[fabsroman]

The more I read about this, the stupider it gets. It seems as though Montana, Wyoming, and Wisconsin (not sure about this state, but there was a third state) were told in 2003 that they could manage the wolves if they came up with a management plan and it was approved by USFWS. Montana and Wisconsin came up with acceptable plans. However, Wyoming did not because they wanted ranchers to be able to shoot wolves on sight as nuisance animals and USFWS wanted wolves only to be shot if they actually posed a threat. Wyoming actually sued USFWS because it thought its plan was legitimate. It appears that Wyoming actually lacked standing (i.e., the right to sue) because USFWS had not actually rejected the plan. Wyoming lost the trial and lost again on appeal.

What kills me is why Wyoming wouldn't have agreed to whatever USFWS wanted initially. The killing of some wolves would have been better than none at all. Now, this casued a big disaster for Montana and Wisconsin because all three plans needed to be approved before any could be put into effect. Hence, Wyoming ham strung Montana and Wisconsin on a stupid issue. Take what you can get and then ask for more later if the wolves continue to pose a problem. Sheer stupidity.

Okay, it is getting late and I have to prepare a little more for my case tomorrow. I'll read these other cases tomorrow and see if I can shed any more light on this. So far though, it doesn't seem to be the Court's doing that this never gets going. Seems as though a state organization or federal organization keeps on dropping the ball.