Biden Admin Asks Appeals Court to Remove ESA Protections for Gray Wolves

[bigtex]

https://www.kcra.com/article/gray-wolves-protection-changes/62203658?utm_campaign=snd-autopilot

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk

[RB]

Sounds good to me, hope it sticks and they are removed from the list.

[CarbonHunter]

I wish the libs would just stop the lawsuits and celebrate the recovery as a win. Just proves that these lawsuits have nothing to do with what they are actually suing over but instead it is all about ending hunting entirely.

[MR5x5]

As I understand it, under the ESA, win or lose, you're legal fees are paid.  This creates a perverse incentive for lawsuits and an unlimited funding source for law firms.  I don't think there is any more to these lawsuits than simple greed.

[TriggerMike]

As I understand it, under the ESA, win or lose, you're legal fees are paid.  This creates a perverse incentive for lawsuits and an unlimited funding source for law firms.  I don't think there is any more to these lawsuits than simple greed.

Cha-ching! I should've went to law school for environmental law. At first I thought Biden was just confused here, but this makes more sense. Although I still think he's confused

[Caseknife]

As I understand it, under the ESA, win or lose, you're legal fees are paid.  This creates a perverse incentive for lawsuits and an unlimited funding source for law firms.  I don't think there is any more to these lawsuits than simple greed.

Can't remember the law right now, but that is correct.  It was initially designed to protect the little guy from government overreach, but was rewritten to include non-profit groups.  If you research most of the anti-hunting non-profits, 95% of their staff are lawyers.  They throw out blanket lawsuits and if the court determines they have won in only one of the criteria, their legal fees are paid by the government.  These lawsuits have nothing to do with the benefit to the animals/habitat in question, but only to the coffers of the environmental groups.

[optic2]

As I understand it, under the ESA, win or lose, you're legal fees are paid.  This creates a perverse incentive for lawsuits and an unlimited funding source for law firms.  I don't think there is any more to these lawsuits than simple greed.

Can't remember the law right now, but that is correct.  It was initially designed to protect the little guy from government overreach, but was rewritten to include non-profit groups.  If you research most of the anti-hunting non-profits, 95% of their staff are lawyers.  They throw out blanket lawsuits and if the court determines they have won in only one of the criteria, their legal fees are paid by the government.  These lawsuits have nothing to do with the benefit to the animals/habitat in question, but only to the coffers of the environmental groups.

No only that. The government awards them regular lawyer fees, yet the non-profits have right out of law school lawyers that want to "save the environment" who are really low paid. Something like they get $300/hr from the government for work done by brand new lawyers making $30/hr. It's a huge grift that brings in massive profits.

Remember, non-profit isn't quite what you think it is. I could start a "non-profit" today, pay myself as the CEO 95% of the money brought in, the other 4% on a position for my friend and only use 1% of what we bring for an actual cause.