AmmoLand.com

Court Considers Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation Arguments in Wolf Case

Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation

MISSOULA, Mont. --(Ammoland.com)- The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals today heard arguments from both sides of a lawsuit alleging that Congress acted unconstitutionally when it removed wolves from the endangered species list and cleared the way for wolf hunting seasons now underway in Idaho and Montana.

An attorney representing the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation and other conservation groups presented oral arguments supporting the Congressional action, wolf delisting and science-based, state-regulated management and control of wolf populations.

The court is expected to issue its ruling soon.

“We’re hopeful for a quick and favorable ruling, especially since a lower court already ruled against the plaintiffs–a coalition of animal rights and environmental activist groups,” said David Allen, RMEF president and CEO.

“Our opponents don’t seem to care that in some areas, elk calf survival rates are now too low to sustain herds for the future. We support a more balanced approach to conservation.”

Today’s hearing was held in a Pasadena, Calif., courtroom. RMEF and Safari Club International led two different groups granted intervenor status in the case. An attorney representing their collective position was given seven minutes to present arguments.

Key facts of the case include:

• Wolves were relocated from Canada to Idaho, Montana and Wyoming in 1994 as a “nonessential, experimental population” under the Endangered Species Act.
• The wolf population in each state passed stated recovery goals some 10 years ago.
• Current wolf populations across the three states are known to exceed 1,700 animals, and in many areas are out of balance with biological and cultural tolerances.
• Conservation has succeeded in America because of science-based, state-regulated management and control of wild species, including predators. All evidence suggests this system also would work well for wolves.
• Litigious animal rights and environmental activist groups have managed to keep wolves under full federal protections for much of the past decade.
• RMEF was among the first groups to call on Congress for a legislative remedy.
• In April 2011, Congress passed a measure that delisted wolves in parts of the West.
• Congress did not, as plaintiffs claim, violate “separation of powers” when it partially delisted wolves. In today’s hearing, attorneys presented ample legal precedents supporting the Congressional action. RMEF joined the other conservation groups in asking the appellate court to uphold the favorable ruling issued in August by U.S. District Judge Donald Molloy in Missoula, Mont.

Allen said, “If they lose this decision, plaintiffs could take their case to the U.S. Supreme Court. But I’m hoping that a Congressional act, two courtroom defeats and an American public that is clearly tired of all this legal wrangling will encourage our opponents to give up–and cede responsible wolf management and control to conservation professionals in each state. But we’ll have to wait and see.”

RMEF continues to fight wolf lawsuits and support delisting legislation at both federal and state levels.

About the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation:
RMEF is leading a conservation initiative that has protected or enhanced habitat on over 6 million acres–an area larger than Yellowstone, Grand Canyon, Glacier, Yosemite, Rocky Mountain and Great Smoky Mountains national parks combined. RMEF also is a strong voice for hunters in access, wildlife management and conservation policy issues. RMEF members, partners and volunteers, working together as Team Elk, are making a difference all across elk country. Join us at www.rmef.org or 800-CALL ELK.

Filed under: Conservation News by Ammoland No Comments »

Congress Hears Testimony on Lawsuit Reform To Prevent Animal & Environmental Group Lawsuit Profiteering

Congress Hears Testimony on Lawsuit Reform To Prevent Animal & Environmental Group Lawsuit Profiteering

Boone and Crockett Club

MISSOULA, Mont.--(Ammoland.com)- In testimony before a Congressional committee, Boone and Crockett Club president emeritus Lowell E. Baier told committee members that H.R. 1996, the Government Savings Litigation Act, will help America’s fish, wildlife and natural resources agencies do their jobs.

The legislation will benefit conservation and sound wildlife management by bringing fairness, transparency and accountability to the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA).

EAJA is an historic law that allows plaintiffs to recover attorney fees and other expenses from the federal government when they prevail in lawsuits against the government. It was intended for retirees, veterans, small businesses–average citizens who need help finding and paying for a lawyer to correct errors in their earned benefits or to remedy mistaken penalties imposed by federal agencies.

In recent years, animal rights and environmental advocacy groups began using lawsuits to protest lawful decisions that they happen to oppose. The groups use EAJA to recoup their legal costs. The most frequent abuses include suing the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and other agencies on minor procedural decisions, then collecting settlements and EAJA reimbursements.

These private groups are collecting taxpayer dollars and consuming agency resources that could have gone toward wildlife management and conservation programs.

And it’s a trend resulting in judges, rather than conservation professionals, shaping the future of wildlife in America.

The U.S. House Committee on the Judiciary’s Subcommittee on Courts, Commercial and Administrative Law held an Oct. 11 hearing on H.R. 1996. Conservation, agriculture and livestock interests attended to urge passage.

Baier said, “We are resolute that we will not tread on EAJA’s historic purpose. But we need to put ‘equal’ back into the Equal Access to Justice Act by requiring everyone to meet the same eligibility standards.”

Currently, individuals are eligible to use EAJA if their net worth does not exceed $2 million. Businesses are eligible provided their net worth does not exceed $7 million.

“H.R. 1996 would extend these same eligibility requirements to nonprofit organizations. As EAJA stands today, special interest groups are eligible to recoup legal fees regardless of their net worth. That’s an inequity that needs repair,” said Baier. “To be clear, this measure will not prevent litigation. It relieves taxpayers of paying the legal bills of big-business animal rights and environmental advocacy groups.”

H.R. 1996 would make EAJA consistent with the 205 other federal fee shifting statutes, all of which limit 501(c)(3) not-for-profit organizations to the same eligibility requirements that apply to private citizens and small businesses.

Baier said, “The Congressional Research Service in 2009 determined that EAJA was an anomaly in this regard. That’s a glaring privilege for nonprofit groups that is the antithesis of equality and fairness.”

Federal oversight and accounting of EAJA payouts are virtually absent. Total costs are unknown. One attorney tracking the issue estimates 12 animal rights and environmental advocacy groups alone filed over 3,300 lawsuits and recovered more than $37 million in EAJA funds over the past decade. Boone and Crockett research shows EAJA actual costs exceeding $50 million per year from litigation by the top 20 environmental litigants.

H.R. 1996 requires reporting exact costs.

He explained that when EAJA was enacted in 1980, it required an annual report of the number of cases processed and total attorney fees reimbursed. That reporting ended in 1995. H.R. 1996 reinstates EAJA reporting requirements, beginning with an audit of prior unreported years.

Baier added that EAJA also has hidden costs such as conservation agency personnel time spent reviewing procedures, defending complaints and often re-doing entire processes.

H.R. 1996 was introduced by Rep. Cynthia Lummis of Wyoming. Sen. John Barrasso of Wyoming introduced a companion version in the U.S. Senate. The bills together share the title Government Litigation Savings Act.

Boone and Crockett Club is joined in its support for the Government Litigation Savings Act by 37 member organizations of the American Wildlife Conservation Partners, the largest network of fish and wildlife conservation groups in the country. Together the groups represent some 8 million sportsmen and conservationists.

The coalition signed on following a 2010 Boone and Crockett Club investigation of federal statutes that enable ongoing litigation at a high cost to wildlife conservation and management. Baier, a Maryland-based attorney, led the effort. His preliminary findings are reported in two articles available free at www.boone-crockett.org. Baier also employed two full-time attorneys to research EAJA’s initial Congressional intent, its judicial interpretation and application, abuses, loopholes and possible remedies.

About the Boone and Crockett Club
Founded by Theodore Roosevelt in 1887, the Boone and Crockett Club promotes guardianship and visionary management of big game and associated wildlife in North America. The Club maintains the highest standards of fair-chase sportsmanship and habitat stewardship. Member accomplishments include enlarging and protecting Yellowstone and establishing Glacier and Denali national parks, founding the U.S. Forest Service, National Park Service and National Wildlife Refuge System, fostering the Pittman-Robertson and Lacey Acts, creating the Federal Duck Stamp program, and developing the cornerstones of modern game laws. The Boone and Crockett Club is headquartered in Missoula, Mont. For details, visit www.boone-crockett.org.

Filed under: Conservation News by Ammoland No Comments »