# WOLF bill has NOT passed yet



## WasatchOutdoors (Sep 26, 2007)

Fellow sportsmen. Please note that while HB36 has passed the house, it has NOT passed the senate, but been returned to it by the house with favorable reccomendations, and has NOT been signed by the governor making it law as of yet. We are in fact only half way. What's more, if you take time to actually read the bill, it very clearly states within that this is probably not constitutional and will in fact probably be overturned by the feds, citing the endangered species act.

Meantime, groups that I personally spend a great deal of time keeping an eye on, like "the wildearth guardians" who cost taxpayers millions in needless litigation are in fact mounting a major campaign literally begging Governor Herbert to veto this bill.

I'm asking you to get involved. I'm telling you that right now, we have a chance to get the Governor to commit to fighting this issue, rather than taking a "it'll never pass" attitude.

I've emailed him at this link http://governor.utah.gov/goca/form_governor.html and asked him to please pass the bill. I've taken the time to point out that up to this point, wildlife management has been supported financially in whole by monies raised by sportsmen. I've also asked him to please review how much groups like PETA and the "wildearth guardians" have contributed to wildlife issues in the past 10 years, and how much they have cost taxpayers in needless litigation. I asked him to keep in mind that the economy being in the slump that it is, with the government budget shortfalls that are already in place, is no time to create a stiuation where the financial burden of wildlife management gets shifted to the average taxpayer because portsmen are undermined and have to find other states to put their conservation dollars to work in. I lastly pointed out that his responses to fiscally oriented and wildlife issues like this will be the largest item I will consider should he run for reelection.

I must confess, I also emailed him a second time directly through the Wildearth Guardians plea to the governor form, and while I have no illusions that it will ever reach the governor, I would rather they waste their time and limited resources having to filter out responses from the likes of me, than have their full attention on trying to persuade the governor to Veto this bill. If you'd like to do the same please feel free at the following link. *but please keep in mind that you need to delete the prefab letter that Wildlearth guardians has pre written for their followers, because they are sheep incapable of writing a letter based on more than emotion.[*url]https://secure3.convio.net/wg/site/Advocacy?cmd=display&page=UserAction&id=321[/url]


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

This is a battle that Idaho and Wyoming already fought. And spent millions in legal fees. And lost. So really - why in a time when the State has to cut a billion from the budget - would this be a good thing anyway? Even if passed, this will do nothing to keep wolves out. It will do nothing to protect wolf prey-base in Utah. The ONLY thing this will do is force our State to spend millions of dollars of MINE and YOUR money to fight a battle that CANNOT be won. I guess I'm a different kind of conservative than most in this state. I'm the kind that doesn't like wasting money on battles that cannot be won.


----------



## WasatchOutdoors (Sep 26, 2007)

how can legislation that says that wolves must be destroyed, that authorizes the DWR to remove them utilizing what means necessary, including hunting, be that bad? 

Right now Montana and Idaho have the power to at least manage wolves, because they have a management plan in place. This is not a time to sit on your hindquarters and let groups based on emotion, not science, dictate what happens to wolves in Utah. Here we are as a group fighting for more opportunity as hunters, and you want to be complacent about the wolf issue..... Gary I respect you, but you're nuts to want to just let it slide.

I appreciate the fact that you see this as a waste of "10's of millions of dollars" in litigation. But at the same time, how many millions of dollars worth of conservation work will be lost allowing the wolves to take a foothold, completely protected, until a real management plan is brought into place?


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

Is it possible that this kind of law will work like the legalized or decriminalized laws on weed.
Its not a state issue to enforce. Let the Feds worry about it. 

Which we know they have no resources to deal with. So long a Utah doesn't sanction a wolf hunt and its not a state law to shoot a wolf. Let the feds investigate and prosecute. Which will hardly ever happen unless you flaunted that you shot a wolf.


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

Idaho and Montana can "control" populations - but they are not allowed to shoot every wolf on sight either. They are REQUIRED to keep population levels ABOVE those outlined by USFWS. When the beasts were introduced int he 90s, even when USFWS did the EIS prior to release, Utah and Wyoming fought tooth and nail with this exact kind of legislation and got rolled big time. And it cost them millions in legal fees to fight it, AND they lost and had no control until 15 years later when populations were huge. 

The question I ask - is there any movement within USFWS to introduce wolves into Utah? Unlike Idaho, Montana and Wyoming, Utah doesn't have large scale habitats that are all that suitable. Sure, the Uintas are there, and the Henrys in the south, but not nearly the prey base to support things. So if there is no plan to transplant wolves as in Idaho and Wyoming, we are only talking about those that migrate in. And if you shoot those on sight, it is a federal offense. This bill will not change that. And with the hunting in Idaho and populations being kept more in check now, the chances of migration are much less. 

It is not about being complacent on this. It is about understanding what the fight really is, and understanding the bigger fiscal reality we are facing. In an either/or world of financial reality, I'm not ready to pee away millions of dollars on a battle that CANNOT be won. It'd be like going to Vegas right now and betting on the Colts to beat the Saints. Sure, they'll take your money and laugh at you all the way. But that game has already been played.


----------



## WasatchOutdoors (Sep 26, 2007)

Gary. I unlike you, am willing to "pee" away the money to get this on the books. Wyoming did exactly this and the law was not overturned. The protection status was afforded to wolves, by the USFS in wyoming along with the exact description of what modifications wyoming would need to make to their currents plans, for the protection to be lifted. Right now wyomings own stubborness is the only thing keeping the protection in place. 

Yes the current law in utah is still in the chest thumoing stage. But once on the books, because of the precedence set in the wyoming decision, utah will more than likely be afforded the same option to at that point modify the law to be more in line with the other states, to then allow propwe management of said animals.

And I'm not sure about the factuality of the following, because it was picked up from several of the save the wolves groups, but right now they're all in a panic because while the majority of the state is protected for wolves, they are under the impression that the protection is NOT extended to the uintas, cache county and those areas between.

No matter what, until a law is put on the books and it's forced to be dealt with, nothing will change, and no mistake, the wolves will find niche areas of the state that can support them, at the cost of opportunity to sportsmen.


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

So what part of the state budget will you cut to pay for it? Figure $10 million to start.


----------



## Loke (Sep 7, 2007)

I think this has more to do with state soverignty than wolves. It is another way to tell the feds that the state no longer wants to be subject to their whims, just like declaring that products (firearms) manufactured and sold within the state are not subject to federal regulation. And personally I believe that this is an issue worth fighting for.


----------



## WasatchOutdoors (Sep 26, 2007)

Gary, I get where you're coming from. And I'm not one to advocate wasting taxpayer dollars. But the minute this thing passed the house, we were already on this road. At this point, that 10 million to start is going to go this direction whether any of us like it or not. At this point the ball is rolling, and you have a chance to influence what the outcome will be. But make no mistake, utah has already taken that first step off of the edge. The question now Gary is, which side of the line do you want to fall on.


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

The soverignty thing was settled in the bloodiest war our country has ever seen. And States-rights lost.

The question I'm asking - are there any credible proposals on the table to introduce wolves into Utah? 

Second - Utah does have a wolf management plan in place. 

I am on the line of no wolves in Utah. Where I grew up in Idaho (Challis) they have destroyed the game herds. All the areas I grew up hunting have been wiped out. I KNOW first hand of the destruction. Believe me - I know on this one. 

I also know the roads that Idaho went down when this was shoved down their throats. They fought it at every single step of the way. They spent millions to fight it. And they had a much larger ranching base than Utah. And even after that fight, they lost and got wolves shoved down their throats. 

In Utah, I am not seeing the pressure to establish new populations like there was in YNP and the Middle Fork areas. Maybe I'm not looking in the right/wrong places. But there is a degree of the law of diminishing returns at play here. Three rocky mountain states already have sizable populations of wolves - all through population augmentation. I simply don't see the same pressures to establish them in Utah. 

So if there is no pressure, then why spend money at this time, when we don't have the money to spend?


----------



## KAFO (Oct 17, 2007)

Utah DOES have a wolf management plan that was "finalized" in 2005

http://wildlife.utah.gov/wolf/wolf_management_plan.pdf

How it applies to the new legislation, ESA, etc..... I wish I knew.


----------



## Loke (Sep 7, 2007)

GaryFish said:


> The sovereignty thing was settled in the bloodiest war our country has ever seen. To date. And States-rights lost.  The next time may be different.
> 
> The question I'm asking - are there any credible proposals on the table to introduce wolves into Utah?


The plan is to allow "natural migration" to establish a couple of breeding packs of grey wolves in the Uintas. And to allow sport hunting to manage their numbers. The same applies to the Mexican Red wolves in the south. 
At least that is how I remember it from when I read the proposal a year or so ago.


----------



## WasatchOutdoors (Sep 26, 2007)

I think natural migration from the north is a major threat to begin with. But more importantly, the wolf advocacy groups are doing a major push right now to get footing for reintroduction of the mexican grey wolf to regions of southern utah. Can you imagine what 5 years of that could do to areas like the henry mountains or the paunsagaunt? If nothing else, this law temporarily puts its foot on the throat of these reintroduction efforts.

I totally get what you're saying about the taxpayers dollars being spent. But that fight is already at our door. Its now just a matter of you deciding on whether or not you want a say regarding the outcome.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Loke said:


> I think this has more to do with state sovereignty than wolves. It is another way to tell the feds that the state no longer wants to be subject to their whims, just like declaring that products (firearms) manufactured and sold within the state are not subject to federal regulation. And personally I believe that this is an issue worth fighting for.


Bingo! If we pick which state/individual rights we are willing to defend/fight for based on the 'price' to do so, we are screwed as a society.


----------



## Mojo1 (Sep 8, 2007)

Lawyers are an exspensive fix to a problem, bullets are a cheap fix to that problem, in the greater scheme of things, prehaps using some of those bullets on the lawyers would fix both problems. :twisted:


----------



## redleg (Dec 5, 2007)

Mojo1 said:


> Lawyers are an exspensive fix to a problem, bullets are a cheap fix to that problem, in the greater scheme of things, prehaps using some of those bullets on the lawyers would fix both problems. :twisted:


In the 1700s they fixed politicians with the bullets. Of course, back then the politicians were taxing the people too much and wouldn't listen to their complaints.


----------



## BradN (Sep 25, 2007)

I agree with Gary.

Pro said:


> Bingo! If we pick which state/individual rights we are willing to defend/fight for based on the 'price' to do so, we are screwed as a society.


Wisdom is choosing the right time and place for battle. If General Washington had chose to battle the British at New York City in 1776 rather than retreat, Pro would speak with an English accent.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

BradN said:


> I agree with Gary.
> 
> Pro said:
> 
> ...


If we keep retreating, and never fight, we may still have the right accent, but we will be living like the French.  :wink:

I agree we need to pick our battles, and this is one I think we should stand and fight. retreating from state sovereignty because a SMALL group of progressives want the rest of America to cower in the corner is both near sighted and more costly in the end. How much revenue will Utah lose if wolves take root here? I'm talking hits to the livestock owners, what are you going to do even more of them fold up? What about the lost revenue EVERY year from lost hunting opportunity? I contend it is cheaper to take a stand now and stop the disease before it takes root and becomes a permanent cancer.


----------



## WasatchOutdoors (Sep 26, 2007)

> Wisdom is choosing the right time and place for battle. If General Washington had chose to battle the British at New York City in 1776 rather than retreat, Pro would speak with an English accent


Yes, and this is the time. There is legislation that is halfway done sitting on the senate floor just waiting for finalization and a signature from the Governor.

And yes I know some of you have the mentality of "it'll never stand up to the feds" and you might be right. But the final compromise will end up being somewhere in the middle between what we ask for and the wolf huggers ask for. If we don't ask for anything, halfway between wolf sanctuary and nowhere is right in the middle of wolf sanctuary.

And let's be honest guys, this whole thread started because I'm asking you to take some ownership of the outcome of our wildlife programs. I'm not asking you to get off the sofa, I'm not asking you to march on washington, I'm just asking you click on the link and write a quick note to the governor to ask him to please sign the legislation. The amount of energy some of you have spent typing back and forth on this thread is way more effor than it would have taken to follow the link and send an email in the first place.

I know you guys. I know that if this same type of legislation were being submitted involving any aspect of your 2nd ammendment rights, you'd all be up in arms, knowing full well that if you give an inch they'll slowly take a whole mile, one bite at a time. How is this any different?

Get off your butt and write a note to the governor....please.


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

You certainly presented one side of the discussion to persuade people to act as you would like them to on this issue. I respect that. I think however, that it is worth considering some other points of view instead of following along blindly. With every issue, there are several points of view and I think some of those have been brought out. 

I for one, do not want to see this legislation pass. I do not like wolves. I do not feel they have a role in our day, in our ecosystem as we work towards multiple uses of our natural resources. I believe humans have replaced the largest (and best) predators (wolves and grizzlies) in the system. And I believe humans are better in the function because humans can show restraint in harvest, as well as habitat manipulation to improve things for the prey species - two things that wolves and grizzlies cannot do. Humans are the superior predator, and stweard.

Now that said - every strategy and every single reason mentioned to support this bill was employed in Idaho through the 90s. And they got rolled. And they spent tens of millions in legal fees. And there was no compromise. Passing this bill into law would only make the same mistakes and the only ones to benefit from this will be the attorneys. Are we as sportsmen, who see our hobby of hunting, willing to fork out $1,000/year each to fight this thing in this way?

State statutes in this endeavor mean nothing. If we are to fight this thing really, it needs to be done through Congress - not the legislature. With this an election year for all our congressmen, and one of our senators, we as sportsmen need to let them know that we will see to it that they don't keep their seat, unless they will take on the Endangered Species Act for revision - taking the power - the most obscene and abused federal power in our nation - away from USFWS. The statehouse is the wrong venue for this battle and will only inflict fincial damage to our state that WILL exceed financial damage that will result from wolves setting up shop. This is a battle we need to fight - but we need to fight it at the right venue. Otherwise, we are just peeing up a flagpole.


----------



## WasatchOutdoors (Sep 26, 2007)

I agree with you that we need to take back the power through elections. That being said, with todays party politics and lack of independant thought in government, you're 'just peeing up a flagpole'. 

But keep in mind that many of the expensive battles that would have been ahead have already been paid for, unfortunately at Idaho's expense. The battles they have fought have set precedence in the federal system in regards to a states ability to manage wolves. And if you don't like this version of the bill, how long do you think it'll take for the next version to get this far. If it's 4 years from now is that soon enough?

I'm done beating my head against the wall here, you're big boys, you decide for yourselves on what you want to do about the wolf issue.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

GaryFish said:


> Now that said - every strategy and every single reason mentioned to support this bill was employed in Idaho through the 90s. And they got rolled. And they spent tens of millions in legal fees. And there was no compromise. Passing this bill into law would only make the same mistakes and the only ones to benefit from this will be the attorneys. Are we as sportsmen, who see our hobby of hunting, willing to fork out $1,000/year each to fight this thing in this way?
> 
> State statutes in this endeavor mean nothing. If we are to fight this thing really, it needs to be done through Congress - not the legislature. With this an election year for all our congressmen, and one of our senators, we as sportsmen need to let them know that we will see to it that they don't keep their seat, unless they will take on the Endangered Species Act for revision - taking the power - the most obscene and abused federal power in our nation - away from USFWS. The statehouse is the wrong venue for this battle and will only inflict fincial damage to our state that WILL exceed financial damage that will result from wolves setting up shop. This is a battle we need to fight - but we need to fight it at the right venue. Otherwise, we are just peeing up a flagpole.


I contend the two are connected. How can we expect/demand our Representatives stand up to the ESA and state rights if we aren't willing to walk the walk ourselves? And, you are off a bit on what happened in Idaho. Do you really think the policy that is now in play that allows wolves to be killed would be there if the state. livestock owners, and hunters had just talked? You can win the war even by losing some/many of the battles. Holding out for the 'guaranteed' victory means conceding way too much ground that will likely never be recovered. Yes, we need to get the 'right' people elected, but that is just one part of the strategy that will lead to victory.


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> And, you are off a bit on what happened in Idaho. Do you really think the policy that is now in play that allows wolves to be killed would be there if the state. livestock owners, and hunters had just talked?


Even though Idaho can hunt wolves, they still have to keep at least 50 breeding pair or they lose control. So they didn't win any battles or wars. Sure they can hunt them, but they cannot eliminate them. And hunting was actually part of the initial plan when they were planted - that once a stable population (50 breeding pairs) was reached, control would revert to the states and the states could control populations with hunting. It was after the fact that the wolf lovers fought against the terms of their own plan and tried to change it.

The sad thing - the REALLY sad thing, is that in 92 and 94, there was a huge movement to totally revise the endangered species act. The revisions would have taken all the powers from USFWS and forced them to be in concert with state and even local wildlife management plans. It had the votes to pass both houses and get Pres. Bush's signature in 92. But then the rural caucus caused a fuss about "getting in bed with those environmentalists" and pressured their congressmen to shoot it down. Instead of really looking into the revisions, the ranchers bought some false perceptions and didn't want to get in bed with the feds and defeated the thing. The revisions on the table in '92 would have prohibited the wolf introduction in Idaho in '95. But the effort got labeled as "environmental protectionist" as it was formally endorsed by the BLM and Forest Service. Too bad too.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

GaryFish said:


> Even though Idaho can hunt wolves, they still have to keep at least 50 breeding pair or they lose control. So they didn't win any battles or wars. Sure they can hunt them, but they cannot eliminate them. And hunting was actually part of the initial plan when they were planted - that once a stable population (50 breeding pairs) was reached, control would revert to the states and the states could control populations with hunting. It was after the fact that the wolf lovers fought against the terms of their own plan and tried to change it.


You are omitting the biggest part of the whole story Gary, and it confuses me as to why. :? Yes, the STATED initial plan called for 50 breeding pairs, but the wolf huggers never intended to comply with that from the inception of the plan. It was the wolf lovers who fought to stop the initial plan from being followed. So, how can you say no battles/wars were won by those who wanted the wolf managed/minimized? The mistake, IMHO, that the livestock owners and hunters made right off the bat, was allowing the **** things to ever take root in Idaho/Montana. Why would any sportsman want Utah to repeat the same idiotic mistakes? DO you for one minute really think once wolves show up in verifiable numbers that the wolf lovers won't try and circumvent the plan AGAIN? If you think they won't, what gives you cause to think this groups have suddenly obtained logic, reason in their DNA?


----------



## Chaser (Sep 28, 2007)

Yet another reason to pass this bill:

http://www.retrievertraining.net/forums ... hp?t=50984


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> So, how can you say no battles/wars were won by those who wanted the wolf managed/minimized?


I don't consider being forced to have AT LEAST 50 breeding pairs any kind of victory. The Idaho legislature and IDFG did not lay down and accept things. They fought tooth and nail over everything about the plan. But USFWS got the bee in their bonet and forced the wolves on them through the ESA. Hunters and livestock owners did not lay down by any stretch. They fought every step of the way prior to introduction, and every step after introduction. But when the FBI shows up along side USFWS to see why the collared wolf is sending a dead signal, the ranchers learned that they could fight it and land in jail, or go along grudgedly.

You are correct that the wolf lovers will push all they can and then push for more.

My only point is that the state legislature is not the place to do anything that will make a difference on this. That has been tried. And the federal courts rolled it. USFWS has too much power in the Endangered Species Act. Until that is changed, it doesn't matter what the state legislature does. Idaho has several laws on their books that prohibit wolves. And USFWS is not subject to those laws. Efforts to deal with this on a state legislative are fruitless. The ONLY way to limit what USFWS can do on this is to amend the Endangered Species Act. And only Congress can do that.

Again - I'm not saying to not fight the battle. But it needs to be fought where it will actually make a difference. Passing a bill in the Utah legislatuer is akin to my beloved Cougars playing in the Las Vegas Bowl again. Sure, they get another game, but it does nothing in establishing who the national champion will be, nor does it get us closer to a play-off.


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

I consider the Endangered Species Act the MOST POWERFUL AND FRIGHTENING piece of legislation ever passed by Congress. The Patriot Act has nothing on the ESA for infringing on private property rights. If American knew the power behind it, it would scare the bejeebers out of folks. But in today's world, if you are for any kind of change to it, you are labeled a wack-o that is out to destroy the planet. Seriously - no law ever passed in the history of this country did more to strip states of any soverign rights, than the Endangered Species Act.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

GaryFish said:


> I consider the Endangered Species Act the MOST POWERFUL AND FRIGHTENING piece of legislation ever passed by Congress. The Patriot Act has nothing on the ESA for infringing on private property rights. If American knew the power behind it, it would scare the bejeebers out of folks. But in today's world, if you are for any kind of change to it, you are labeled a wack-o that is out to destroy the planet. Seriously - no law ever passed in the history of this country did more to strip states of any soverign rights, than the Endangered Species Act.


A-FREAKING-MEN! :evil:


----------



## WasatchOutdoors (Sep 26, 2007)

> I consider the Endangered Species Act the MOST POWERFUL AND FRIGHTENING piece of legislation ever passed by Congress. The Patriot Act has nothing on the ESA for infringing on private property rights. If American knew the power behind it, it would scare the bejeebers out of folks. But in today's world, if you are for any kind of change to it, you are labeled a wack-o that is out to destroy the planet. Seriously - no law ever passed in the history of this country did more to strip states of any soverign rights, than the Endangered Species Act.


That I feel is the exact reason it would be worth it to challenge the ESA. And Pro is correct, most of the money that was wasted in Idaho was a direct result of lawsuits filed by environmental groups once Idaho had reached the number of breeding pairs necessary to follow the already clearly written management plan.

If anyone thinks that environmental groups in Utah won't do the exact same thing here regardless of what the managment plan is, you're kidding yourselves. Unless we lay down and allow them to rewrite wolf management to let wolves run unrestricted and unchecked, they will in fact waste millions in needless impractical litigation.

If you think I'm wrong, feel free to do like I did, sign up for the Utah wolf Forum and spy on the enemy. It might surprise you to see how extreme the viewpoint is. The scary thing is that of the 5 different pro-wolf groups that I monitor, this is the most level headed one. But that being said, this group is Utah based, and is putting together a legal strategy to allow wolves unchecked in Utah.

Here's their link. Enjoy!
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/utahwolves/


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Thanks a lot Wasatch! :evil: Now I will never get anything done. :wink: 

The millions Gary seems worried about being 'wasted' will be used one way or another unless we are willing to give the wolf advocates their wishes. I would rather get rid of the dandelions in my lawn in the spring than try and fight them all summer long once they have spread and taken root. It may be a little more upfront cost, but it's cheaper and more EFFECTIVE in the long run.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

WasatchOutdoors said:


> Here's their link. Enjoy!
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/utahwolves/


I'm going to have to try something different. They denied me access, it seems both my email addresses are on their banned list. :shock:


----------



## WasatchOutdoors (Sep 26, 2007)

They email me the updated newsletter weekly, sometimes daily, depending on what changes. I can certainly forward all upcoming emotionally sypatheic garbage if you'd like.

But between you and me, most of it is pretty PETArded


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

I'll pass, unless you come across something way out there that is beyond absurd to the point of being comical. I get worked up enough as it is over the direction our country is going, and now the new elk proposal being pushed. -O,-


----------



## 10yearquest (Oct 15, 2009)

The "scary" expence of fighting this is all propaganda. I was listening to the radio this morning and a state rep was talking about another bill in the utah legislature dealing with guns. He said that the state already has an attorney general and paid staff of lawyers to fight these kinds of things in court. this wolf issue and a couple other things in the works right now are all about the rights of the people through the sovernty of the states. The federal gov has gotten to big and powerful and the states need to fight them NOW!


----------



## BugleB (Sep 24, 2008)

I don't see why the state needs to spend millions on lawyers. All we need to do is keep the cost of lawyers on our side to a minimum, and if the feds win, it will cost THEM millions. If we keep passing enough frivolous wolf laws, and keep letting the feds spend the millions, we might eventually wear them down. That would be similar to the tree/wolf hugger tactics, but in reverse. 

Here is what I mean. A few years ago, a friend of mine was charged with a offense by the Utah DWR. He shot a bear in self defense, but the DWR didn't see it that way. My advice to him was "don't hire a lawyer, if you do, you will automatically lose just in lawyer fees alone". He couldn't find a lawyer he could afford, so he went to court without one. He convinced the judge about 90% that he wasn't guilty of the charge, and the judge fined him a grand total of $160 based on the 10% doubt. The DWR wanted the judge to take his weapon, his truck, a huge fine and some jail time. They spent spent thousands investigating and procecuting the case and I would say they were the ones that lost, big time. By the way, the cheapest laywer he could find wanted at least $2500 just for starters. He might have saved the $160 with a lawyer, but it would have cost him at least $2,340 more.


----------



## WasatchOutdoors (Sep 26, 2007)

> I don't see why the state needs to spend millions on lawyers. All we need to do is keep the cost of lawyers on our side to a minimum, and if the feds win, it will cost THEM millions. If we keep passing enough frivolous wolf laws, and keep letting the feds spend the millions, we might eventually wear them down. That would be similar to the tree/wolf hugger tactics, but in reverse.


This is the part that I think a lot of people don't understand. The bulk of the legal expenses are going to come even if they pass the most sound and untouchable management plan that has ever existed.

The long term challenge isn't going to come from the Feds. The Feds simply want us to have a plan that works and keeps out of their hair.

The issue is that the environmental groups will file suit against any plan that allows even one wolf to be harvested. In the last 5 years suits have been filed against every plan in the westers states including the balanaced and approved ones currently in Montana and Idaho.

The federal government has now been sued by The Sierra Club, PETA, Earthjustice, Friends of Animals, Greenpeace, Wolf Recovery Foundation, Defenders of Wildlife, Wildearth Guardians etc. feel free to add any of the ones I've missed, because these are only the ones I know about.

You all seem to be completely in the dark regarding the expense of having any plan that allows wolves to be controlled. Regardless of what plan is rolled out, the expense from needless litigation brought on by environmental groups based solely on emotional grounds will cost millions. *You have to keep in mind that environmental groups do not allow for compromise at all, and that some of these groups are so fundamentalist radical in their thinking that they are willing to go forward with suits, that have no way of winning, that cost millions, because during the time that the suit is going on, wolves will have a temporary protection afforded waiting the decision. Their entire defense strategy is based in the idea that if they can keep this permanently in court, regardless of the expense, it will protect the wolves. *

The sooner this can be brought to court and a final decision reached, the sooner it's over. Now stop being a baby and tear that band aid off. Yeah it'll hurt, but once it's over, it's over.


----------

