Post by: bearpaw on January 14, 2020, 10:26:18 AM
KING COUNTY JUDGE RULES FOR WDFW IN 2ND WOLF REMOVAL LAWSUIT
http://nwsportsmanmag.com/king-county-judge-rules-for-wdfw-in-2nd-wolf-removal-lawsuit/
Post by: Cougartail on January 14, 2020, 10:40:44 AM
a small win for eastern WA residents and ranchers...
KING COUNTY JUDGE RULES FOR WDFW IN 2ND WOLF REMOVAL LAWSUIT
http://nwsportsmanmag.com/king-county-judge-rules-for-wdfw-in-2nd-wolf-removal-lawsuit/
The last paragraph in the article is priceless. Use more non-lethal tactics? Maybe we should send the wolves to counseling and PC food identification classes.. :o
Post by: Humptulips on January 14, 2020, 11:10:40 AM
Post by: HUNTINCOUPLE on January 14, 2020, 11:16:16 AM
Post by: bearpaw on January 14, 2020, 11:17:25 AM
The article said there was a third issue left unresolved. Anyone know what that is about?
I was wondering the same thing?
Post by: TheStovePipeKid on January 14, 2020, 03:00:46 PM
Post by: getreal711 on January 14, 2020, 03:12:20 PM
Post by: zwickeyman on January 14, 2020, 06:04:02 PM
the 3rd issue is how to get rid of Inslee. :chuckle:
:yeah:
Post by: ribka on January 14, 2020, 07:25:03 PM
I still don't understand how someone from out of state can file a lawsuit in Washington to stop the legal removal of wolves in an area where no federal protections exist by the state agency charged with managing the wildlife. Never mind that they were following the "Wolf plan".
Thats what they've done in Wisconsin, Minnesota and Michigan. Conservation NW was involved in the lawsuits
Post by: SuperX on January 15, 2020, 08:46:59 AM
Post by: Jpmiller on January 15, 2020, 09:16:28 AM
we should make a law regarding repayment of costs for these types of 'activist suits" when they don't win, and make it a requirement that any suit has to be filed by an affected party who would be personally responsible for the repayment of court and legal fees.
I say not only make them pay legal Costa make them front the legal fees in an escrow account, big check up front would deter folks looking just to bog down the process.
Post by: CGDucksandDeer on January 15, 2020, 12:05:18 PM
The article said there was a third issue left unresolved. Anyone know what that is about?
I was wondering the same thing?
The 3rd, still unresolved, issue in both the King and Thurston county wolf cases is an Administrative Procedures Act argument by the various plaintiffs (Center for Biological Diversity [Arizona], Kettle Range Conservation Group [Ferry County], Center for a Humane Economy [Maryland],) that WDFW's implementation of the Protocol for Wolf-Livestock Conflict is inconsistent, or in legalese, arbitrary and capricious.
Given the state's win on the State Environmental Policy Act arguments, precedent from implementation of protocols by other state bodies and boards, and WDFWs effort to document when, how and why they are implementing the Protocol to resolve wolf-livestock conflicts in recent years, including through lethal removal, they are on pretty strong legal footing.
Ribka, your blind attempts to pin everything and anything on Conservation NW are moronic.
CNW has filed amicus (Friend of the Court) briefs (http://bit.ly/35UFMOi (http://bit.ly/35UFMOi)) defending WDFW in these cases, and has released numerous statements defending the Protocol, supporting lethal removal when appropriate, and calling BS on the endless litigation (copied below). We are in no way behind these lawsuits, we're pushing back on them. The facts of that are perfectly clear and publicly available.
"We support Washington's Wolf-Livestock Interaction Protocol, which flows from the 2011 Wolf Recovery and Management Plan and was developed in accordance with that plan through careful collaboration by biologists, conflict specialists, community leaders and the Wolf Advisory Group.
Lawsuits and polarization haven’t worked out well for wolves elsewhere, so we see little upside in spreading those tactics to Washington, where wolf recovery is going relatively well overall. Instead of polarization, our focus is on collaboration and long-term coexistence."
https://www.conservationnw.org/news-updates/statement-on-togo/
(https://www.conservationnw.org/news-updates/statement-on-togo/)
“While this group spends money on lawyers and undermines Washington’s collaborative wolf policy process, Conservation Northwest funds range riders and on-the-ground field staff working to protect both wolves and livestock. Balanced coexistence, not courtroom wrangling, is the best path for long-term wolf recovery. We firmly believe that sitting down with other wildlife stakeholders to create common-ground policies and win-win solutions is far more effective than divisive lawsuits.”
http://nwsportsmanmag.com/cbd-wolf-lawsuit-a-giant-step-backward-for-social-tolerance-hunter/
(http://nwsportsmanmag.com/cbd-wolf-lawsuit-a-giant-step-backward-for-social-tolerance-hunter/)