May 23, 2019

Expanded US habitat protection ordered for rare lynx

*Editor’s Note* – Here is a prime example of what is wrong with everything involved in government. This includes the Court System. Nobody knows what the Canada lynx population is…anywhere. Nobody knows what the lynx population used to be or ever was. However, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, kow-towing to their Environmentalists buddies, list the species as needing protecting, and along with it designating “critical habitat.” In Maine, this designation is beginning to upset the entire managed wildlife structure.

In addition, the judge, who shouldn’t be ruling on such matters, according to this report, ordered the USFWS to designate MORE critical habitat because they didn’t do it five years ago. Make a lot of sense?

For those interested, a copy of the Court’s decision can be found here.

SALMON, Idaho — A federal judge ordered U.S. wildlife managers on Wednesday to enlarge habitat protections in Idaho, Montana and Colorado for the Canada lynx, a rare wild cat that roams the Rockies and mountain forests of several other states.

Chief U.S. District Judge Dana Christensen in Missoula, Montana, ruled that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service erred in 2014 when it revised its critical habitat designations for the lynx with little or no expansion beyond the original plan issued five years earlier.

The Canada lynx, whose large paws make it well adapted to hunting in deep, mountain snows, was listed in 2000 as threatened under the U.S. Endangered Species Act.

The lynx is not considered imperiled in Alaska or Canada, where it ranges widely in forest areas, but its population in the Lower 48 states is believed to be small, though actual numbers are unknown, according to government scientists. (emboldening added)<<<Read More>>>

Share

Bald and Golden Eagles Victorious: Court Invalidates 30-Year “Eagle Take” Rule 

(Washington, D.C., August 12, 2015) The U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, in San Jose has ruled that the Department of the Interior violated federal laws when it created a final regulation allowing wind energy and other companies to obtain 30-year permits to kill protected Bald and Golden Eagles without prosecution by the federal government. … Read More>>

Source: Bald and Golden Eagles Victorious: Court Invalidates 30-Year “Eagle Take” Rule | American Bird Conservancy

WindmillBlood

Share

Great Lakes Wolves Returned to Federal Protection

ORDERED that the defendants’ and defendant-intervenor’s Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment are DENIED; and it is further

ORDERED that, because the rule Revising the Listing of the Gray Wolf (Canis lupus) in the Western Great Lakes (the “Final Rule”), 76 Fed. Reg. 81,666 (Dec. 28, 2011), is arbitrary and capricious and violates the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, 16 U.S.C. §§ 1531 et seq., the Final Rule is VACATED and SET ASIDE; and it is further

ORDERED that the rule in effect prior to the Final Rule vacated by this Order, namely, the rule regarding Reclassification of the Gray Wolf in the United States and Mexico, with Determination of Critical Habitat in Michigan and Minnesota, 43 Fed. Reg. 9607 (Mar. 9, 1978), is REINSTATED to govern management of gray wolves in the nine states affected by the vacated Final Rule, pursuant to the Endangered Species Act

<<<Copy of the Complete Ruling>>>

Share

Court Denies Restraining Order to Stop Salmon, Idaho Wolf Derby

INTRODUCTION

Plaintiffs, who comprise several local and national environmental groups, filed a complaint and motion for temporary restraining order on December 23, 2013, against the United States Forest Service (“USFS”) seeking an injunction to prevent a wolf and coyote derby advertised for Saturday, December 28-29, 2013, in Salmon, Idaho. The USFS filed a combined response and motion to dismiss the complaint. The Court conducted a hearing on an expedited basis1 regarding the motion for temporary restraining order on Friday, December 27, 2013, at 9:30 a.m. After carefully considering the parties’ briefs, arguments, and the relevant authorities, the Court will deny Plaintiffs’ motion for temporary restraining order.2

Read complete court order.

Share