Posted on

affect on a given day. ….

affect on a given day. To find otherwise subjects the Executive to an untenable game of whack-a-mole,” the statement continues. The statement explains that the denial of a stay infringes on the State’s ability to manage state trust lands.

Following the judge’s order, DNRC notified APR that bison are not presently authorized under state law to graze state trust lands on several of the allotments at issue in the case. In response, APR expressed plans to implement a new fencing regime in an effort to avoid state trust lands and utilize a portion of the allotment. The administration highlights this departure from the BLM’s Final Decision in its statement.

“Allowing APR to proceed in deviation from a contested Final Decision, in the absence of analysis and public involvement, is not only legally fraught but disingenuous to the process leading to the Final Decision.”

Finally, arguing the judge failed to adequately analyze public interest, which weighs in favor of a stay, the statement continues, “It is not in the public interest to permit such an offense to persist, especially pending appeal.”

The statement also contends public interest weighs against usurping the State’s authority over state trust lands as well as against federal administrative agencies, like the Bureau of Land Management, bending the law and exceeding the scope of its authority.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *