Why do they feel the furthest people from the situations are the best to make these decisions. Do they not realize that sportsmen are generally the best means of assuring an appropriate population? We want to see a sustainable population.

I agree with both but "WE" as ethical hunters are not the only ones hunting. This protects the animals from the idiots that call themselves hunters.

Climate change? is that what "they" (anti's) are going to say about every hunting issue? Bogus science is what this judge is going to use as his groundwork for his decision?
Yes , the climate is all ways changing!!!!!!!!!!! we do not live in a static world. How is it changing? Who Knows?!!!!!! You have to make policy based on facts that are at hand. As said above, hunters care more about the environment than any other group, we are out in it more and have a greater stake in maintaining a healthy planet than anyone else. So please do not base a ruling on junk science!!!!!
We could all ways go out and "reason" with the naughty grizzly that kills a hiker. Now that is using your head!

Judge Donald Molloy did allow the wolf hunt, after holding it up for over a year previously...he also more or less told the enviro groups how to file a new lawsuit to put a stop to wolf hunting...he just couldn't do anything last fall without totally appearing in the pocket of the enviros...but he does like to rule in favor of enviro's any chance he gets....how many hours of wildlife management did Donald take in school???? Why don't we leave game management up to the people that do it for a living...we don't have Fish and Game Biologist come into court and try and practice law....tying the hands of the game managers when it comes to top tier predator management creates a mess, much the same as politicians setting rules for generals trying to win wars....let them do their jobs and stay out of the way..

The first thing that Malloy said when hearing the injunction filed last minute to stop the wolf hunt to the environmental groups was to the effect of "Are you going to keep coming to me with every injunction" he knows he is the extreme and so do the environmental groups, while SCI may be geared more toward the international hunter, they are a good organization for hunters. They have lawyers and will go to bat when the scenario is correct and hunters or outfitters need a legal voice that they can't afford. The problem with this statement was that while their first reason is correct from past expereince, is it really appropriate to delist a species so their members can hunt them? I am not trying to back the listing of a species for possible forage changes brought on by either natural or human induced climate change. This is a very slippery slope starting to list species for what might happen. Forage bases change over time and it is what drives species relocation and ultimate population of new habitat. What group that totes themselves as being for hunters, who are the greatest conservationists, can lobby for delisting so they can legally be hunted. Watch you wording SCI, we are all on the same team here and don't want to give the anti's ammunition

Can we use science and not someones personally opinion with this kind of stuff?

http://www.bear-hunting.org