[fabsroman]

"The state believes the disease spread through the herd so extensively because of the 3 1/2-year court battle, the Associated Press reports."

That is the part that bothers me. Obviously, the guy did not want them to take his herd at the beginning when they found the disease. So, he battled it in Court, let the disease spread, and ran the risk of the disease getting out to wild animals. The question is why? I am assuming that it was because of greed and profit. I doubt the State was willing to pay the guy for his deer, and definitely wouldn't be willing to pay the deer the "trophy" price for the deer. On the flip side, what happens if a person, hunting on this ranch, comes down with CWD after eating venison from one of the deer killed on this ranch? Should this rancher have thought about that? How much money would that hunter and his/her loved ones (e.g., spouse, sons, daughters) be entitled to from this rancher?

I don't know much about the Court case, but I am willing to bet it was over greed.

As far as simplifying things, I am all for it, but I don't think society is. Society continues to make things new and improved, like the short magnum rifle cartridges, the 3 1/2" 12 gauge, and Hevi-Shot which is denser than lead but 5 times more expensive.

I find that a lot of my clients do not know all the sophistication that goes with the law, so I try to simplify things as much as possible. One client wasn't read his rights so he thought he was off the hook on a DUI. Try explaining to him that the lack of being read his rights only means that a confession cannot be used againt him, and that he was read his right to refuse the breathalyzer, but agreed to it and it could be used against him. My life is anything but simple.