member of the WAG has the responsibility to understand how the policy affects their user group, to include being legally defensible so as to serve their user group.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[JLS]

I'm just so damned angry that it seemed obvious to everyone that putting these people on the WAG wouldn't be wise. And what a coincidence, it turned out to be unwise. Now, every step the WDFW takes to control wolves is going to be challenged. They're going to spend tens or hundreds of thousands of $ on litigation now every time they want to justify killing wolves.

I would argue just the opposite.  Excluding them would have guaranteed many more lawsuits, to include the exclusion itself.

Whether or not you like WDFWs wolf plan, it is a very defensible document.  My prediction is this lawsuit will go by the wayside in short order.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Skyvalhunter]

Your right I don't like it

[WSU]

Litigation is all part of the deal. If they did this correctly, I wouldn't be surprised if wdfw welcomed the chance get their plan vindicated through the court process. It will take some wind out of the sails of those opposed to lethal removal.  Though it may seem weird, this is somewhat of an opportunity.

[JLS]

Litigation is all part of the deal. If they did this correctly, I wouldn't be surprised if wdfw welcomed the chance get their plan vindicated through the court process. It will take some wind out of the sails of those opposed to lethal removal.  Though it may seem weird, this is somewhat of an opportunity.

Agreed again


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[wolfbait]

Litigation is all part of the deal. If they did this correctly, I wouldn't be surprised if wdfw welcomed the chance get their plan vindicated through the court process. It will take some wind out of the sails of those opposed to lethal removal.  Though it may seem weird, this is somewhat of an opportunity.

My guess is WDFW and the fake environmental groups have it already worked out between them, remember WDFW have not been the honest party with the wolf introduction into WA. And in the future any other lawsuits will also favor the wolves, look at the USFWS back history with the introduction into the Yellowstone and Idaho, so far WDFW have played the same game, why would they change now?

[CGDucksandDeer]

I'm just so damned angry that it seemed obvious to everyone that putting these people on the WAG wouldn't be wise. .

Neither of the out-of-state groups behind this lawsuit are on the WAG. Due to their bomb-throwing at the compromise-based process that is the WAG and recent Washington wolf policy-making, there's very little communication between those two hardline groups and the conservation and animals rights groups on the WAG at this point. We've repeatedly and publicly disagreed with their refusal to compromise on wolf management in our state, we did not know this was coming, and we absolutely do not support it.

My official response is in this article: http://nwsportsmanmag.com/wolf-news/still-another-study-pokes-holes-wsu-professors-wolf-livestock-attack-findings/ (scroll to the bottom). Yes, it's more cagey than what I wrote above. But that doesn't mean some of us Washingtonians working on this issue in good faith alongside ranchers and other stakeholders aren't personally mad as hell about this attack on our collaborative process.

AND before some of you start, conspiracy theory responses or inquisition will get no response from me. As I've said before, you may not like wolves, you may hate WDFW and the WAG, you may not like any conservation groups, and you may feel all of the above are corrupt together. You're welcome to those opinions, but that doesn't make them fact.

[bearpaw]

The whole wolf process has been a scam from the beginning when Pittman Robertson funds were stolen to illegally transplant a non-native wolf sub-species in the rockies. Then Washington stacked the wolf working group with wolf advocates, so that WA has the most intensive wolf recovery plan and any WA resident should be smart enough to know that as soon as any hunting is proposed an initiative will be on the ballot in WA to outlaw wolf hunting FOREVER!

I'm guessing a good percentage of the CNW members are also members of these other hardline wolf groups! The leader himself is an earthfirster! When wolf hunting is allowed to control wolf numbers I will be the first to say I was wrong, but until then it sure appears that hunters and ranchers have been railroaded again in WA!

[ribka]

Looks like CNW helped anti hunting groups stick a knife in ranchers' and sportmens" back again.


I support hunter  friendly conservation groups like rmef, DU, ruffed grouse society, American Rivers, mule deer foundation, TU for over 20 years and donated a lot of time and money. Guessing a good deal more than you.

I don't support anti hunting groups like HSUS , howling for wolves, CNW that are working to end sport hunting. Nice try


Fact- CNW has routinely worked with and collaborated with anti hunting groups behind the scenes as indicated on their web site and FB page.

I see nothing on CNW's website or facebook addressing this- Gosh not surprised. But I do see they are now trying to shut down night hunting for bobcats though just like they helped shut down trapping and hound hunting in Washington. Small steps to eventually end all or severely limit sport hunting on public land in the west. No surprise though when your organization, CNW, is led by an amoral sociopath.

I'm just so damned angry that it seemed obvious to everyone that putting these people on the WAG wouldn't be wise. .

Neither of the out-of-state groups behind this lawsuit are on the WAG. Due to their bomb-throwing at the compromise-based process that is the WAG and recent Washington wolf policy-making, there's very little communication between those two hardline groups and the conservation and animals rights groups on the WAG at this point. We've repeatedly and publicly disagreed with their refusal to compromise on wolf management in our state, we did not know this was coming, and we absolutely do not support it.

My official response is in this article: http://nwsportsmanmag.com/wolf-news/still-another-study-pokes-holes-wsu-professors-wolf-livestock-attack-findings/ (scroll to the bottom). Yes, it's more cagey than what I wrote above. But that doesn't mean some of us Washingtonians working on this issue in good faith alongside ranchers and other stakeholders aren't personally mad as hell about this attack on our collaborative process.

AND before some of you start, conspiracy theory responses or inquisition will get no response from me. As I've said before, you may not like wolves, you may hate WDFW and the WAG, you may not like any conservation groups, and you may feel all of the above are corrupt together. You're welcome to those opinions, but that doesn't make them fact.

[pianoman9701]

I'm just so damned angry that it seemed obvious to everyone that putting these people on the WAG wouldn't be wise. .

Neither of the out-of-state groups behind this lawsuit are on the WAG. Due to their bomb-throwing at the compromise-based process that is the WAG and recent Washington wolf policy-making, there's very little communication between those two hardline groups and the conservation and animals rights groups on the WAG at this point. We've repeatedly and publicly disagreed with their refusal to compromise on wolf management in our state, we did not know this was coming, and we absolutely do not support it.

My official response is in this article: http://nwsportsmanmag.com/wolf-news/still-another-study-pokes-holes-wsu-professors-wolf-livestock-attack-findings/ (scroll to the bottom). Yes, it's more cagey than what I wrote above. But that doesn't mean some of us Washingtonians working on this issue in good faith alongside ranchers and other stakeholders aren't personally mad as hell about this attack on our collaborative process.

AND before some of you start, conspiracy theory responses or inquisition will get no response from me. As I've said before, you may not like wolves, you may hate WDFW and the WAG, you may not like any conservation groups, and you may feel all of the above are corrupt together. You're welcome to those opinions, but that doesn't make them fact.

You're correct that neither is on the WAG, but these groups definitely got word in advance from someone - likely CNW. I'm so glad they have their own wildlife commissioner (sarc). I seriously doubt it was a rancher or hunter representative who dropped the dime. With the federal delisting, there's zero reason that ranchers shouldn't be able to shoot-on-sight wolves preying on their livestock without anyone's approval. In the long run, this would actually save more wolves by acclimating them to the dangers of living and hunting around humans.

The fact remains that the USFWS lied to Congress on impact and left out information on disease, on purpose. Certainly the USFWS and likely also the WDFW knew all about the infestation of echinococcus granulosus in the Canadian wolves and yet didn't raise a squeak about it in their hurry to push through the outrageous wolf plan.

Had this been done legally, it either never would've happened or it would've been done in a more responsible manner, developing a plan which moved toward delisting and emphasized populating only the most remote wilderness areas of the state...with healthy animals. This is a fiasco and I be thrilled to know why you're such a staunch supporter of it in its present, outrageous form, as opposed to the aforementioned more reasonable approach.

[JLS]

How was a dime dropped?  Anyone can find out if an EIS was done, which was the basis of the lawsuit.