Results 1 to 13 of 13

Thread: State Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Predator Control

  1. #1
    Forum Admin Brian M's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Eagle River, AK
    Posts
    13,392

    Default State Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Predator Control

    In an Alaska Dispatch article, Craig Medred is reporting that the State Supreme Court today ruled unanimously against a lawsuit challenging the legality of state-sponsored predator control. Here's an excerpt:

    Justices on Friday handed down an opinion ruling that two environmental organizations -- the Alaska Wildlife Alliance and Defenders of Wildlife -- are wrong in arguing that the state constitution ties the hands of the state in regards to aerial wolf hunts, bear snaring and other forms of intensive management.
    You can read the whole thing at this link.

  2. #2
    New member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Marshall
    Posts
    1,975

    Default

    & here's the actual opinion, all 26 pages of it...

    http://www.courts.alaska.gov/ops/sp-6497.pdf

  3. #3
    Supporting Member Amigo Will's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Wrangell
    Posts
    7,600

    Default

    Now lets see if some federal judge in cali or ny say no
    Now left only to be a turd in the forrest and the circle will be complete.Use me as I have used you

  4. #4
    New member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Marshall
    Posts
    1,975

    Default

    Of course, "we just can't let nature run wild!" LMAO!!!

  5. #5
    Pertinax
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Amigo Will View Post
    Now lets see if some federal judge in cali or ny say no
    They can. In California right now, after the people of the state overwhelmingly voted to define marriage in the state Constitution as between one man and one woman, a couple of homosexuals sued in federal court regarding federal benefits which extended to the spouse of veteran (thus showing "injury"), found a homosexual federal judge to hear their case, and he ruled against the state constitutional amendment. So, in like fashion here, the environmentalists can find "injury" with predator control on (or even near) federal lands (similar to the recent head butting between the Charlie River National Preserve managers and ADFG regarding wolf control near the Preserve, or even like the wolf buffer zone outside Denali National Park between Cantwell and the Park), and sue in federal court. This is standard political/legal warfare. One never gives up. One just gets more creative and kicks it up a notch.

  6. #6
    Member bushrat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Now residing in Fairbanks from the bush
    Posts
    4,363

    Default "...subject to preferences among beneficial uses."

    This is an interesting court opinion, highly suggest reading it. It's much more nuanced than is being reported. (Thanks goalie for posting the link)


  7. #7

    Default

    As a minumum, the courts decision offers opportunity for legislators to appropriate dollars in the advancement of Predator Contol Efforts, in concert with our State Constitution, without being hamstrung by misguided individuals and organizations at every juncture in the process. Hunters can once again go afield without the stigma of being identified as a heathen. It gives credence to what we have known all along, that it is not only the responsible thing to do, but...OUR DUTY. This is a Big Deal. As usual though, I think there will be a minority of us that are willing to carry out our duties. It is those of us, willing to do our part, that others will benefit from. That part can't/won't be Judiciously Mandated. Even peer pressure will not move the unwilling.
    "96% of all Internet Quotes are suspect and the remaining 4% are fiction."
    ~~Abraham Lincoln~~

  8. #8
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    6,031

    Default "nuanced" is not a word that communicates clearly

    Quote Originally Posted by bushrat View Post
    This is an interesting court opinion, highly suggest reading it. It's much more nuanced than is being reported. (Thanks goalie for posting the link)
    Nothing personal, but I really really dislike all use of the word "nuanced". I've never once seen it used that it didn't cover up something that can and should be said more plainly and more clearly.

    If you were to choose different words and give some more details about the exact thing your saying here Mark, what would those words be? Could you say them please?

    Thanks.

  9. #9
    Member martentrapper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Fairbanks, Ak.
    Posts
    4,191

    Default

    nu·ance
       /ˈnuɑns, ˈnyu-, nuˈɑns, nyu-; Fr. nüˈɑ̃s/ Show Spelled[noo-ahns, nyoo-, noo-ahns, nyoo-; Fr. ny-ahns] Show IPA
    –noun, plural -anc·es  /-ɑnsɪz, -ˈɑnsɪz; Fr. -ˈɑ̃s/ Show Spelled[-ahn-siz, -ahn-siz; Fr. -ahns] Show IPA.
    1.
    a subtle difference or distinction in expression, meaning, response, etc.
    2.
    a very slight difference or variation in color or tone.
    Use nuance in a Sentence
    See images of nuance
    Search nuance on the Web
    Origin:
    1775–85; < F: shade, hue, equiv. to nu ( er ) to shade (lit., to cloud < VL *nūbāre, deriv. of *nūba, for L nūbēs cloud) + -ance -ance

    —Related forms
    nuanced, adjective
    un&#183;nu&#183;anced, adjective

    —Synonyms
    1. subtlety, nicety, hint, refinement.

    As a professional writer, bushrat is much more nuanced in his choice of words!! Haha.
    I can't help being a lazy, dumb, weekend warrior.......I have a JOB!
    I have less friends now!!

  10. #10
    Member bushrat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Now residing in Fairbanks from the bush
    Posts
    4,363

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FamilyMan
    Nothing personal, but I really really dislike all use of the word "nuanced". I've never once seen it used that it didn't cover up something that can and should be said more plainly and more clearly.

    If you were to choose different words and give some more details about the exact thing your saying here Mark, what would those words be? Could you say them please?
    FM, the truth is that I didn't want to start yet another "discussion" on pred-control and court lawsuits, seeing as we have two ongoing and rambling threads on same. So I thought I'd just hint to "read between the lines" for those that wanted to take the time to read the actual court decision. Plus, I've found that very few members here actually will read whatever it is we are ostensibly discussing, which is frustrating.

    But you asked nicely <grin>, so I'll expound a bit.

    The state argued that the sustained yield clause "allows for some uses, and therefore some resources, to be preferred over others." And the high court affirmed the superior court's ruling "that the management of wildlife resources may constitutionally include a selection between predator and prey populations."

    I have always felt that IM law could be successfully challenged on constitutional grounds. This lawsuit really didn't attempt to do that...another tack was taken -- saying that predator reductions didn't meet the "sustained yield" aspect of Article VIII -- that proved unsuccessful. With every high court decision there is often a double-edged aspect to it. That's what I get from this decision. The caveat in article VIII section 4 has been affirmed, that the state can indeed manage wildlife "subject to preferences among beneficial uses."

    One wonders down the line if the preferential use of wildlife among the majority of Alaskans is non-consumptive...what could happen.

  11. #11
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    6,031

    Default "nuanced", explained

    Thanks for the explanation Mark; I do understand.

    And in reply to both you/Mark and MT, I hear you both saying that "nuanced" is a way of saying there is something else going on, or something else to be said - - - - THAT IS NOT BEING SAID.

    No wonder I don't like the use of the word. The use of it seems like a poor way to communicate, imo.

  12. #12
    Member Vince's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Fairbanks most the time, Ancorage some of the time,& on the road Kicking Anti's all the time
    Posts
    8,989

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bushrat View Post
    FM, the truth is that I didn't want to start yet another "discussion" on pred-control and court lawsuits, seeing as we have two ongoing and rambling threads on same. So I thought I'd just hint to "read between the lines" for those that wanted to take the time to read the actual court decision. Plus, I've found that very few members here actually will read whatever it is we are ostensibly discussing, which is frustrating.

    First i think the word... Ostensibly should be replaced with Tenasiously.... at least they are trying.

    working on my third reading... dang phone keeps interupting... i am afraid I don't see the Nuanced underling as others do... i tend to read in black and white in-re court orders... but then having spent a few hundred thousand on ex wifes... i am prone to that view point...
    [SIZE=4]A. The Sustained Yield Clause Applies To Predator Control.
    [FONT=Times New Roman]The superior court concluded that Alaska’s sustained yield clause applies to predators, including bears and wolves, but that "the management of wildlife resources may constitutionally include a selection between predator and prey populations." We apply our independent judgment to questions of constitutional interpretation and interpret Alaska’s constitution "according to reason, practicality, and common sense, taking into account the plain meaning and purpose of the law as well as the intent of the drafters."29
    1. The sustained yield clause does not distinguish between predator and prey populations.
    When we interpret the Alaska Constitution, "[u]nless the context suggests otherwise, words are to be given their natural, obvious[,] and ordinary meaning."30 The text of Alaska’s sustained yield clause provides that "[f]ish, forests, wildlife, grasslands, and all other replenishable resources belonging to the State shall be utilized, developed, and maintained on the sustained yield principle." 31 According to a plain text reading of this clause, the sustained yield principle applies to all "wildlife." The natural, obvious,
    and ordinary meaning of the term "wildlife" suggests that the drafters of our constitution
    intended a broad application of the sustained yield principle encompassing all wild
    animals, including wolves and bears.
    in fact i rather enjoy the discussion along the lines and how they come to the conclusion....
    "If you are on a continuous search to be offended, you will always find what you are looking for; even when it isn't there."

    meet on face book here

  13. #13
    Member Vince's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Fairbanks most the time, Ancorage some of the time,& on the road Kicking Anti's all the time
    Posts
    8,989

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bushrat View Post
    [The state argued that the sustained yield clause "allows for some uses, and therefore some resources, to be preferred over others." And the high court affirmed the superior court's ruling "that the management of wildlife resources may constitutionally include a selection between predator and prey populations."
    Based upon the text and constitutional history of the sustained yield clause, the State argues that "it allows for some uses, and therefore some resources, to be preferred over others." And Defenders recognize that "[w]hile [the sustained yield clause] requires that all wildlife, including predators, be managed for sustained yield, that does not mean the sustained yield principle precludes ‘predator control’ in appropriate circumstances." We agree with both these statements and affirm the superior court’s ruling "that the management of wildlife resources may constitutionally include a selection between predator and prey populations."
    now with the fullest context of the text it self... one would lead them selfs to an understanding of the argument in itself....
    "If you are on a continuous search to be offended, you will always find what you are looking for; even when it isn't there."

    meet on face book here

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •