Animal Rights Lawsuits Hurting Wildlife Funding & Draining Taxpayer Dollars

Animal Rights Lawsuits Hurting Wildlife Funding & Draining Taxpayer Dollars
These animal rights organizations are literally making their living by suing a variety of government agencies.

Boone and Crockett Club
Boone and Crockett Club

MISSOULA, Mont.--(Ammoland.com)- Legal defense costs are an increasing drain on conservation funding today.

Alarmed by the trend, the Boone and Crockett Club has launched a new examination of federal statutes that enable ongoing litigation at a high cost to wildlife and the American taxpayer.

The Club’s primary concern is the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), which reimburses organizations that successfully sue federal agencies for non-compliance with federal law.

Although well intended, abuses of EAJA are escalating into a modern conservation issue with potentially severe long-term consequences.

“”The Club was and is deeply involved in designing and now protecting the economic engines that drive conservation in America,” said Ben Wallace, president of Boone and Crockett Club, “Since the 1880s, we’ve been the guardian of the most successful wildlife conservation system in the world. It’s a system that depends on funding, and we take very seriously the fact that money and other resources intended to support conservation are being diverted elsewhere.””

Past Club President Lowell E. Baier is leading the ongoing investigation and his preliminary findings were reported in a two-article series published in Boone and Crockett’s magazine, “Fair Chase.”

The articles, complete with detailed background and statistics, are now available free to the public at www.boone-crockett.org

EAJA was written to reimburse legal costs incurred by small nonprofit organizations along with for-profit organizations with net worth of less than $7 million.

However, America’s two largest animal rights groups have filed numerous cases under EAJA even though their 2009 combined net assets exceeded $209.6 million and cash balances exceeded $44.5 million.

Another abuse uncovered by Baier: In 2008, an animal rights group won a legal ruling regarding wolves and petitioned a federal court in Missoula, Mont., for $388,370 in attorney fees. The judge awarded $263,099, which was based on an hourly rate of $300 —even though the federal limit is $125 per hour.

In 2007, the same litigant was awarded $280,000 following a similar case in the Great Lakes area.

The defendant in both cases was the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, whose budget —regardless of whether it’s spent on wildlife or lawyers—is financed by a combination of sportsmen fees and tax dollars.

Taxpayers bear all EAJA reimbursements to plaintiffs.
Indirect costs are considerable, too. Nearly all resource management proposals are now subject to ever-higher hidden fees as federal agencies spend more and more time and resources on elaborate environmental impact statements and other attempts to “suit proof” their decision-making processes. In some cases, where the intent of the lawsuit is to stop a proposed federal action, the delays and costs to a federal agency can derail time sensitive projects even if the eventual court ruling goes against the plaintiffs.

Along with wildlife, other public land- and water-based resource agencies that deal with energy, timber, agriculture, livestock and fisheries also are increasingly impacted by legal actions taken under the provisions of EAJA.

EAJA clearly encourages frequent legal challenges by some nonprofits that are, in reality, “big business.”

These organizations are literally making their living by suing a variety of government agencies.

Does EAJA, especially its payments to successful litigants with no reciprocal penalties for losses in court, still make sense today?

Baier’s preliminary study finds that EAJA needs intensive review. Appropriate modifications could help make laws that are more effective, efficient and resistant to courts deciding wildlife management policies via taxpayer subsidized lawsuits.

The Boone and Crockett Club will continue studying this problem. Government Affairs and Conservation Policy committees will examine the results and make recommendations to the board of directors for a final decision on course of action.

Secret World Inside the Animal Rights Agenda

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.

  • 4 thoughts on “Animal Rights Lawsuits Hurting Wildlife Funding & Draining Taxpayer Dollars

    1. This video site is a great tool for getting more people to hunt or fish and kill their own meat. You can then assume full responsibility for the quick ethical kill of the animals.

      Great sight GO MEAT!

    2. You can not argue with animal right wackos as they believe what they believe and this video is just an emotional plea for people who are in denial about where their food comes from.

      Of course you do not want to see any animal suffer, but that means we should just kill them better and quicker, not stop.

    3. This video is great because it shows how much more responsible hunters are with the treatment of animals that need to be killed and eaten.

      The vegans should be promoting hunting as a great compromise since the world will never give up eating fish and meat as god intended.

    Leave a Reply

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