Lawsuits Could Break the ESA

[Ten Bears]

Seems like the courts and lawsuits may come to kill endangered species through "caring them to death".

http://espn.go.com/outdoors/conservation/news/2003/0529/1560689.html

 

[Oak]

Gee, their $9.077 million budget has a $2 million shortfall. Imagine how many years could be funded if we took just one year's worth of the money used to subsidize the welfare rancher's grazing program. It's all about priorities. Right now, subsidizing public grazing is obviously more important than protecting habitat for endangered species. It doesn't mean the ESA is broken, only that we are not willing to fund it's enforcement.

Oak

 

[Ten Bears]

Obviously you didn't read the article OAK. The major short falls are coming from lawsuits brought about to force individual issues.

Read the article, then comment on the situtaion. Where did grazing come from in this thread?

 

[Oak]

Actually I did read the article. The lawsuits are brought about by the Feds not following the rules. It said that for them to follow the rules, they would need $2 million more in the budget. To prove the point about what a small amount that is, I brought up how we waste 26x that much every year on welfare ranchers. Where would you rather the money go?

Oak

 

[Ten Bears]

http://www.doi.gov/budget/2004/04Hilites/BH05.pdf
Here's a link to the BLM 2004 budget proposal. You show me were it is budgeting 50 million for grazing.

Manson noted that two-thirds of the endangered species listing budget is being consumed by court orders and settlement agreements requiring designation of critical habitat for species already on the endangered species list. In most instances, designation of critical habitat provides little additional protection for endangered species.

Since that time, the Service has been sued over failure to designate critical habitat for species at the time they were listed, and when resources were diverted to address that issue, for missing other statutory deadlines. In addition, there have been challenges to the merits of the critical habitat designations made pursuant to these court orders.

"Spending more than two-thirds of our listing budget on critical habitat for already listed species flies in the face of logic and the intent of the Endangered Species Act. We need to make decisions about how to use our limited resources based on the most urgent needs of species, not on who can get into a courtroom first," Manson said.

It doesn't say that the suits came from the feds. It just refers to all the lawsuits filed. Do you have other sources to clear it up, or do you just want to bash cow farmers?

 

[Oak]

I showed you the cost of grazing in two other topics yesterday and today.

I didn't mean that the Feds brought the suit, I meant that the suit was because the Feds weren't following their own rules. I didn't word it the best way, but go back and re-read it.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>We need to make decisions about how to use our limited resources based on the most urgent needs of species <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

See, if their resources weren't so limited, they could follow their own rules, without having to be taken to court.

Oak

 

[Ten Bears]

Or if they didn't have to spend two-thirds of their money dealing with court they could do more work.

 

[JoseCuervo]

Ten,

The only time the lawsuits are filed is when the Law is being broken (usually). If the Agencies comply, then there is no need for the lawsuits. To sue under the ESA, there has to be a violation.

 

[Ten Bears]

I have seen suits that are thrown out, not all suits are good. Yet they still tied up the courts and cost money.

 

[Ithaca 37]

Any environmental organization has so many gummint violations to choose from to bring lawsuits on that they only pick the sure things. Considering they can make money if they win the lawsuit, do you think they pick losers when they have so many egregious violations to choose from? That's why the environmentalists almost always win.

If the gummint agencies didn't break the law there wouldn't be anything to sue them for.

Some posters here have such convoluted thinking I wonder if they blame the district attorney for prosecuting criminal suspects!

 

[JoseCuervo]

Here is what the Law and the Courts say about the ESA

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> . Endangered Species Act: the ESA provides that all federal agencies “shall utilize their authorities. . . by carrying out programs for the conservation of endangered species,” 16 U.S.C. § 1636(a)(1); and “[e]ach Federal agency shall, in consultation with and with the assistance of the Secretary, insure that any action authorized, funded, or carried out by such agency . . . is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered species or threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of habitat of such species. . . .” 16 U.S.C. § 1536(a)(2). The consultation requirement applies to grazing. Pacific Rivers Council v. Thomas, 936 F. Supp. 738, 745 (D. Idaho 1996). Watch out for Western Watersheds Project v. Matejko, No. CIV 01-0259-E-BLW (D. Idaho) (challenge to Forest Service and BLM failure to consult over 1000 irrigation and stockwater diversion on Salmon Challis National Forests).

Also, “it is unlawful for any person subject to the jurisdiction of the United States to. . . take any such species. . . .” 16 U.S.C. § 1538(a). See IWP v. Bennetts, Civ. No. 00-729 (D. Idaho) (motion for summary judgment filed June 2002).
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Follow the above, and there are no lawsuits required.

 

[Ten Bears]

That is open to broad interpretation in the courts.

 

[JoseCuervo]

I am not sure how that is "open to broad interpertation". The courts have used those precedents for very specific reasons.

That is how the courts view the Law on these issues, and if your facts are similar, your verdict will be too.

 

[Ten Bears]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Endangered Species Act: the ESA provides that all federal agencies “shall utilize their authorities. . . by carrying out programs for the conservation of endangered species,” 16 U.S.C. § 1636(a)(1); and “[e]ach Federal agency shall, in consultation with and with the assistance of the Secretary, insure that any action authorized, funded, or carried out by such agency . . . is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered species or threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of habitat of such species. . . .” 16 U.S.C. § 1536(a)(2). <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Now if said consultation has been done, and measures are taken to accomplish the goal, and a group sues. Who is the authority on the issue? The group that is focusing on a single issue in a broad spectrum, albeit probably a small part of a larger profit seeking agenda? The judge listening and interpreting the law? Or the group of professionals that have worked to delineate the needed cost, habitat, and basic requirements for recovery?

How many groups after suing have devoted the money awarded to the species recovery, and how many just use it to retain more legal staff to hunt for the next suit?

 

[Oak]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>How many groups after suing have devoted the money awarded to the species recovery, and how many just use it to retain more legal staff to hunt for the next suit? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Ten, you really don't have a clue, do you? You think that those filing lawsuits are seeking money? You're really showing your ignorance of the subject.

Oak

 

[Muledeer4me]

No, Im sure MONEY has nothing to do with it!!!!


["Suing the government has long been a favorite tactic of the environmental movement -- used to score key victories for clean air, water and endangered species. But today, many court cases are yielding an uncertain bounty for the land and sowing doubt even among the faithful.

"We've filed our share of lawsuits and I'm proud of a lot of them," said Dan Taylor, executive director of the California chapter of the National Audubon Society. "But I do think litigation is overused. In many cases, it's hard to identify what the strategic goal is, unless it is to significantly reshape society."

The suits are having a powerful impact on federal agencies. They are forcing some government biologists to spend more time on legal chores than on conservation work. As a result, species in need of critical care are being ignored. And frustration and anger are on the rise.

"It's all about power and the trophy," said Kay Goode, assistant field supervisor for endangered species at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in Sacramento, which has been sued so often that employees call it "litigation central."

"We can't continue at this pace," Goode said.

The crush of cases is prompting some lawyers and government officials to speculate that the suits could be motivated, at least in part, by money. Under federal law, an attorney who wins an environmental "citizen suit" against the government is entitled to an award of taxpayer-funded attorney fees.

"I worry that the propensity to sue the (fish and wildlife) service every time it misses a deadline sets our community up for an easy assault on the availability of fees," said Michael Bean, a senior attorney for Environmental Defense, one of the nation's largest conservation groups."]


http://www.sacbee.com/static/archive/news/projects/environment/20010424.html

 

[Ithaca 37]

Collecting money from the gummint when the environmentalists win a suit is almost as tough as winning the suit and usually takes a helluva lot longer. Nobody in their right mind would get into suing the gummint for the legal fees that are in it. The environmental groups have a real hard time finding attorneys who will work with them because of the slim chance of collecting any money.

 

[Oak]

I guess should have stated that better. Of course the lawyers are in it for the money, it's their job. I'm sure there's some lawyers out there doing it because it's right, but not many (Elkgunner, you know any?). But tell me how much money the environmental groups are making off of settlements from lawsuits against the government.

Oak

 

[JoseCuervo]

Law School 101

Generally, and I will further qualify this with, in my experience and knowledge (is that enough disclaimer?) when you file an environmenatl (or any kind of suit) you list a number of causes that you are suing on. Typically these suits will have many reasons for being filed.

For Example, if you want to get a Welfare Rancher off an alotment, you will sue for the following reasons.

1. Outdated FS Grazing Plan
2. Endangered Species Act - degredation of streambeds and Bull Trout habitat.
3. Illegal taking of Water Right that belongs downstream.
4. Violation of an Indian Treaty
5. Violation of regulatory processes.
6. Lack of EIS
7-20 etc. etc.. etc... Astrology, etc..

You are attempting to throw 20 reasons up to the Judge, and try and get 1 (or more) to stick, and result in the Judge requiring a specific action. These Lawsuits are not usually seeking monetary damages. You argue many specific items, and do not rely on a broad interpertation. Any one of the items is adequate to get the action required. Some of these items will have a 5% chance of being the winning ticket, others will have an 80% chance of being the one the Judge will act upon. If you know much about statistics, you will see that if you shoot enough times, and have good quality bullets and technique, maybe you will hit something.

And as for the claim of money, and these attorneys getting rich, that is incredibly funny. The posting in the Sacbee that is here, has a part of the truth, but it doesn't explain it all. When the attorneys file the suits, as a citizen, they spend money filing papers, copying papers, hiring experts, doing field work, and doing the legal work. All during this process, these expenses need to be paid. THEN, if they win the trial, they are allowed REIMBURSMENT for reasonable expenses (ie... what they ALREADY spent!!!). So, if they are good attorneys, and ALWAYS win, they will break even with their expenses. But, if the EVER lose, then they collect nothing.

Think about what that means. You work 6 months, pay all your expenses, then go to court, and if you win, you get the money back. You are suing the US Government, with an unlimited checkbook to hire as many attorneys and staff as they want. They are a formidable foe. Plus you have the Industry friends of the court that are against you. The odds are huge, the risks are great. If you lose, you get nothing. How many of us would work under that set of circumstances? Breakeven or Loss!!! Nobody with a rational mind would do that as a profit making venture. The only way to come out, is to work with the Environmental groups, and have them cover the risk, if they lose. If the case is won, then the government will pay, and Environmental group will get the action they wanted in the first place.

This is an incredibly natural "Check and Balance", and this really does not lead to the filing of frivilous lawsuits.

And keep in mind, that is only for the Federal agencies. The State and other Parties don't have to pay the reimbursments.

I have yet to meet the first Enivormental attorney who is getting rich, but I have met many who love their work, as they are changing the West for the benefit of all of us.

 

[cjcj]

would you consider tabacco tax lawyer`s semi- enviromentalist`s? they got BILLION`S.