I have written much and had more to say than most want to read about the recent ruling of federal Judge Paul Friedman, who, much similar to another wolf ruling by one Judge Molloy, disregarded proven science and returned the wolf in the western Great Lakes region to protection under the Endangered Species Act.
Gene Mueller of the Washington Times has very much similar things to offer in his rebuttal to Friedman’s ruling. I did however enjoy this part.
It goes to show the damage that can be done by one judge who allows personal feelings to interfere with sound science regarding wildlife management. It happens all the time. Animal rights activists somehow convince an ignorant jurist that deer, for example, should never be hunted even if the critters are about to eat every shrub and seedling in a rural neighborhood and are running into cars more frequently than insects meet windshields after sundown. The whole deal is kind of comparable to everyday life among humans when judges occasionally make the laws instead of simply interpreting them.
What a shame.
Tom Remington
Related Posts
- California Federal Judge Issues First Ruling On Southern Cal. Water Shutoffs
- Idaho's Sens. Crapo And Risch Ask Dept. Of Interior To Appeal Wolf Ruling
- Wolf Injunction Ruling Could Have Just As Easily Gone Other Way
- RMEF Calls on Congress to Reform Endangered Species Act
- Wolf Advocates Will Not Appeal Recent Wolf Hunt Injunction Ruling
