It was thrown out because the plaintiffs lacked standing, not on the merits of their complaint.
Quote:
|
The appeals judges decided that the Center for Biological Diversity and Howling for Wolves lacked sufficient legal standing to challenge the Department of Natural Resources rules.
|
That leaves it open for a group that does have standing.
http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/n...5-28-2013.html
Quote:
|
The lawsuit argued that the Department of Natural Resources failed to provide sufficient opportunity for public comment before allowing killing of wolves, which is opposed by a broad swath of the public; but the court decision held that the conservation groups lacked “standing” to sue because they could not demonstrate that the state agency’s actions had caused injury to their interests. The court concluded that the harm to wolves was caused instead by the legislature’s decision to authorize wolf hunting.
|
A similar though less detailed news release from the other plaintiff.
http://www.howlingforwolves.org/news...g-and-trapping
Looks like there us enough ambiguity to take the appeal to the next level.