REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
Plaintiffs, though their undersigned counsel, submit their Reply in Support of Motion or preliminary Injunction as follows:
Defendants blindly assert that “Plaintiffs’ ultimate goal, the elimination of trapping in Nevada, is not before the Court.” While it is true that this issue is not before the Court, it is also true that this is not Plaintiffs’ ultimate goal.
Please continue reading this document by clicking Reply in support of motion for PI
I am very much in support of your efforts to litigate some relief to the horror of trapping. I am setting up a small non-profit called Nature Rising, Inc. to pursue use of the public trust doctrine in establishing the rights and interests of non-consumptive users in the state management of wildlife. I live in Montana.
I am wondering why you did not employ the PTD in your arguments especially on standing using the argument that all citizens as beneficiaries of the PT have standing to sue for breach of the trustee’s duty to manage state wildlife in a manner that reflects the diverse values and interests of citizens, not just hunters. fishers, and trappers. I think also, that an argument based on equal protection and due process, while not yet the norm, could be very effective in an suit based on the PTD.
Just a gay marriage advocates have succeeded in using equal protection in making their cases in many states, I think an equal protection argument, if successful, could be powerful and precedent setting. While it would not instantly shutdown trapping or other abusive practices of state wildlife agencies, legislatures, and laws, if the court could declare that the state must stop this obvious discrimination against many citizens and as a means of respecting the rights and interests of non-consumptive users mandate representation on wildlife commissions and advisory groups, at least hunters and trappers would have to sit down at the table with non-consumptive users, animal rights activists, wildlife artists and photographers, and representatives of wildlife organizations, and that would be great start to establishing a new paradigm for management of wildlife across America.
Hi Rocky…I don’t know if we replied to your comments at nrwm.org. I’ve spent most of my time on Facebook. Not sure if Mark Smith may have gotten back to you. Sorry if we’re as slow as it looks.
Your comments about the Public Trust Doctrine are well taken. Our lawsuit against the Nevada Board of Wildlife Commissioners does use that idea in that we cite Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) 501.100 which says that wildlife belongs to everybody. That’s what we used in our hearing before the judge to argue the standing issue.
Since you send in your comments in November last year, we did file an amended complaint in December which should be available at nrwm.org/Court/. We did have a change of judge after the early hearing regarding our request for an injunction. Our new judge has all the pleadings before her now and we are simply awaiting her decisions about all the preliminary stuff. Hopefully we’ll hear soon, and hopefully we can set a court date shortly after that.
It does seem that until a court date is set and depositions get going, the wildlife commission is unlikely to want to talk to us any further about the case.
Thanks for your interest, and good luck with your new non-profit, Nature Rising.