New Jersey’s Supreme Court refused to rule in an emergency fashion last week to overrule the EPA Commissioner’s stop of the 2006 bear hunt. Lisa Jackson, EPA commissioner, said she stopped the hunt because she didn’t like the Bear Management Plan that got approved last year and that satified the N.J. courts. The Supreme Court said it wouldn’t make an emergency ruling because they felt that if the hunt did NOT happen, it wouldn’t cause “irreparable injury” to hunters.
Further down south in Virginia, protestors filed a lawsuit to get a bear hunt in the Great Dismal Swamp stopped. In this case the judge there ruled not to stop the hunt because it “would not cause irreparable damage” to the bear population if the hunt continued. (little did he know)
The question then becomes, “Are judges legislating from the bench and making their decisions based on personal feelings rather than interpreting the laws as written?” You bet! Yes, two seperate states but both lawsuits presented in the same manner only coming from opposite positions – pro-hunting and anti-hunting.
Gene Mueller, sports writer for the Washington Times, says that the decision of the N.J. Supreme Court was based on emotions and not science. He also points out the contradictory rulings between the two states.
Tom Remington
