No charges to be brought in accidental hunting shooting
Reply
Police Investigating Hunting Accident Involving Self-Inflicted Gunshot Wound in Great Mills
MN: Minnesota Man Rescued After Capsizing Kayak While Duck Hunting
FWP asks for info on wolverine illegally shot, skinned near Wisdom
Ohio Egg Farm Slaughters 1.35 Million Chickens Over Bird Flu
Wildlife advocacy group sues Wisconsin DNR over 2023 wolf management plan
Milwaukee Journal SentinelView Comments
AD
0:03
SKIP
https://imasdk.googleapis.com/js/core/bridge3.605.0_en.html#goog_1536501759
A wildlife protection group has filed a lawsuit against the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources alleging the agency infringed on constitutional due process and equal protections as well as violated various statutes as it formulated an update to the state’s gray wolf management plan.
The lawsuit was filed Wednesday in Dane County Circuit Court by the Great Lakes Wildlife Alliance; it names the DNR and the Natural Resources Board, the seven-member citizen body that oversees the department.
The NRB unanimously approved the wolf plan and associated hunting and trapping rules at its Oct. 25 meeting.
In its filing, the GLWA claims the DNR ignored science, violated Wisconsin’s Open Meeting Law and Administrative Procedure Act and favored anti-wolf groups as it worked on revisions included in the 2023 wolf plan.
Further, the group alleges a pattern and practice of “viewpoint discrimination that violated Petitioner’s rights under the Wisconsin Constitution, and failing to comply with their public trustee obligations to ensure the conservation of Wisconsin’s wildlife for future generations.”
The suit asks the court to declare the DNR’s wolf plan invalid and block any wolf hunting and trapping season unless it complies with the state’s meeting and procedure act laws.
It also seeks a declaration that the agency violated the rights of the GLWA and its members “by selectively rejecting public comments from disfavored parties.”
In addition to shelving the wolf plan, the lawsuit aims to set aside updated wolf hunting and trapping rules approved last month.
The DNR declined to comment on the pending litigation.
https://cm.jsonline.com/article-body/inline-desktop_111423_BlackFriday
The wolf in Wisconsin is currently under protections of the federal Endangered Species Act and no wolf hunting or trapping is allowed.
However, the GLWA would like more protections for wolves as well as to hold the DNR and NRB accountable for what it claims are improper actions.
The group points to communications obtained through the state’s open records law that allegedly show the DNR allowed improper influence by pro-hunting and trapping groups as it worked on details of the plan.
Great Lakes Wildlife Alliance is a non-profit corporation based in Madison. According to the legal filing, the group has 15,860 members in Wisconsin “who want to move wildlife management toward an ethical, science-based, democratic vision of wildlife conservation that respects diversity and the intrinsic value of life.”
The group was among the litigants in a Dane County Circuit Court case that successfully blocked a planned fall 2021 Wisconsin wolf hunting and trapping season.
In the current case, the GLWA claims the DNR revised its wolf plan after staff and members of the Natural Resources Board attended private meetings hosted by wolf hunting advocates.
“The wolf plan happens to be one of many policy decisions where these fundamental principles are so blatantly compromised, so it is our duty to take action, holding agencies accountable for their failures and addressing any potential corruption that undermines these principles,” said Melissa Smith of GLWA. “We want to make sure the rules work for the greater public interests and not just some groups.”
In its filing, the GLWA also expressed concern over what it called the DNR’s preference for “top-down politicized and questionable science that prioritizes lethal control and recreational hunting” over non-lethal tactics.
George Meyer, a lawyer and former DNR Secretary, said the legal merits of the lawsuit are “dubious.”
“It’s the responsibility of the DNR and NRB to get public input,” Meyer said. “And if any group feels like its views aren’t fully represented in a plan or rule, well, welcome to the club. It happens all the time and it will be very difficult to prove the DNR didn’t take good science into account in this case.”
Meyer pointed out groups such as the Wisconsin Farm Bureau wanted a plan with a wolf population goal of 350 animals. The DNR and NRB approved a plan without a numeric goal but would likely keep the population between 800 and 1,200 wolves. The DNR estimated Wisconsin had 1,007 wolves in late winter.
GLWA is represented by the attorneys at Wisconsin-based lawfirm Laffey, Leitner & Goode, LLC as well as Greenfire Law, PC, a public interest environmental law firm located in Berkeley, California.
Adams Co. woman shot by hunter won’t press charges
South Shropshire Hunt Terrierman runs over a farmer after he caught them trespassing
Start of Montana wolf trapping season on hold after federal judge’s ruling
https://www.ktvh.com/news/start-of-montana-wolf-trapping-season-on-hold-after-federal-judges-ruling
By: Jonathon Ambarian
Posted at 5:16 PM, Nov 24, 2023
and last updated 4:16 PM, Nov 24, 2023
HELENA — Montana’s trapping season for wolves was set to open on Monday in many areas, but it’s now on hold in much of the state, after a federal judge’s order.
Earlier this year, two environmental groups filed suit over Montana’s wolf trapping regulations, claiming they were “reasonably certain” to cause incidental harm to grizzly bears. On Monday, U.S. District Court Judge Donald Molloy issued a preliminary injunction, ordering the trapping season to be significantly shortened – to the time when almost all grizzlies will be in their dens for winter.
Recent Stories from ktvh.com
https://imasdk.googleapis.com/js/core/bridge3.605.0_en.html#goog_2135376404
https://imasdk.googleapis.com/js/core/bridge3.605.0_en.html#goog_2135376405
https://imasdk.googleapis.com/js/core/bridge3.605.0_en.html#goog_2135376406
Molloy ruled the plaintiffs – the Flathead-Lolo-Bitterroot Citizen Task Force and WildEarth Guardians – had established serious questions about the impact if the trapping season went forward as planned. He ordered the season in most of the state be limited to between Jan. 1 and Feb. 15.
The ruling applies across western and central Montana: Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks’ geographic regions 1 through 5, plus Hill, Blaine and Phillips Counties from Region 6. In the remainder of Region 6 and Region 7, the trapping season can begin Nov. 27, as originally scheduled.
However, the vast majority of wolf trapping occurs in the area under the ruling. The Montana Fish and Wildlife Commission establishes regional quotas for how many wolves can be hunted and trapped each year. Out of a statewide quota of more than 300 wolves, the entirety of Regions 5, 6 and 7 share a single quota of five wolves.
Grizzlies are listed as a threatened species in the lower 48 states, and judges have said that the federal Endangered Species Act prevents any activities that have a reasonable certainty of harming a listed species.
This summer, the commission adopted wolf trapping regulations, with a season generally running from Nov. 27 through March 15. However, they established a floating start date in areas considered “occupied grizzly habitat.” In those areas, FWP wouldn’t allow trapping to begin until they confirm through observation that bears are in their dens.
The plaintiffs argued the state had underestimated the chance of bears getting accidentally caught in wolf traps. They said biologists have reported 21 cases of grizzlies being caught in traps in the state, and they believe that number is low because there have been anecdotal reports of other bears with injuries consistent with trapping and because grizzlies are strong enough to pull a trap off its anchor and walk away with it.
Attorneys for the state of Montana said the 21 reported cases of grizzlies getting caught in traps dated back to 1988, they weren’t all from wolf traps, and most of the traps were set by biologists, not members of the public. They said the only confirmed case of a public wolf trapper with an incidental catch of a grizzly was in 2013, in a time outside the current trapping season. They said steps like the floating start date have also limited the chance for harm.
Molloy said in his ruling that he found the plaintiffs’ arguments more persuasive. He said there were some changes in this year’s regulations, including a later end date and a reduction in the area subject to the floating start date, that made the risk of incidental harm higher.
The state has already announced it’s appealing the decision. Gov. Greg Gianforte criticized Molloy’s ruling in a statement.
“Montana has a healthy, sustainable population of wolves and grizzlies, and there has been no incidental take of grizzlies from wolf trapping in Montana since 2013,” he said. “And yet misusing ESA protections for the grizzly to thwart the state’s wolf management plan, the activist judge has obstructed the state from responsibly managing wolves based on the sound science of FWP biologists. The state has appealed this textbook case of judicial activism, and urges the federal government to review and approve the state’s petition to delist the grizzly which has recovered in Montana’s ecosystems.”
FWP said in a statement that it will continue to track when grizzly bears den across the state, in case the appeals court overturns the injunction and allows the floating start date to go forward again.
South Korean dog farmers threaten to flood Seoul with two million canines if government passes ban
Dog farmers argue banning dog meat from menus would devastate livelihoods
Maroosha Muzaffar1 day ago
https://imasdk.googleapis.com/js/core/bridge3.605.0_en.html#goog_1857122507
0 seconds of 5 minutes, 12 secondsVolume 90%
Animal Rights Charity asks people to ‘choose compassion’ in video outlining what happens in South Korea’s Dog Meat Industry
For free real time breaking news alerts sent straight to your inbox sign up to our breaking news emails
SIGN UPI would like to be emailed about offers, events and updates from The Independent. Read our privacy notice
South Korean dog farmers have threatened to unleash two million canines on Seoul if the government goes ahead with its proposed ban on dog meat.
The farmers argued that banning the controversial dog meat from menus across the country would deprive them of their livelihoods.
If implemented, the ban would come into effect in 2027 and the government has promised financial assistance to the farmers to support their businesses in transitioning away from the trade.
https://imasdk.googleapis.com/js/core/bridge3.605.0_en.html#goog_127974981
Longest-serving fire investigation dog given lifetime service medal after attending 500 fires
Joo Young-bong, head of the Korea Dog Meat Farmers’ Association, said the group would release two million dogs in the capital – especially near significant governmental locations and outside the homes of politicians.
“We’re so outraged that we’re talking about releasing two million dogs we’re raising near the presidential office, the agriculture minister’s home and offices of lawmakers who have introduced the bills,” he said.
RECOMMENDED
Invasive Canadian ‘super pigs’ threaten to cross US border
King and Queen bond with South Korean First Lady over pet dogs on state visit
O.J.’s daughter finally broke her silence leaving the world shockedSports 1st|
Cardiologist: Too Much Belly Fat? Do This Before BedHealthy Guru|
“Eating dog meat cannot be a crime like trafficking drugs or prostitution,” Mr Joo told a radio news talk show, according to South China Morning Post.
“Have you ever heard of anyone whose dog meat consumption caused harm to others?”
About a week ago, when the South Korean government announced its plan to introduce a ban on dog meat, animal rights organisations celebrated the move across the world.
Nearly one million dogs are “farmed and killed for human consumption” in a year, according to Humane Society International.
“With so many dogs needlessly suffering for a meat that hardly anyone eats, the government’s bill delivers a bold plan that must now urgently be passed by the assembly so that a legislative ban can be agreed as soon as possible to help South Korea close this miserable chapter in our history and embrace a dog-friendly future,” JungAh Chae, executive director of Humane Society International, said in a statement.
South Korea’s ruling conservative People Power Party has put forth a bill suggesting a maximum penalty of five years imprisonment or fines of 50 million won ($38,000; £30,333) for individuals engaging in the dog meat trade. The liberal Democratic Party of Korea’s bill recommends three-year jail sentences and fines reaching up to 30 million won.
Cho Hee-kyung, head of the Korean Animal Welfare Association said that there was a decrease in the number of dog meat consumers and that there was a consensus forming in favour of banning the trade and consumption of dog meat.
But dog farmers in South Korea are devastated. “If I have to close down, with the financial condition I’m in, there really is no answer to what I can do,” Lee Kyeong-sig, who runs a farm outside Seoul raising up to 1,100 dogs, told Reuters. “I’ve been in this for 12 years and it is so sudden.”
According to a Gallup Korea poll conducted last year, nearly two-thirds of respondents opposed consuming dog meat. Only 8 per cent reported having eaten dog meat in the past year, a significant decrease from the 27 per cent in 2015.
RECOMMENDED
Qatar accepts India’s appeal against death sentences to ex-naval officers
Exposing the Big Game 
