Judge Temporarily Halts Wyoming, Idaho Grizzly Hunt

CaliFFL

I'm still baffled how one judge can override the USWFS. 


“The judge relied on a dubious 9th circuit case law reference by stating that irreparable harm can be caused by the death of one bear in this year’s hunt instead of the more reasonable and scientific approach of evaluating impacts on population levels.”

Specifically, Christensen wrote, “The threat of death to individual bears posed by the scheduled hunts is sufficient” to temporarily halt the hunts, adding the restraining order was put in place because anti-hunting groups “were likely to succeed” based on their arguments. He also wrote, “Organizational plaintiffs…have established personal interests in the enjoyment of the species.”

Plaintiffs include the Humane Society of the United States, Alliance for the Wild Rockies, Center for Biological Diversity, Wild Earth Guardians and nine Native American tribes, among others.

http://www.petersenshunting.com/conservation-politics/judge-temporarily-halts-wyoming-idaho-grizzly-hunt/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=editorial&utm_term=sportsmanchannel&utm_content=grizzly

CHIRO1989

I just read about the proposed hunt in the most recent "Outdoor Life" , seems like the states had their ducks in a row, they are already shooting quite a few annually as a nuisance or attacking bears, they were going to halt the entire hunt once 2 sows were taken regardless if they reached their quotas for issued tags in WY, same crap we have with wolves in MN, I wonder if you can sue these groups back as sportsmen.

Six-Gun

Let me guess...there are absolutely no anti-hunting special interest groups lining this judge’s pockets.

The notion that a single bear’s death can cause irreparable harm is hilarious given that plenty assuredly die from natural attrition and existing human/bear conflict euthanasia, but whatever.  We knew this transition toward sanity was not going to be a straight and easy path.  We also knew that the idds of the hunt kicking off without a hitch were also low.

earlyagain

As politically screwed up as the state game agency is here in Colorado. They are the only ones capable of managing the wildlife resources for a sustainable future. The states game agencies have to be allowed to do their jobs or these special interest groups will be just as out of luck as everyone else that wants a future for wildlife species.
Policy hast to be determined by hard data collected in the field. Available habitat, numbers of animals, seasonal weather, etcetera and so on. My point being such litigation should be a slam dunk for the state.

And hunters are the only people that put their money where their mouth is, except maybe also ranchers and farmers.

Six-Gun

earlyagain said:

As politically screwed up as the state game agency is here in Colorado. They are the only ones capable of managing the wildlife resources for a sustainable future. The states game agencies have to be allowed to do their jobs or these special interest groups will be just as out of luck as everyone else that wants a future for wildlife species.
Policy hast to be determined by hard data collected in the field. Available habitat, numbers of animals, seasonal weather, etcetera and so on. My point being such litigation should be a slam dunk for the state.

And hunters are the only people that put their money where their mouth is, except maybe also ranchers and farmers.

The problem is that a lot of the people represting the base for these anti-hunting special interest groups would literally rather have a species go extinct than allow it to be hunted and save it via the North American conservation model.  Look no further than the scimitar horned oryx’s plight in its native African territory and the movement to ban hunting them on Texas ranches.  The ranches are some of the last self-sustaining populations negating functional extinction, but bleeding hearts want the hunting to stop, even if it means the species’ demise.

CaliFFL

Six-Gun said:

The problem is that a lot of the people represting the base for these anti-hunting special interest groups would literally rather have a species go extinct than allow it to be hunted and save it via the North American conservation model.  Look no further than the scimitar horned oryx’s plight in its native African territory and the movement to ban hunting them on Texas ranches.  The ranches are some of the last self-sustaining populations negating functional extinction, but bleeding hearts want the hunting to stop, even if it means the species’ demise.

And when the species finally goes extinct, the same special interest groups will claim it was because of humans regardless. 

If the grizzly hunts are allowed to resume, the first guy taking one will be in a world of hurt. I remember the guy who took the first wolf in Idaho. He had death threats, harassment, and complained of the local militia guarding his house. I can imagine the first grizzly in the lower 48 will generate the same reactions from the loonies.  

earlyagain

These animal rights people are worse thsn Uncle Joe let loose in Berlin.

Bigslug

The antis will cry that it's so horrible that a game management system would put a dollar value on the life of a bear, lion, elephant, whatever.  The reality they can't wrap their little pea brains around is that, without the monetary input of those hunting fees, the animal becomes either a nuisance or a protein source, and its habitat becomes more valuable either plowed under as farmland, or bulldozed as a housing tract.  In short, it's the dollar value of those things that will quickly supersede the dollar value they do not allow the creature and its habitat to have.

The irony here is that both hunters and the antis want preservation of the species and habitat, but which of the two is actually putting forth the financial incentive to stop the decline?  The disinterested middle doesn't give a fig about anything but its own comforts - the hunters are willing to pay to keep "progress" at bay, where the antis want to accomplish this with "feels".  Cash is going to tell the tale, and if wildlife isn't allowed to have a price tag, it's going to be gone.

JerryBobCo

The problem isn't anti-hunting groups.  It's judges who wield way too much power.  Don't like a law or Presidential order?  Just find a like minded judge and problem solved.  One single person can over-ride the will of millions of people.

It's not just a tactic used by the left, either.  During Obama's reign, some of his proclamations were stopped or over-turned by judges. 

Perhaps this should be moved to the 2A forum.  It's a political issue, not a hunting one.