Commentary on Dismissal of GLWA’s Lawsuit to Revoke the Wolf Management Plan

Hold onto your hats; it is scathing commentary. I’ve never been an ally or aligned with Melissa Smith’s method of wolf advocacy. Allegations are one thing, but you need evidence to back them up. I read through the respondent’s motion to dismiss, where they defended and cited case law against Smith’s suit. Smith’s suit repeatedly fails to cite case law properly to combat DNR’s dismissal motion.

The problem exists solely due to Act 169, a 2011 law mandating that the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources hold a hunt when gray wolves are not on the Endangered Species Act. The law is likened to a log jam that keeps the river from flowing freely. It will take dynamite to move it. This is the sole problem that interferes with Wisconsin’s wolf recovery. It’s been a problem for over ten years now.

I cannot understand why Smith cannot grasp that fact. Perhaps it is how she leads her group—it’s in her leadership skills. Now that a judge has dismissed her lawsuit with prejudice, she has created sensationalistic posts on social media meant to drive her followers to her donate button. This is where my advocacy methods are vastly different from hers. Using those types of social media posts causes more harm than good because the viewer focuses more on the post than the solution. Smith has openly posted she needs donations for her legal funds to appeal. Before you hit that donate button, check Great Lakes Wildlife Alliance’s IRS exception status; has it been revoked? It appears to be in revoked status on the IRS’s website.

Perhaps if Smith had spent more time focusing on backing up her allegations by citing case law instead of feeding the news cycle to get donations, she might have had a case. Or was there even a case? When you read the respondents’ brief on the motion to dismiss, there wasn’t much of a case, and Smith fails repeatedly to cite cases to help her suit. In any case, the judge dismissed it.

Where is Smith going with all of this? Her lawsuit was dismissed with prejudice, meaning it can never return to that court again. The Great Lakes Wildlife Alliance had also accused the DNR and its board of violating the Administrative Procedures Act and their rights to due process under the Wisconsin Constitution. Smith claimed that the DNR ignored thier group’s comments, which the judge rejected.

The judge said anyone could argue that they were discriminated against if they didn’t like a decision made by a governmental body, saying the group failed to back up their claims.

Smith failed to back up those claims with hard evidence. This is part of her course. It is not the first time she’s made claims without evidence to back them up. A few years back, she claimed to hold a PhD without evidence or proof. Smith was forced to walk that claim back.

Smith’s false claim of holding a PhD was displayed at a wildlife conference she held in 2015.

The respondent’s brief motion to dismiss stated that this case is a policy dispute over the state’s plan for managing its wolf population dressed up as a lawsuit. The policy dispute between Smith’s group and the WDNR went against the majority of wolf advocacy groups in the state, which had positive remarks on the plan; Smith took it upon herself to file against it, claiming that it violated the open meeting laws.

I admit I’m not an attorney, and perhaps I’m misinterpreting Smith’s lawsuit. But when the judge agreed with the respondent’s statement that it was a policy dispute dressed up as a lawsuit and dismissed it, the thought of frivolous came to my mind. Smith’s lawsuit sought to revoke the state’s wolf management plan. However, the respondents clarified that the wolf management plan is not law.

The Wisconsin Natural Resources Board unanimously approved the plan. As I’ve previously stated, pro-wolf advocates approved the plan in a public meeting before it was approved. Even the tribes approved of the plan for the most part but remained against any wolf hunting.

Smith continuously uses the Public Trust Document without fully understanding how it applies to wildlife. The court stated that it applies to navigable waters, not to wildlife, and does not work in Smith’s argument. Reading the Respondents’ Brief in Support of Motion to Dismiss was like Swiss cheese because there were so many holes in Smith’s lawsuit. Smith failed to make her case in court.

Don’t misunderstand my intentions here; I understand the DNR is a government agency capable of making mistakes. And when they do, they should be held accountable. Correcting Smith’s organization’s stance on her lawsuit doesn’t mean I support all the components in the wolf management plan that the NRB unanimously approved on October 25, 2023. Nor does it mean that I agree with Melissa’s organization and their lawsuit against the DNR and the NRB. Their organization doesn’t represent my interests or the interests of all wolf advocates in the state—just their own.

That law, 2011 Act 169, is the problem. Are any takers or attorneys willing to sue for violating that law, or did the previous administration, Walkers’, build the dam with steel reinforcers? Smith is just one of several naive bystanders fueling the divide and keeping the problem going.

Check out the DNR’s Wolf Management Plan for yourself.

Check out the Respondent’s brief in support of the motion to dismiss for yourself.

Wolves of Douglas County Wisconsin Films is against trophy wolf hunts.

The reason they want to delist the wolf has nothing to do with the wolf. It has everything to do with power. Here’s why. When an animal is on the Endangered Species Act, the habitat they depend on is also protected. And that doesn’t please the extractive industries, such as big oil & gas, lumbering, realtors, etc. These entities work to delist the wolf, using the naive fringe hunters as just a cover. They want the land that they are dependent on for survival. It is bigger than the wolf!

A “lawsuit with prejudice” means that a case has been dismissed permanently and cannot be brought back to court again; essentially, it is a final judgment that completely closes the case and prevents the plaintiff from re-filing the same claim. But Smith is claiming she will appeal…hmm…she’s somewhere out there floating in the stars, holding on for dear life…a relentless commitment to the cause of misinformation.