Wolf protections focus of lawsuit in Minnesota

Least they have some 97 elk in Minnesota. Endangered species by area? Region? No worries, there are 200 in neighboring Wisconsin - well least we think so with the three reintroductions of elk... Within the ESA wackos for wolves in Minnesota and Wisconsin.

giphy.gif

Enjoying the thread as well. :)
 
Sytes said:
Least they have some 97 elk in Minnesota. Endangered species by area? Region? No worries, there are 200 in neighboring Wisconsin - well least we think so with the three reintroductions of elk... Within the ESA wackos for wolves in Minnesota and Wisconsin.

View attachment 90796

Enjoying the thread as well. :)
Click to expand...

We are just one Disney movie with the lead character being a clever and lovable elk away from getting them on the list too.
 
Help me out here. The lawsuit was filed in a DC court, by people from AZ, and applies to MN, WI, MI. The story just came of the Minneapolis AP and was carried in the Northern MN online news source.

This isn't a MN issue. Don't get me wrong, there are plenty of people in Minneapolis that love them some wolves, and plenty of people where the wolves live that want to see them thinned pretty dramatically, but the reality is the vast majority of Minnesotans don't even know this is an issue. From my foxhole too many deer causes way more problems here (CWD/Moose), than too many wolves.
 
DC court is a common place to sue a federal agency, regardless of where that agency's actions/inactions caused the problem.
 
i believe it is the liberal judges location that determines where the suit is filed, the people filing want the most liberal judge they can find.
 
cheeser said:
i believe it is the liberal judges location that determines where the suit is filed, the people filing want the most liberal judge they can find.
Click to expand...

But wait....
Didn't our "conservative" SCOTUS Chief Justice Roberts just admonish Individual Number One about using political labels when speaking about our judiciary officials. I think he said something about "us" having well qualified judges all around.
It's all so confusing - especially on a public hunting internet forum populated by so many concerned individuals qualified to speak on such matters.:rolleyes:
 
Robert's was full of crap. The judiciary is just as partisan as the legislative branch.
 
It’s more effective to hunt wolves or actually kill a wolf then to boycott Patagonia. It’s also a lot harder.

Ya can’t do it from the couch.
 
tjones said:
It’s more effective to hunt wolves or actually kill a wolf then to boycott Patagonia. It’s also a lot harder.

Ya can’t do it from the couch.
Click to expand...

Even more effective to do both...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

cheeser
Opponents of wolf plan file lawsuit
Replies
6
Views
898
Wind Gypsy
W
ccc23454
Co wolf safety
Replies
8
Views
684
perma
perma
cheeser
Board leader backs Wisconsin wolf plan
Replies
0
Views
365
cheeser
cheeser
cheeser
Gray wolf population must be addressed Minnesota
2
Replies
31
Views
3K
Sytes
Sytes
cheeser
Wisconsin wolf plan sets target of around 1,000
2
Replies
20
Views
1K
tzone
T
PEAX Trekking Poles

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
111,004
Messages
1,943,303
Members
34,956
Latest member
mfrosty6

Share this page

Back
Top