California Cattlemen’s Association Attorney/ extremely well spoken not so much

We have to wonder how it is in every single state The Ranchers have tried using the same remarks in Court Cases yet expecting Different Results?

It pretty much goes along with the same Groups using the phrase “Buffer Zone” surrounding Our National Parks.

Which is the Primary reason that we changed the terminology to Protect Our Children’s Resources that originate from within National Park Boundaries to what we call a “Sacred Resource Protection Zone”.

This Terminology actually has caught The Rocky Mountain Dept of Justices eye 😉 .

We are writing this article in hopes that it will help 58,000 followers to begin to realize that Our Research is like no Other Organizations.  We are not afraid to put whatever group on front street that needs it, be it Native Americans that have lost their way, as it relates to Our Sacred Wildlife, Or Large Orgs that still somehow refuse to Join in after being invited multiple times to participate in Our Legal Minds Research Program.

Why would a Large Org refuse to Join? We will let you answer that question for yourselves today.

The Point is is you can not use the same direction year after year and expect a different result, which goes along with Albert Einsteins definition of “Insanity”. Who better to call upon than Einstein?

The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over

and over again and expecting a different result. These

words are usually credited to the acclaimed genius

                                    Albert Einstein.Mar 23, 2017

Can you believe an Attorney for the California Cattlemens Association wrote this brief opening? or to even make the claim that the decision to list wolves was based on 1 wolf Or7? This attorney really takes the cake…

DAMIEN M. SCHIFF, No. 235101
E-mail: dschiff@pacificlegal.org
ANTHONY L. FRANÇOIS, No. 184100
E-mail: afrancois@pacificlegal.org
Pacific Legal Foundation
930 G Street
Sacramento, California 95814
Telephone: (916) 419-7111
Facsimile: (916) 419-7747
Attorneys for Petitioners and Plaintiffs
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO
CALIFORNIA CATTLEMEN’S ASSOCIATION
and CALIFORNIA FARM BUREAU
FEDERATION,

Introduction:
“This is probably the stupidest decision that this Commission ever made all the time I’ve
been here.” Administrative Record (AR) at 0012292. So opined Commissioner Kellogg at the final
hearing of Respondent and Defendant California Fish and Game Commission approving the listing
of the gray wolf as an endangered species under the California Endangered Species Act, Fish &
Game Code §§ 2050-2115.5. Petitioners and Plaintiffs California Cattlemen’s Association and
California Farm Bureau Federation agree with Commissioner Kellogg that the gray wolf’s listing—
which was opposed by the Department of Fish and Wildlife, AR0005738 (Dep’t status review), as
well as the Commission’s own counsel, AR0012183-84 (Comm’n hrg. trans.)—is bad policy,
because it thwarts a multi-year, collaborative process among governmental and private parties to
develop a reasonable wolf management plan. Prior to the listing, it was possible to envision a plan
that would adequately protect livestock and other private property from wolf depredation. See Fish
& Game Code §§ 4150, 4152 (generally prohibiting the take of nongame mammals, such as the
wolf, unless necessary to protect crops or other property). But the wolf’s listing triggers the Act’s
generally unbending protections for listed wildlife. See id. § 2080 (prohibiting “take” of listed
species); id. § 2081 (authorizing direct take only for scientific, educational, or wildlife management
purposes). These regulatory burdens will make a balanced and flexible approach to wolf
management exceedingly difficult to achieve, thereby threatening the livelihoods and safety of
California’s ranching families. Thus, the Cattlemen and Farm Bureau have brought this action to
challenge the wolf’s listing.
As set forth in greater detail below, the Commission’s decision to list the gray wolf is illegal
for three reasons. First, the Commission’s listing is illegal because it is based on the presence within
the state of a non-native subspecies of gray wolf, e.g., AR0005741 (Dep’t status review), and
thereby exceeds the Act’s express limitation to native species and subspecies, Fish & Game Code
§§ 2062, 2067. Second, the listing is illegal because it is based on the wolf’s condition in California
alone, AR0010074 (Comm’n findings), whereas the Act requires an analysis of the wolf’s condition
based on its natural “range,” see Fish & Game Code §§ 2062, 2067. Third, the listing is illegal
because it is based on the intermittent presence of a single wolf. AR0010076 (Comm’n findings).

Gray-Wolf-Opening-Brief