Court Upholds Ban On Polar Bear “Trophy” Imports

Today, in the long-running litigation over protecting the polar bear under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), the federal district court rejected four lawsuits by sport-hunting groups challenging the Fish and Wildlife Service’s prohibition on importing the body parts of polar bears killed in  Canadian “sport hunts.”   In these lawsuits the plaintiffs acknowledge that the polar bear requires ESA protection because the species’ sea-ice habitat is being destroyed by global climate change.  Nonetheless, the hunters argued that the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), pursuant to which certain of these imports had been permitted prior to the species’ ESA listing, trumps these threats, and that imports must continue to be allowed.

Rejecting these arguments, the district court ruled that, by virtue of the ESA listing, the polar bear became a “depleted” species under the MMPA, and consequently neither the MMPA nor the ESA allow these imports to continue.  The Court also ruled that the import ban applies to any polar bear body part in Canada when the species was listed, and thus that individuals who had killed polar bears in Canada prior to the listing, but had not yet completed the import process, are also subject to the ban.  The decision is available here. 

Summary Judgment Brief Filed Over FOIA Fees

On behalf of the nation's oldest and most prominent auto safety organization - the Center for Auto Safety - we recently filed for summary judgment in a suit challenging the Treasury Department's decision to demand exorbitant fees before it would produce emails under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).

The Center, the driving force behind the widespread adoption of lemon laws and major recalls of defective cars, seeks government email correspondence that would shed light on the government-led, taxpayer-financed restructuring of the two automotive giants, Chrysler and GM, which left personal injury victims without any recourse for injuries resulting from defective automobiles against the "New Chrysler" and "New GM." Rather than simply providing the Center with a disc containing the electronic documents or granting the Center a "public interest" waiver of duplication fees as provided by FOIA, the government denied access to the Center by assessing photocopying fees in excess of $33,000 for paper copies of the records. Our brief argues that because the government's position creates an unlawful barrier to access under FOIA, the court should order the government to provide all of the responsive documents to the Center without charge.

Preliminary Injunction Filed To Protect Imperiled Species At Sharp Park

On Friday, September 23, 2011, in the federal district court for the Northern District of California, we filed a motion for a preliminary injunction against the City and County of San Francisco concerning the City’s take of the California red-legged frog and the San Francisco garter snake at Sharp Park Golf Course in Pacifica, California. During winter rains the City pumps massive volumes of water from Horse Stable Pond in Sharp Park out to the ocean. This pumping lowers Park water levels, stranding red-legged frog egg masses and tadpoles. The City also routinely mows grasses in habitat for the frog and the garter snake, causing additional take of these ESA-protected species. Plaintiffs’ motion is supported by declarations from three of the leading experts on these species, who detail the ways in which the City’s management of the golf course is harming these species and their habitat. Plaintiffs are asking that the Court enjoin the City from pumping water from Horse Stable Pond, or mowing grasses in the proximity of Sharp Park water bodies, until the case can be resolved on the merits. A hearing on the preliminary injunction is scheduled for November 18, 2011.

Fish and Wildlife Service Issues Positive 90-Day Finding On Petition To List Captive Chimpanzees As Endangered

The Fish and Wildlife Service today issued a press release announcing that tomorrow it will issue a formal positive "90-day finding" on a petition to treat captive chimpanzees as endangered under the Endangered Species Act, like their wild counterparts. The petition was submitted in 2010 by our firm on behalf of a broad coalition of animal protection and conservation groups, the Jane Goodall Institute, and the American Association of Zoological Parks and Aquariums. The agency will allow 60-days for comment on the petition, which, if ultimately granted, should eliminate the use of chimpanzees for entertainment, commercial advertisements, and unnecessary laboratory research.


For a copy of the agency's press release - click here: http://www.ofr.gov/OFRUpload/OFRData/2011-22372_PI.pdf

Comments Filed Urging FWS to Reject Proposed Changes to Wind Guidelines

Last week, we filed comments on behalf of Friends of Blackwater Canyon, the Center for Biological Diversity, the Animal Welfare Institute, and the Wildlife Advocacy Project, on the recent changes to the Revised Draft Voluntary Land-Based Wind Energy Guidelines, proposed by the subcommittees of the Wind Guidelines Federal Advisory Committee. Previously we had submitted comments on the original wind guidelines released by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) in February 2011 as well as the second draft of the guidelines released in July 2011. In this third round of comments, we urged FWS to reject those changes recommended by the subcommittees that were adverse to wildlife interests, and to allow the public to submit comments on any such changes that it may consider adopting. We explained that the proposed changes are more likely to harm rather than help wildlife. For example, FWS would be placed in a difficult position with respect to enforcement action against wind energy project developers because the proposed changes would allow developers to merely document FWS recommendations and their own reasons for “disagreeing” with the FWS to show compliance with the guidelines. All in all, the proposed changes would give wind developers enough scope to come up with their own interpretations of the guidelines, and pressure FWS biologists that the project will proceed if FWS did not meet the arbitrary 30-60 day review period.
More information on the subcommittees’ recommendations is available here: http://www.fws.gov/windenergy/news.html

Opposition Brief Filed Seeking to Restore Protections to Sensitive Ecological Areas of Big Cypress National Preserve in Florida

Earlier this week, we filed an opposition on behalf of several conservation organizations and individuals, arguing that the National Park Service (“NPS”) has not provided adequate justification for its 2007 decision to open off-road vehicle trails in particularly sensitive areas of Big Cypress National Preserve. The decision has resulted in extensive and permanent damage to the Preserve’s soils, vegetation, water resources, and wildlife. Plaintiffs are challenging the decision under a Settlement Agreement entered into in a previous lawsuit against NPS, as well as several environmental laws including the NPS Organic Act, the National Environmental Policy Act, and the Endangered Species Act.

Comments Filed on Revised Wind Guidelines Urging FWS to Comply with FACA

Last week, we submitted comments on behalf of Friends of Blackwater Canyon, the Center for Biological Diversity, the Animal Welfare Institute, and the Wildlife Advocacy Project, on the Revised Draft Voluntary Land-Based Wind Energy Guidelines prepared by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). In May 2011 we had submitted detailed comments on the previous draft of the wind guidelines; however in developing the revised guidelines, FWS has largely ignored and entirely failed to respond to public comments. Our comments highlight the fact that FWS has apparently weakened the guidelines in light of pressure from the industry-dominated Wind Turbine Guidelines Federal Advisory Committee - for example, the revised guidelines now require FWS to review wind energy project proposals within a truncated 60 day period. Further, our comments emphasize that the manner in which FWS is working with the Committee is a flagrant violation of the public access mandate of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (“FACA”) because while it is evident that the Committee has been working with FWS in developing the guidelines, the public has not been provided with complete and accurate information regarding the same. More information on the guidelines can be found here: http://www.fws.gov/windenergy/index.html