|
Big, Big News.
30 minutes ago, we found out that we have won in court when it comes
to wolves and wolf delisting. The ruling by the 9th Circuit
Court of Appeals in San Francisco clearly supported the legality of
the Congressional action to delist wolves in the Northern Rockies.
The opinion, written by Judge Schroeder, dated March 14,
2012, ruled that Section 1731 (the wolf bill) was constitutional and
that this action by Congress to delist wolves in the Northern Rockies was
fully legal. This is a huge victory for wildlife conservation and
will allow wolf management to continue in Montana and Idaho. It also
protects Wyoming's legal victory and leaves the door open for a Wyoming
delisting later this year.
As many of you are aware, Big Game Forever and other conservation
organizations, including partner organizations Sportsmen for Fish and
Widllife and Mule Deer Foundation are parties to this litigation.
Detailed Analysis
This particular legal challenge attacked various aspects of the
constitutionality of the wolf bill in Congress. This particular case
began last year in Judge Molloy's court in the Western District of
Montana. Judge Molloy ruled that Congress has full authority to
amend its own laws, including the Endangered Species Act, and that the
delisting by Congress was constitutional. The case was appealed to
the 9th circuit, where the constitutionality of Section 1731 was once
again challenged. The court also ruled that Congress did amend the
endangered species act through this action to the extent it was
inconsistent with the Congressional delisting language. While it is
entirely possible that this case may be appealed to the Supreme Court, the
victories at the district court level and at the 9th circuit are a great
sign. We have believed throughout this process in the strength of
our position and the legal arguments supporting that position. To
this point, the courts have agreed with our position.
Here is a quote from the ruling:
Appellants’ arguments that
Section 1713 is a repeal rather than an amendment must fail for a similar
reason. Congress did not repeal any part of the ESA. Rather, Congress
effectively provided that no statute, and this must include the ESA, would
apply to the 2009 rule. Congress thus amended the law
applicable to the agency action.
Appellants also contend
that the meaning and effect of the 2009 Rule as reissued under Section
1713 are unclear, and that ambiguity prevents the court from finding an
amendment. We cannot agree. The meaning and intended effect of Section
1713 are perfectly clear. The
partial delisting was to take effect within 60 days, with no court review
or interference....
...Finally, we observe that while
Section 1713 bars judicial review of the reissuance of the 2009 Rule, the
2009 Rule does provide standards
by which the agency is to evaluate
the continuing viability of wolves in Montana and Idaho. See, e.g.,
74 Fed. Reg. 15,123 at 15,186.
Review of any regulations issued
pursuant to the Rule or of agency compliance with the standards, does not
appear to be restricted.
Section 1713 itself, however,
ordering the Rule to issue without regard to the laws that might otherwise
apply, is entitled to be enforced.
The bottom line is that once again, the courts
have ruled in favor of wolf delisting. Wolf management will continue
in the Northern Rockies by state fish and game agencies including
regulated hunting by sportsmen.
Thank you for your ongoing support. We
will continue to keep you apprised of developments as they
arise.
A great victory for healthy wildlife
populations and for our outdoor heritage.
--
Ryan Benson https://biggameforever.org/ ryandbenson@msn.com |