Oral arguments set for June 15
Judge sets date to hear wolf-lawsuit arguments.
EVE BYRON Independent Record
Alan Gregory’s Conservation News- Marine life on a warming planet
- Oklahoma, where the denial comes right before the drought
- Plants will be hard put to handle greenhouse gases, scientists say
- The quote of the week
- Appeal filed over Blair Mountain strip mining in W.Va.
- Dr. James Hansen: Climate change is happening now
- The pledge of wildlands
- Prairie dog disease confirmed in South Dakota
- NASA: Ice sheet decline at both poles increasing
- An area of Arctic ice bigger than the U.S. melted this year
Judge sets date to hear wolf-lawsuit arguments
April 26, 2010 — Ken Cole22 Responses to “Judge sets date to hear wolf-lawsuit arguments”
Recent comments
william huard on Coyotes nail dog during Colora… Ryan on Coyotes nail dog during Colora… william huard on Coyotes nail dog during Colora… WM on Megaloads video: Giant rig opp… Ryan on Coyotes nail dog during Colora… jdubya on Megaloads video: Giant rig opp… JEFF E on Have you come across any inter… JB on Republican’s Climate Solution:… william huard on Have you come across any inter… Peter Kiermeir on Have you come across any inter… - Buffalo Field Campaign Blog
- An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.
- Demarcated Landscapes
- An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.
The Wildlife News 
April 26, 2010 at 4:29 PM
The paper made a mistake. It’s Tuesday, June 15 @ 9am.
April 26, 2010 at 5:36 PM
It will probably be at least 6 weeks before he issues a ruling…unless he has been spending this time writing the decision and reads it from the bench. Now, THAT would get folks’ attention.
No matter which way he rules there will be an appeal. And, don’ t forget, regardless, the Secretary of the Interior has the authority to withdraw the de-listing decision at any time. If Malloy doesn’t relist the wolves, look for a call for mountains of pressure to be brought on Obama and Salazar to re-list the wolves on agency authority.
April 27, 2010 at 11:10 AM
Also look for a call to delist the wolf again or change the ESA.
April 27, 2010 at 5:05 PM
If Pombo wins in November, you can bet he will try and put the ESA in his sights.
Interestingly, there is some thought among environmental lawyers and scientists that the Act should be changed to an ecosystem-based statute since that is the way nature operates, but with the current climate in DC..it is simply too dangerous to be seen supporting any changes to the Act right now.
April 27, 2010 at 5:12 PM
Given Malloy’s recent environmental rulings, I would say the anti wolf side is appealing to the proverbial Dark Side…(insert sound of Vader breathing here).
April 27, 2010 at 9:58 AM
Does anyone think the timing of his wanting to get on with it has anything to do with current Wolf news coming out of the GYE ie: eliminating wolves, wolf hunt quotas, etc , or it just so happens he’s ready?
April 27, 2010 at 10:07 AM
After watching Molloy on several cases over the years, I would imagine, it is just because he is finally ready, we all have to remember in the whole scope of things, the wolf case is just another case to him, and he deals with a lot of cases concerning just about any issue every week.
April 27, 2010 at 11:26 AM
Save bears,
I’d usually agree with an analysis like yours, but here, I think the judge can see that the issue of wolves is being used to carry water for other political causes. There will be regional political fallout from any decision he makes.
The robe doesn’t abolish a judge’s political (as opposed to his judicial judgment).
April 27, 2010 at 11:55 AM
Ralph,
I would like to imagine, that judges make ruling based on law…
That said, I know it is a pipe dream…
No matter which way he goes, it is going to get very interesting in the tri-state area..
April 27, 2010 at 5:08 PM
Rulings should be based in law, but as my college speech professor once said, a person interprets reality according to his or her background and experience. There is no way a judge can simply be an automaton; but rulings that are unsupported totally by existing and applicable precedents shouldn’t happen. The only court that can make new law out of sow’s ears is the Supreme Court…look at Bush v. Gore.
April 27, 2010 at 12:10 PM
Ralph,
Not sure I understand your comment. Would you mind expanding your thoughts on the “other political causes” as well as the judge’s ” political judgment?”
April 27, 2010 at 1:18 PM
WM,
Oh, I meant that some right wing causes are trying to roll wolves into taking our guns, anti-hunting, you-don’t-love-God-the right-way, taxes are too high thinking.
. . . and that is just one example.
April 27, 2010 at 2:47 PM
At the risk of being accused of being a hippie, I am going to say that I am sending strong, positive thoughts to the wolves and to Judge Molloy for a positive outcome for this much-persecuted animal.
April 27, 2010 at 3:11 PM
Virginia I don’t think your a hippie, heck I know many on the other side that are doing the exact same thing, not that I agree or disagree with them, but don’t think only the pro side is doing this..
April 28, 2010 at 6:41 PM
I’ll take a hippie over a neo-con anyday.
April 28, 2010 at 9:28 AM
Ralph – WRT other ideological causes getting bundled up with wolves: last night I picked up a Tea Party broadsheet published in some fortified bunker in Big Sky.
The cover story was wolves as a threat to human safety, & featured a group interview with Fanning, Beers, Hoppe,& Geist, along with a few other luminaries. The publication also included standard Tea Party rants. This was their March issue; the April issue focuses on Janet Napolitano & HAS. The link between Tea Party & the extreme anti-wolf fringe is well beyond allegorical.
April 28, 2010 at 6:19 PM
SAP:
Thanks for passing along that troubling piece of information. I am often frustrated by the attempts of political parties to bundle and package issues into neat, bifurcated (i.e. left-right; liberal-conservative) ideologies for their members. It stifles meaningful debate by allowing people to rely on decision heuristics.
Today a colleague showed me a survey she just received from the RNC that was purposefully disguised to look like the US Census. It even had “CENSUS” written in several places in large letters. The questions were slanted and designed to allow the RNC to make claims like (and I’m paraphrasing) “80% of Americans don’t support Obama’s health care plan”. I will try and post a few examples tomorrow.
These tactics are shameful, no matter who uses them.
April 29, 2010 at 12:07 PM
JB – wrt “decision heuristics”, the lighter side:
http://www.theonion.com/articles/stereotypes-are-a-real-timesaver,10696/
April 29, 2010 at 12:08 PM
Re: GOP “Census” mailers: didn’t Congress just pass a law making it illegal to masquerade as the Census?
April 29, 2010 at 12:55 PM
That Onion piece was great! I was actually laughing out loud.
– – –
I’d heard (second hand) that the federal government was postponing other government-sponsored surveys, but I’m not aware of any law passing.
April 29, 2010 at 1:15 PM
H.R.4621 – Prevent Deceptive Census Look Alike Mailings Act:
http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h4621/show
Signed into law on 7 April 2010; nonetheless:
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/04/even_after_law_aimed_at_banning_it_rnc_still_sendi.php
April 29, 2010 at 8:45 AM
Well here we go, many bad environmental situations have happened lately,the gulf’s oil spill,estimated at six hundred square miles, ranchers and their cattle,not taking precautions to protect the water system. Ranchers wanting to control predtor population, BLM hazing our Buffalo,our secretary of interior must step down. I just hope it turns out good for the wolves and bears, they need a break, shoot to kill solves nothing.P.S. “Drill baby Drill”,just does not make it.