Mathews Inc.
SPEAKING OF LAW SUIT PER WOLVES
Elk
Contributors to this thread:
Paul@thefort 24-Feb-23
sasquatch 24-Feb-23
Beendare 24-Feb-23
INDBowhunter2 24-Feb-23
Groundhunter 24-Feb-23
Bowboy 24-Feb-23
Paul@thefort 24-Feb-23
Paul@thefort 24-Feb-23
INDBowhunter2 24-Feb-23
WV Mountaineer 24-Feb-23
StickFlicker 25-Feb-23
Glunt@work 25-Feb-23
Bou'bound 25-Feb-23
Missouribreaks 25-Feb-23
HDE 25-Feb-23
Bowboy 25-Feb-23
Bou’bound 25-Feb-23
wytex 25-Feb-23
Jaquomo 25-Feb-23
WapitiBob 25-Feb-23
wyobullshooter 25-Feb-23
Pat Lefemine 25-Feb-23
Jaquomo 25-Feb-23
INDBowhunter2 25-Feb-23
HDE 25-Feb-23
Beendare 25-Feb-23
Missouribreaks 26-Feb-23
Mule Power 26-Feb-23
Paul@thefort 26-Feb-23
Cazador 26-Feb-23
jjs 26-Feb-23
Paul@thefort 26-Feb-23
Cazador 26-Feb-23
Paul@thefort 26-Feb-23
Paul@thefort 26-Feb-23
Paul@thefort 26-Feb-23
Paul@thefort 26-Feb-23
Jaquomo 26-Feb-23
Paul@thefort 27-Feb-23
From: Paul@thefort
24-Feb-23
Here we go again: According to a report from Sportsman's Alliance--- CBD Threatens to Sue National Forest Service on Wolves

On Wednesday, the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) sent a notice of intent to sue to the U.S. Forest Service for alleged violations of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) due to the hunting of gray wolves in Wyoming’s Medicine Bow-Routt National Forest. This National Forest straddles the border with Colorado.

In short, argues CBD, a wolf that is protected in Colorado must be protected everywhere that wolf might travel. Because wolves are a highly migratory species at the individual level, this is a convenient argument for the anti-hunting group to make in its crusade to destroy America’s hunting heritage and effective wildlife management under the North American Model

From: sasquatch
24-Feb-23
Unreal what is happening to this country. Across the board.

Guess this is what decades of dumbing people down gets you combined with weakening emotions.

From: Beendare
24-Feb-23
We saw it in Montana, Idaho and Wyoming

Lawsuits, studies, and general time wasting that sucks the limited resources of the G&F.

What a debacle this intro of wolves to Co will be…so sad. And its almost all outside money.

One has to give these antis some credit. They band together and fund their agenda like crazy.

If all hunters did that- we would wipe the floor with those idiots….

24-Feb-23
Why don’t the ranchers, outdoorsman, etc all band together and sue the state of Colorado for damages and or future damages? As well as the surrounding states ranchers and outdoorsman groups?

Even if you can’t win, it can be drug out for years or decades like the anti groups have done.

From: Groundhunter
24-Feb-23
Beendare....Been dare..... there are lots of hunting organizations with lots of funds. However.they are too into themselves. They should stand together, not by themselves

From: Bowboy
24-Feb-23
A bunch of BS!

From: Paul@thefort
24-Feb-23
Who is the Center for Biological Diversity Location: TUCSON, AZ

501(c)(3)

Budget (2016): Revenue: $14,758,498 Expenses: $13,967,168 Assets: $20,370,536

Formation: 1991

Type: Environmental Activist and Legal Advocacy Group

Founders: Kieran Suckling

Peter Galvin

Todd Schulke

Robin Silver

Executive Director: Kieran Suckling

Executive Director's Total Compensation: $295,823 (2017) [72]

Extreme anti hunting organization that is behind the National Wolf reintroduction and surly here in the NW.

The Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) is a left-of-center environmental activist and legal advocacy organization based in Tucson, Arizona. [1] Total revenue for 2017 exceeded $20.1 million, and as of March 2019, it had at least 160 employees, including more than 40 attorneys. [2] [3] CBD policy goals have included population control (including promotion of both abortion access and voluntary male sterilization), opposition to the elevation of Brett Kavanaugh to the U.S. Supreme Court, and blocking construction of President Donald Trump’s proposed wall on the southern border of the United States. [4] [5] [6] [7] In January 2019 CBD was a co-signatory on a letter that denounced nuclear power as “dirty energy” (nuclear power plants produce no carbon dioxide or other greenhouse gas emissions). [8]

From: Paul@thefort
24-Feb-23
Bryan, what would the law suit be based on to sue Colorado? A state ballot initiative was passed to reintroduce the wolves here.

24-Feb-23
Revenue lost

Sue the state for threatening already endangered wildlife that is already there, lynx, kit fox, swift fox, wolverine.

Anything that will drag it out. It really doesn’t have to be that credible. Just find a judge that might actually rule in sportsman/ranchers unlike the last 15-20 years of this whole wolf/grizzly bear debacle in the west.

Hell, sue them since it will cause the black bear population to decline. Black bears are cuddly.

24-Feb-23
The thing that gets me is life is black and white in a lot of instances. Yet, the cool and popular thing is to state how radical a person is if they look at it this way from our perspective. And, often enough it’s those among us doing the patronizing.

There are no coincidences. These people are fundamentally different and have zero interest in allowing another person to live their life. Unless it coincides with the way they live their life.

The same wedgeheads bent on hurting hunting are working hard at changing and controlling social policy in this country.

This modern, civilized, ideology is pure evil. And, it’s winning because we play by rules these people don’t acknowledge. Much less believe as relevant.

Conservative life: the freedom to believe and live as you want, in a sovereign country with guarded borders, is as big a target to those radicals as hunting. And, their plates are full with work they joyfully do.

It’s time to pick a side. In all instances that our life and our country are under attack. It’s time to realize these freaks aren’t capable of compromise. And, they view anyone who floats this river in a different boat, as their enemy. They’ll protest, riot, kill you, or do whatever it takes to accomplish that.

It’s time hunters and Americans meet that reality equally and as earnestly as they present. Or, get used to watching football for your entertainment. If clean energy can produce enough power to allow it broadcast. And, of course you aren’ t working to pay your share for Ukraine’s liberation. Or, Taiwan’s guarded border.

You can’t make this up.

From: StickFlicker
25-Feb-23
It's interesting that this group is headquartered in Tucson, Arizona, and the world headquarters for probably the largest pro hunting organization in the world, SCI, is also headquartered in the same city.

From: Glunt@work
25-Feb-23
Sue on behalf of the Mexican wolf. Establishing this huge subspecies of wolves in Colorado almost guarantees they will eventually overlap with the small Mexican wolf populations in NM and AZ. The big northern wolves will likely displace or breed out the Mexican wolf which is one of the smallest distinct subspecies. No, I'm not a champion of the Mexican wolf but maybe pull on the same heart strings that got us in this mess.

Whether the law came from the legislature or a ballot initiative, it's still a Colorado action being taken. Anyone or anything that action harms could be a potential for legal action.

From: Bou'bound
25-Feb-23
Beendare is right

You can hate the opposition but they are superior to us in winning the fight in all regards.

25-Feb-23
I think some of you are forgetting there are hunters right here on this forum who voted democratic and therefore support these policies.

From: HDE
25-Feb-23
I can't wait until a tribe files lawsuit on wolf reintroduction that threatens and harms their ability to subsistence hunt and cite treaty violation. You can goodbye to the wolf placement program for what it's worth.

But until then, we have P & Y to protect bowhunting at least...

From: Bowboy
25-Feb-23
Look at all the funds these organizations waste on anti hunting campaigns. I bet zero dollars go to benefit habitat and wildlife.

From: Bou’bound
25-Feb-23
they benefit wildlife by illegalizing killing wildlife......in their minds.

From: wytex
25-Feb-23
They are very active in Wyoming.

From: Jaquomo
25-Feb-23
They have tech billionaires funding their efforts. We have people who won't donate $10 and complain about the cost of licenses.

It was huge California money that funded the massive CO wolf campaign.

The only thing that could change our course is the legislature, and this woke bunch in CO won't dream of going against the wishes of "the voters"

From: WapitiBob
25-Feb-23
WY screwed up years ago when they pulled out of the ID/MT pact and went at it on their own.

25-Feb-23
I’m obviously not a legal expert, but to me this lawsuit carries zero merit. The dumping of wolves in Colorado is a result of an initiative voted in by the residents of that state, not as a means to ensure the survival of the species, but rather because the idiot majority decided they want to see the cute little doggies and hear them howl. Currently, if a Colorado wolf crosses into Wyoming, it can be shot 24/7/365. That is the result of Wyoming’s wolf management plan that was upheld as more than sufficient by the Court of Appeals in D.C. I see no chance of that changing simply because of something Colorado voted on. Luckily, Wyoming’s government officials will have no problem telling Colorado to pack sand.

From: Pat Lefemine
25-Feb-23
Remember that filing law suits without merit is an extremely effective strategy for well funded organizations and individuals. It forces the defendants to expend or even deplete limited resources to defend against the complainant.

Republicans pushed tort reform for decades since they understood the negative economic impact of frivolous lawsuits. Democrats wouldn’t budge since they are in bed with nearly every lobby representing lawyers.

These lawsuits are a serious threat to hunting. And yet hunters still vote Democrat. SMH.

From: Jaquomo
25-Feb-23
Wait until Utah sues Colorado when the first pack roams over their border. The ramifications of this ugly, irreversible experiment is just getting started.

25-Feb-23
Lou, The surrounding states should figure out a way to sue Colorado before the wolves roam across state lines or are even dropped off.

Surrounding states livestock associations, sportsman’s groups, moose lovers united, whoever should sue Colorado.

Litigation from big pockets could keep it from happening for a long time. Playing fairly isn’t going to work anymore. Need to fight them the way they have fought hunters. Ridiculous lawsuits, hunter friendly judges from other states, anything to drag it out.

That’s my uneducated opinion from Indiana. And it may be completely off base. But whatever we have done in the past really hasn’t worked

From: HDE
25-Feb-23
^^^ the idiot state of NM would welcome them with arms wide open. But then they'd wander into someplace like Espanola and goodbye wolves...

From: Beendare
25-Feb-23
The bowsite clan is top of the food chain when it comes to hunting…and My bet is there is still a bunch of guys here voting Democrat and chipping in very little to pro hunting orgs.

Many hunters think it will never happen to me or in my whitetail backyard..…when we in CA were reaching out for support. We lost seasons and the state gave predators protected status.

Then those precedents were used in arguments in Oregon…then washington..then for wolves in Id, MT, Wy…..CANT YOU SEE…. Allowing these predators to overrun the states will eliminate the need for hunters to control ungulate populations.

Its a brilliant Anti hunting strategy really, especially since it divides us even more with hunters who fall for the “Ecological balance” argument and support these whack job antis. “ I’m for the environment…I like to see a wolf in the wild” These douche bags might want to look at what a non discriminate brutal killer these wolves are…this ain’t the Disney channel.

But then…it so much like talking politics….trying to educate someone who has their own version of the truth ( Ha- from Disney or MSNBC) that is clueless to the antis agenda.

26-Feb-23
Throw the dems out of your hunting camps, do it now !

From: Mule Power
26-Feb-23
What happens in court and what happens at the other end of my rifle barrel are completely unrelated. I’ve been telling people for years there are no compromises with these people so we are forced to do the ethical thing instead of relying on the system. They own the system now. Splat! Case dismissed.

From: Paul@thefort
26-Feb-23
You can check, It is craze how many law suits these groups have brought before the USFWS and states over these wolf issues and now the USFS.

I will bet that Colorado is in their headlights over this Wolf Plan now and in the very near future when they do not get their way. Center for Biodiversity, Defenders for Wildlife, Sierra Club, The Tide Foundation, the US Zoo and Aquarium Assoc. HSUS, and many many more. Millions of dollars donated and spent and they do this full time.

From: Cazador
26-Feb-23
@ Paul, where are all the hunting based group lawsuits? I have ended all of my support minus one or two. Waste of money donating to these groups that are nowhere to be seen when we need them.

From: jjs
26-Feb-23
These groups are usually 501-C's, first thing to look at is the administration fees and that will tell you where the money goes.

Non-profit does not mean they are not making money, making money is all in the game.

The anti-hunting groups are clever in fighting against the hunting community, as stated more wolves less game and less hunting which will make the game departments to restrict hunting tags, the antis are about as bad as the industrial war complex in restricting the freedom of Americans. (just had to get that one in)

Seen the coming of California to Co. back a several decades back, sad.

From: Paul@thefort
26-Feb-23
CL, you know the answer to that question.

From: Cazador
26-Feb-23

Cazador's embedded Photo
Cazador's embedded Photo
Interesting……..

From: Paul@thefort
26-Feb-23
Who ends up paying for Attorneys' fees? Under the Endangered Species Act, courts may award attorney fees and paid litigation costs on behalf of individuals or groups that succeed or partially succeed in a legal case. Individuals or groups must pay attorney costs if the court considers their lawsuit frivolous. The court determines if an award is appropriate, and the U.S. Treasury Department pays on behalf of the losing federal agency. Based on data it received from the U.S. Department of Justice, the U.S. House Natural Resources Committee reported that around 500 lawsuits related to endangered species were filed against the federal government between 2009 and 2012. Under the Endangered Species Act, courts may also award attorney fees and paid litigation costs on behalf of individuals or groups that succeed or partially succeed in a legal case. Individuals or groups must pay attorney costs if the court considers their lawsuit frivolous.[3]

From: Paul@thefort
26-Feb-23
When litigation occurs Individuals and groups can legally challenge final listing decisions, which are official decisions to list a species as endangered or threatened. Listing an animal or plant provides the species with certain federal protections. Individuals and groups can also challenge warranted but precluded findings, which are decisions to list an animal or plant as endangered or threatened at a later date due to the Fish and Wildlife Service's higher priority listing actions. Some environmental organizations have sued the federal government for the deferred listing of a species they argued should be listed sooner.[3]

A final listing decision goes into effect 30 days after publication in the Federal Register. Legal challenges to a final listing decision succeed when a court determines that the Fish and Wildlife Service's actions were arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion or otherwise not in accordance with federal law

From: Paul@thefort
26-Feb-23
Earthjustice will launch a new biodiversity law center on Thursday, giving the environmental group a command center to coordinate legal efforts and fight for stronger protections of endangered and threatened species and ecosystems.

The Biodiversity Defense Program will pull together what until now has been a region-by-region effort for the San Francisco-based group, which has more 150 full-time attorneys and bills itself as the preeminent public interest environmental law organization.

Earthjustice has filed more than 200 lawsuits over the last four years and sued the Trump administration more than 130 times, typically on behalf of or together with other groups. Of the 55 cases that have yielded rulings on the merits, Earthjustice has won 46 of them, or 80%.

From: Paul@thefort
26-Feb-23
Is Center for Biological Diversity anti hunting? Center for Biological Diversity (CBD)

The Center for Biological Diversity fights against regulated sport hunting at nearly every opportunity.

From: Jaquomo
26-Feb-23
And our own Commissioner, James Jay Tuchton, is a lead or supporting attorney in many of these suits. He authored a paper advocating for saving animals, "one lawsuit at a time".

From: Paul@thefort
27-Feb-23
A year ago; GRANBY — Colorado Parks and Wildlife Commission appointee James Tutchton said Friday that he doesn’t think his views are at odds with hunting or the goals of the state office.

He was defending himself after the board of commissioners in Grand County voted last month to sign a letter to leaders in the Colorado Senate opposing his confirmation to the 11-person commission, saying Tutchton’s views are at odds with the goals and values of Parks and Wildlife and stating that he opposes the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation.

Tutchton — who was appointed last year by Gov. Jared Polis as the outdoor recreation, parks utilization and nonconsumptive wildlife representative for the state commission — said he does support the model but explained that there have been times he has advocated against it.

“I’m just trying to hold us to the highest possible ethical standard,” Tutchton said. “I support it, but people interpret it differently.”

In addition to his role on the commission, Tutchton is the preserve manager for the Southern Plains Land Trust in Bent County and has a background as a litigator for WildEarth Guardians, which has frequently tussled in court with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Though some have found his approach toward animal conservation to be in opposition to sportspeople, he emphasized that he has no animosity toward hunting.

“I’m not anti-hunting. I used to be a hunter,” Tutchton said. “I don’t hunt anymore because I made a personal decision to not eat meat.”

He said he thinks Parks and Wildlife should expand its focused beyond hunting, saying the organization needs to broaden its representation to include the opinions of people with other types of wildlife interests.

James Tutchton His does support wolf reintroduction.

“I am pro-wolf. They got me there,” Tutchton said. “But so are a majority of Coloradans. I think the majority of Coloradans should be represented on the (Parks and Wildlife) commission.”

  • Sitka Gear