Oral arguments set for June 15

Judge sets date to hear wolf-lawsuit arguments.
EVE BYRON Independent Record

About The Author

Ken Cole

Ken Cole is a 5th generation Idahoan, an avid fly fisherman, wildlife enthusiast, and photographer. He is the interim Idaho Director for Western Watersheds Project. We do not accept unsolicited “guest” authors or advertising.

22 Responses to Judge sets date to hear wolf-lawsuit arguments

  1. nabeki says:

    The paper made a mistake. It’s Tuesday, June 15 @ 9am.

  2. JimT says:

    It will probably be at least 6 weeks before he issues a ruling…unless he has been spending this time writing the decision and reads it from the bench. Now, THAT would get folks’ attention.

    No matter which way he rules there will be an appeal. And, don’ t forget, regardless, the Secretary of the Interior has the authority to withdraw the de-listing decision at any time. If Malloy doesn’t relist the wolves, look for a call for mountains of pressure to be brought on Obama and Salazar to re-list the wolves on agency authority.

    • Elk275 says:

      Also look for a call to delist the wolf again or change the ESA.

    • JimT says:

      If Pombo wins in November, you can bet he will try and put the ESA in his sights.

      Interestingly, there is some thought among environmental lawyers and scientists that the Act should be changed to an ecosystem-based statute since that is the way nature operates, but with the current climate in DC..it is simply too dangerous to be seen supporting any changes to the Act right now.

    • JimT says:

      Given Malloy’s recent environmental rulings, I would say the anti wolf side is appealing to the proverbial Dark Side…(insert sound of Vader breathing here).

  3. Cindy says:

    Does anyone think the timing of his wanting to get on with it has anything to do with current Wolf news coming out of the GYE ie: eliminating wolves, wolf hunt quotas, etc , or it just so happens he’s ready?

  4. Save bears says:

    After watching Molloy on several cases over the years, I would imagine, it is just because he is finally ready, we all have to remember in the whole scope of things, the wolf case is just another case to him, and he deals with a lot of cases concerning just about any issue every week.

    • Save bears,

      I’d usually agree with an analysis like yours, but here, I think the judge can see that the issue of wolves is being used to carry water for other political causes. There will be regional political fallout from any decision he makes.

      The robe doesn’t abolish a judge’s political (as opposed to his judicial judgment).

    • Save bears says:


      I would like to imagine, that judges make ruling based on law…

      That said, I know it is a pipe dream…

      No matter which way he goes, it is going to get very interesting in the tri-state area..

    • JimT says:

      Rulings should be based in law, but as my college speech professor once said, a person interprets reality according to his or her background and experience. There is no way a judge can simply be an automaton; but rulings that are unsupported totally by existing and applicable precedents shouldn’t happen. The only court that can make new law out of sow’s ears is the Supreme Court…look at Bush v. Gore.

  5. WM says:


    Not sure I understand your comment. Would you mind expanding your thoughts on the “other political causes” as well as the judge’s ” political judgment?”

    • WM,

      Oh, I meant that some right wing causes are trying to roll wolves into taking our guns, anti-hunting, you-don’t-love-God-the right-way, taxes are too high thinking.

      . . . and that is just one example.

  6. Virginia says:

    At the risk of being accused of being a hippie, I am going to say that I am sending strong, positive thoughts to the wolves and to Judge Molloy for a positive outcome for this much-persecuted animal.

    • Save bears says:

      Virginia I don’t think your a hippie, heck I know many on the other side that are doing the exact same thing, not that I agree or disagree with them, but don’t think only the pro side is doing this..

    • pointswest says:

      I’ll take a hippie over a neo-con anyday.

  7. SAP says:

    Ralph – WRT other ideological causes getting bundled up with wolves: last night I picked up a Tea Party broadsheet published in some fortified bunker in Big Sky.

    The cover story was wolves as a threat to human safety, & featured a group interview with Fanning, Beers, Hoppe,& Geist, along with a few other luminaries. The publication also included standard Tea Party rants. This was their March issue; the April issue focuses on Janet Napolitano & HAS. The link between Tea Party & the extreme anti-wolf fringe is well beyond allegorical.

  8. Richard Giallanzo,nj says:

    Well here we go, many bad environmental situations have happened lately,the gulf’s oil spill,estimated at six hundred square miles, ranchers and their cattle,not taking precautions to protect the water system. Ranchers wanting to control predtor population, BLM hazing our Buffalo,our secretary of interior must step down. I just hope it turns out good for the wolves and bears, they need a break, shoot to kill solves nothing.P.S. “Drill baby Drill”,just does not make it.


April 2010


‎"At some point we must draw a line across the ground of our home and our being, drive a spear into the land and say to the bulldozers, earthmovers, government and corporations, “thus far and no further.” If we do not, we shall later feel, instead of pride, the regret of Thoreau, that good but overly-bookish man, who wrote, near the end of his life, “If I repent of anything it is likely to be my good behaviour."

~ Edward Abbey