Wolves Gone Wild

NEWS RELEASE

September __, 2007 Contact: Kraig Marton (602) 570-3510

For Immediate Release PRfect Media (480) 706-6880

Arizona Supreme Court Denies Environmental Group’s Petition to Reverse Rancher’s $600,000 Libel Award

(Phoenix) The Arizona Supreme Court has refused to overturn a $600,000 libel verdict that was entered against the Center for Biological Diversity, a New Mexico based environmental activist corporation, according to court minutes dated September 25, 2007. The judgment had been entered by an Arizona Superior Court Judge after a jury found that the Center had to pay $600,000 in actual and punitive damages to James K. Chilton and Chilton Ranch and Cattle Company for libeling this fifth generation Arizona rancher and the Chilton family cattle ranch.

The Supreme Court’s action had the effect of re-confirming the validity of a Tucson jury’s verdict delivered on January 5, 2005, which found the Center for Biological Diversity guilty of making “false, unfair, libelous and defamatory statements” against Jim Chilton, a Southern Arizona cattle rancher. The jury awarded Chilton $100,000 in actual damages, and $500,000 in punitive damages because the Center for Biological Diversity defamed him and his family business in a two-page press release which included links to 21 photographs posted on the Center’s website, in July 2002. The jury found that the press release and the corresponding images contained inaccurate and misleading content regarding Chilton’s 21,500 acre Montana Grazing Allotment which is located northwest of Nogales.

According to Kraig Marton, Chilton’s lead lawyer, “The Center lost in front of a jury, and has now failed to overturn their loss in front of a Superior Court judge, three Court of Appeals judges and now all five Supreme Court Judges. It is time they get the message that they were wrong, and the court system will not help them avoid the consequences of what were found to be malicious lies.”

According to Jim Chilton, “This group went too far and we proved it. They don’t use science, they use scare tactics,” said Chilton. “They also use endangered species as surrogates to obtain their own goals and to raise money. They need to admit they were wrong and change their ways.”

For more information regarding this case, please contact Kraig Marton at (602) 570-3510 or PRfect Media at (480) 706-6880.

State Supreme Court won’t review ruling on rancher’s suit 

PHOENIX –The Arizona Supreme Court won’t disturb a lower court’s decision to uphold a jury’s $600,000 judgment in favor of a rancher in a defamation lawsuit against an environmental group.

However, the Supreme Court also says the Court of Appeals ruling itself won’t be formally published. That means it can’t be cited as legal precedent for other cases.

The Court of Appeals had rejected arguments by the Center for Biological Diversity that documents it posted on the Internet concerning rancher Jim Chilton’s grazing practices were shielded by the First Amendment.

Wolf woes: Woman encouraged by support from state, federal officials

By RALPH ANSAMI

Globe News Editor

KIMBALL, Wis. — A Kimball woman who fears wolves might kill her two horses said she’s encouraged by the cooperation she’s received from state and federal authorities.

Georgia Piilola, who lives on County Trunk D, not far from the Eagle Bluff Golf Course, was checking on her horses one day earlier this month when she witnessed a wolf running back and forth near the horses, trying to get them to run.

She said she ran out to the pasture screaming to chase the wolf away. Then her husband, Jim, came home, brought the horses into the barn, and fired a shot at the wolf, scaring it away.

The Piilolas were especially concerned for their full-grown horse and its miniature partner because wolves killed a 20-year-old horse earlier this summer just a few miles away.

The Piilolas contacted Department of Natural Resources game warden John Windt of Pence and he supplied them with the number of the federal Department of Agriculture in Rhinelander. John Nuce, also of Pence, works in animal control for the federal government. He responded tot he complaint and found wolf droppings on the property.

To keep the wolves away, long strips of orange nylon were placed on a rope about 14 feet apart. Three people installed flags surrounding the entire pasture, Georgia Piilola said. “Three guys spent two hours flagging the pasture,” she said.

She said the plan is to install strobe lights and motion sensor lights to try to protect the horses at night.

Bruce Bacon, a wildlife biologist at the Mercer DNR office, was also contacted and Windt has kept in touch with the Piilolas.

Georgia Piilola said she still fears for the safety of her horses, especially since the wolves have been residing in the Kimball area for quite some time, but appreciates the effort being made to protect the animals.

“They are doing everything they can to help us out,” she said. “This has been a nightmare for me,” she said.

“This is a very serious situation, one that all people should be aware of,” she said.

orginal story

Wolves dominate coyotes when co-existing

NEW YORK, Sept. 12 (UPI) — A U.S. study has confirmed the theory that wolves will become the dominant species in areas in which both wolves and coyotes co-exist.

Research by the Wildlife Conservation Society suggests coyote densities might be more than 30 percent lower in areas that they share with wolves.

“The study tests the hitherto unproven hypothesis that wolves limit the range and numbers of coyotes in places where the two species compete with one another,” said Kim Murray Berger, a WCS researcher and lead author of the study. “In this instance, the findings do support the theory, but coyotes can hold their own against wolves by living in packs.”

The researchers — working in Grand Teton National Park in the southern Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem — followed radio-collared coyotes at wolf-abundant and wolf-free locations. They found that while coyotes remained the numerically dominant predator in locations where wolves exist, the densities of coyotes was substantially lower in areas containing both canid species.

Specifically, coyote densities were 33 percent lower in wolf-abundant sites in the Tetons. Similarly, coyote densities declined 39 percent in Yellowstone National Park after wolves were recently reintroduced there.

The study is reported in the Journal of Animal Ecology.

Group seeks to overturn jury verdict
Environmental center says it did not libel rancher
Howard Fischer
Capitol Media Services
Sept. 6, 2007 12:00 AM

An environmental group is asking the state’s high court to overturn a jury’s verdict that it defamed a southern Arizona rancher - and required it to pay him $600,000.

Attorneys for the Center for Biological Diversity contend that the group cannot be held liable because the statements and photographs at the center of the dispute were substantially true. That, they argue, means they were not libelous.

The Tucson-based group also contends that its statements are legally privileged.  
 
 
If nothing else, the organization is arguing that the $500,000 in punitive damages awarded to the rancher, James Chilton, are excessive, particularly because it is a non-profit organization.

But the organization has an uphill fight: The verdict - and the size of the award - was not only upheld by a trial judge, but the state Court of Appeals refused to set aside the award.

The fight surrounds the decision by the Forest Service in 2002 to give Chilton a 10-year renewal of his grazing permit for 21,500 acres of public land. The Center for Biological Diversity appealed that decision at the time, posting a link on its Web site to that appeal along with 21 photographs of what they claimed were denuded grazing land.

It was those photographs - which, according to the center, showed the damage caused by overgrazing - that caused the biggest stir.

At the trial, Chilton’s lawyer, Kraig Marton, presented his own photographs that depicted a wide-angle view of the scene and proved, he said, that the center’s own photos were deliberately misleading.

Kieran Suckling, the organization’s policy director, said the photographs cannot be judged by themselves because they were part of the center’s appeal to the Forest Service challenging the decision to leave cattle on the land. That, he said, means that the photos were absolutely protected by the First Amendment.

But Appellate Judge William Brammer said the organization’s attorneys did not properly raise those issues at the 2005 trial in Pima County Superior Court.

As to the rest of the libel claim, Brammer said jurors heard from both sides and concluded the information was false or at least misleading. In fact, the judge noted, the group admitted that four of its 21 photographs do not even depict the public lands at issue.

Suckling said the fact that some of the photos were taken of Chilton’s cattle on private land - not land at issue in the permit - is irrelevant.

As to the punitive damages, the appellate court said there was evidence of malice on the part of the center and Andrew Schneller, the former staffer who took most of the photographs.

Brammer specifically cited one photo of two cows on private land “lying on a dry and barren field,” with a caption stating that the area had been “completely denuded.”

The judge said the clear implication was that all the damage had been caused by Chilton’s cattle. However, he noted that there had been a three-week-long festival on the land that had ended a couple of weeks before. Chilton also presented evidence that there were cars and all-terrain vehicles at the site.

Brammer said because Schneller had been at the festival, a jury could conclude he had “actual malice” in taking the photos as proof of damage by Chilton’s cattle.

As to the size of those punitive damages, the appellate court said there is no evidence the organization cannot pay the award.

In fact, the organization’s 2005 annual report shows revenue of $3.5 million - most of that from grants and membership - and expenses of $2.4 million, even after center paid $500,000 of the award after last year’s verdict; the $100,000 balance is covered by insurance.

The high court is set to review the case Sept. 25.

The case is Chilton v. Center for Biological Diversity (CV 07-0049 PR).

Original Story