Not sure how this may affect us DUNERS
CNN
Full Version: Environmental Issues
link no workey for me
yeah NO WORKY FOR ME EITHER 
well it's on CNN.com front page under science and space section (titled Judge orders review for western species)
http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/science/06/28...s.ap/index.html
maybe someone can make it work (I'm just stupid)
well it's on CNN.com front page under science and space section (titled Judge orders review for western species)
http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/science/06/28...s.ap/index.html
maybe someone can make it work (I'm just stupid)
| QUOTE (HB_OFFROADER @ Jun 28 2004, 03:46 PM) |
| maybe someone can make it work (I'm just stupid) |
Not so. It was just an extra little http that threw it off. It works now.
Here's the text of the article:
Judge orders review for Western species
Monday, June 28, 2004 Posted: 9:26 AM EDT (1326 GMT)
RENO, Nevada (AP) -- A federal judge has ordered the Bush administration to explain what prevents it from listing rare species in four Western states as endangered or threatened.
The ruling by Judge Ann Aiken in Portland, Oregon, was hailed Friday by environmental groups as a victory in efforts to protect the Tahoe yellow cress plant, the southern Idaho ground squirrel and the sand dune lizard.
Aiken ordered the government to comply within six months in a ruling issued Monday.
"We're glad the court rejected the Bush administration's continued foot-dragging and ordered them to consider these species for protection," said Noah Greenwald, a conservation biologist with Center for Biological Diversity.
The center last year joined the Western Watersheds Project and Committee for the High Desert in suing Interior Secretary Gale Norton.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has categorized all three species as candidates to be listed under the Endangered Species Act. The candidate designation provides no immediate protection to the species.
Agency spokeswoman Betsy Lordan said designating a species as a candidate does not delay the process of listing a species as endangered. She said the service would comply with the judge's order.
In the lawsuit, the environmental groups argued that the service was skirting its legal responsibilities by claiming other priorities or budgetary constraints precluded it from considering the listings.
The service has said it lacks the money to study all the potentially threatened species, in part, because it is overwhelmed with lawsuits from environmentalists. Environmental groups counter the wildlife service has created its own problems by not seeking adequate funding.
The yellow cress plant is found along the shore of Lake Tahoe. The sand dune lizard is limited to southeastern New Mexico and western Texas. The southern Idaho ground squirrel is found in three southwestern Idaho counties.
Near as I can tell, this looks like it is word for word from a press release sent out by the CBD. Any time they file a suit against a government agency like the BLM and/or Fish & Wildlife Service, instead of saying it just like that, they call it the Bush Administration since technically Bush is at the top of that food chain. It’s a pretty effective spin since the more they do that the more voters they will have going against Bush. Clever bastards.
Although this sounds very dramatic, all that happened is three species were petitioned for listing, the Fish & Wildlife declined or maybe didn’t even respond at all, and the organizations who petitioned are now suing the Fish & Wildlife Service because they didn’t like their answer or the feet dragging.
Yes, a judge is reviewing the situation because, well, it’s a lawsuit and that’s what judges do. But to read this article one would think a judge woke up in a panic one morning and said “EGAD, WHAT IS HAPPENING TO THAT LIZARD, THAT SQUIRREL AND OH YEAH, THAT POOR PLANT???”
Again, the article is just “sky is falling” and vague enough to be credited to the writing styles of the CBD, including the cryptic “Aiken ordered the government to comply within six months in a ruling issued Monday” which really only means the judge told the FWS to do what they should have done before. Happens all the time because, as the FWS representatives have been publicly quoted as saying already, they don’t have the money to act on any petitions until they are court-ordered to do so.
Still think these anti-access groups remotely give a damn about the species they name in their suits? The article spells it out:
Although this sounds very dramatic, all that happened is three species were petitioned for listing, the Fish & Wildlife declined or maybe didn’t even respond at all, and the organizations who petitioned are now suing the Fish & Wildlife Service because they didn’t like their answer or the feet dragging.
Yes, a judge is reviewing the situation because, well, it’s a lawsuit and that’s what judges do. But to read this article one would think a judge woke up in a panic one morning and said “EGAD, WHAT IS HAPPENING TO THAT LIZARD, THAT SQUIRREL AND OH YEAH, THAT POOR PLANT???”
Again, the article is just “sky is falling” and vague enough to be credited to the writing styles of the CBD, including the cryptic “Aiken ordered the government to comply within six months in a ruling issued Monday” which really only means the judge told the FWS to do what they should have done before. Happens all the time because, as the FWS representatives have been publicly quoted as saying already, they don’t have the money to act on any petitions until they are court-ordered to do so.
Still think these anti-access groups remotely give a damn about the species they name in their suits? The article spells it out:
| QUOTE |
| The service has said it lacks the money to study all the potentially threatened species, in part, because it is overwhelmed with lawsuits from environmentalists. |
But ya gotta give them an A for creative writing.
Vicki
| QUOTE |
| The southern Idaho ground squirrel is found in three southwestern Idaho counties. |
I am sure that these poor little squirrels will eff it up for the Idaho dunes sooner or later too.
| QUOTE |
| Environmental groups counter the wildlife service has created its own problems by not seeking adequate funding. |
The same could be said about the BLM at the ISDRA. It's a never ending battle, that's for sure.
THIS GETS ME:
"...because it is overwhelmed with lawsuits from environmentalists."
WHERE THE eff* DO THEY GET THEIR FUNDING?
"...because it is overwhelmed with lawsuits from environmentalists."
WHERE THE eff* DO THEY GET THEIR FUNDING?
| QUOTE (J.A.F.O. @ Jun 28 2004, 11:06 PM) |
| WHERE THE eff* DO THEY GET THEIR FUNDING? |
Two primary sources, both achieved through more lawsuits:
1. When they file a lawsuit using the Endangered Species Act and they win, they get all their fees from the lawsuit reimbursed. Out of our pockets. A "win" can be a pre-lawsuit settlement offer... before a lawsuit is even filed, BadGuys threaten to close an area, but make a deal with LandManager to only partially close instead via court settlement. Deal is made, lawsuit is filed to "confirm" the settlement and a judge signs the deal. Now that it's in the court system, fees are reimbursed. Oh, and a judge who has no clue is holding the cards (but that's another story).
2. BadGuys show their mindless followers how many species they've "saved" by closing so much land but say they can't do more without money from the mindless followers so the cash flows in.
Our planet is actually doing remarkably well. Our air quality has improved, the number of trees we have is more than in 1920 and our water quality has also much improved. And global warming is an unsubstantiated and unsupported fairy tale.
But these BadGuys can't get money by saying "Hey, we're doing fine so keep up the good work and send us money to keep going." Instead they have to use scare tactics and pretend that a species is in dire peril so that people will give. It works.
Bottom line answer to your question is, they get their money from the public, either out of our pockets through taxes or from the private sector that doesn't always stop to ask why.
Vicki
Aren't their lawyers paid one amount but billed out for reimbursement purposes at a much higher rate?
| QUOTE (JET @ Jun 29 2004, 10:48 AM) |
| Aren't their lawyers paid one amount but billed out for reimbursement purposes at a much higher rate? |
That's the way I've heard it. But it's done, of course, through totally legitimate procedures.
Just like the Endangered Species Act has loopholes that allow these guys to sponge off the taxpayers while they shut the taxpayers out of public land, there are loopholes in billing procedures that can sometimes allow a higher profit margin than perhaps was actually earned.
Vicki
Vicki is dead on.
The fortunate thing is it works both ways.
The PMV coalition of ASA/ORBA/SDORC recovered our attorney fees when FWS missed it deadlenes.
There is a bright side.
We have filed a 60 day letter of intent .. We are suing again and when the PMV is delisted we will recover our cost.
The fortunate thing is it works both ways.
The PMV coalition of ASA/ORBA/SDORC recovered our attorney fees when FWS missed it deadlenes.
There is a bright side.
We have filed a 60 day letter of intent .. We are suing again and when the PMV is delisted we will recover our cost.
| QUOTE (GRANT@FUNCO @ Jun 29 2004, 11:26 AM) |
| We are suing again and when the PMV is delisted we will recover our cost. |
Quite so. And the anti-access groups don't like to get stung by those losses.
Oh, and don't forget the lessons learned from Creative Writing CBD-101. If the lawsuit is successful...
"Recognizing good science and common sense, the Bush Administration has delisted the PMV."
Vicki
It's interesting that the ASA is taking that stance (60 Day Notice of Intent to Sue) as extremely well settled case law indicates that litigation against this decision from the FWS is not advisable.
While I could spend a lot of time providing citations to back up my claim, needless to say most here would be skimming over the citations and my time would be better served doing something else.
The Court(s) have indicated that it is not their role to substitute its judgement for an agency decision unless there is clear and compelling evidence the Agency had made such a decision that is contrary to the record. Mere disagreement between scientist is not enough for the Court to step in.
The Agency, in this case USFWS, is given broad power and wide latitude by the Court to utilize its own expert's opinion to support such an Agency decision. Most every case demonstrates that the Court will give deference to the Agency unless the record shows "a clear error in judgement".
Unless Dave Hubbard is moving down a path not well known, the alleged challenge to the FWS decision here would likely be brought under the Administrative Procedure Act ("APA"). Based upon the Federal Register notice that I read last week or two, the FWS did a good job covering their ass.
I'm not attempting to be negative here; but instead, I attempting to provide some insight and perspective from having involvement and interest enough to read such legal precedence.
While I could spend a lot of time providing citations to back up my claim, needless to say most here would be skimming over the citations and my time would be better served doing something else.
The Court(s) have indicated that it is not their role to substitute its judgement for an agency decision unless there is clear and compelling evidence the Agency had made such a decision that is contrary to the record. Mere disagreement between scientist is not enough for the Court to step in.
The Agency, in this case USFWS, is given broad power and wide latitude by the Court to utilize its own expert's opinion to support such an Agency decision. Most every case demonstrates that the Court will give deference to the Agency unless the record shows "a clear error in judgement".
Unless Dave Hubbard is moving down a path not well known, the alleged challenge to the FWS decision here would likely be brought under the Administrative Procedure Act ("APA"). Based upon the Federal Register notice that I read last week or two, the FWS did a good job covering their ass.
I'm not attempting to be negative here; but instead, I attempting to provide some insight and perspective from having involvement and interest enough to read such legal precedence.
APD I also read that decsion (the full version available here not the short synopsis that made the papers)
And even a brief skim shows some major problems that show far more than "a clear error of judgement".
They primarialy rely on an unfishined un-reviewed study that they paid for but which isn't available to anyone else to refute Dr. Phillips study. They also use the author of that other study to do their own internal peer-review of Dr. Phillips study and that author makes claims that Dr. Phillips uses too small of a sampling as a major error...while the author making that claim in his own research used only a sub-set of Dr. Phillips own samples that is 50% smaller than the "inadequate" sample he claims Dr. Phillips used.
They quote from a number of un-reviewed sources but don't put them up to their own internal peer-review because they say what they want them to say - "listing anything in an OHV area is good because OHV's are evil and destroy everything" They even use the studies that both FWS and BLM have admitted were not good studies.
Anything that could possibly indicate the PMV should not have been listed was put up against a very biased panel of peers for their internal review (a review which is not publically available it seems) but anything which could agree with listing the PMV was taken as gospel even when the FWS has previously said the study was no good.
They take Dr. Phillips comments out of context and claim that they mean the opposite of what they actually state!
I can't disclose what I've been told by the legal team since it's not something that can be discussed in public as it could hurt our stance.
There's also the FWS's own comment " Jane Hendron herself, said in an interview that this needs to be decided in court." which indicates to me that the FWS, as has been suggested by some experts I've spoken with, did a poor job on purpose to just buy themselves time and keep the plant listed. Given how many PEER/CBD members work in the carlsbad office they have a vested interest in keeping the plant listed despite any proof that it has no business being listed. Delisting the plant would also require the FWS to admit that they were wrong...and when was the last time a government agency did that without being forced to in court. The way that document reads to me says the FWS wants the plant delisted but wants the court to force them to so they can say "we didn't delist the courts forced us to" and save face with the enviros and not have to admit they screwed up.
And even a brief skim shows some major problems that show far more than "a clear error of judgement".
They primarialy rely on an unfishined un-reviewed study that they paid for but which isn't available to anyone else to refute Dr. Phillips study. They also use the author of that other study to do their own internal peer-review of Dr. Phillips study and that author makes claims that Dr. Phillips uses too small of a sampling as a major error...while the author making that claim in his own research used only a sub-set of Dr. Phillips own samples that is 50% smaller than the "inadequate" sample he claims Dr. Phillips used.
They quote from a number of un-reviewed sources but don't put them up to their own internal peer-review because they say what they want them to say - "listing anything in an OHV area is good because OHV's are evil and destroy everything" They even use the studies that both FWS and BLM have admitted were not good studies.
Anything that could possibly indicate the PMV should not have been listed was put up against a very biased panel of peers for their internal review (a review which is not publically available it seems) but anything which could agree with listing the PMV was taken as gospel even when the FWS has previously said the study was no good.
They take Dr. Phillips comments out of context and claim that they mean the opposite of what they actually state!
I can't disclose what I've been told by the legal team since it's not something that can be discussed in public as it could hurt our stance.
There's also the FWS's own comment " Jane Hendron herself, said in an interview that this needs to be decided in court." which indicates to me that the FWS, as has been suggested by some experts I've spoken with, did a poor job on purpose to just buy themselves time and keep the plant listed. Given how many PEER/CBD members work in the carlsbad office they have a vested interest in keeping the plant listed despite any proof that it has no business being listed. Delisting the plant would also require the FWS to admit that they were wrong...and when was the last time a government agency did that without being forced to in court. The way that document reads to me says the FWS wants the plant delisted but wants the court to force them to so they can say "we didn't delist the courts forced us to" and save face with the enviros and not have to admit they screwed up.
"Recognizing good science and common sense, the Bush Administration has delisted the PMV."
| QUOTE (JET @ Jun 29 2004, 09:29 PM) |
| "Recognizing good science and common sense, the Bush Administration has delisted the PMV." |
JET, you playin with Slap's headbone???
I should have put a little more dressing on that. It was a quote from Vicki stating how the spinmeisters with the extremists would put the news release out.
| QUOTE (jhitesma @ Jun 29 2004, 09:03 PM) |
| APD I also read that decsion (the full version available here not the short synopsis that made the papers) And even a brief skim shows some major problems that show far more than "a clear error of judgement". They primarialy rely on an unfishined un-reviewed study that they paid for but which isn't available to anyone else to refute Dr. Phillips study. They also use the author of that other study to do their own internal peer-review of Dr. Phillips study and that author makes claims that Dr. Phillips uses too small of a sampling as a major error...while the author making that claim in his own research used only a sub-set of Dr. Phillips own samples that is 50% smaller than the "inadequate" sample he claims Dr. Phillips used. They quote from a number of un-reviewed sources but don't put them up to their own internal peer-review because they say what they want them to say - "listing anything in an OHV area is good because OHV's are evil and destroy everything" They even use the studies that both FWS and BLM have admitted were not good studies. Anything that could possibly indicate the PMV should not have been listed was put up against a very biased panel of peers for their internal review (a review which is not publically available it seems) but anything which could agree with listing the PMV was taken as gospel even when the FWS has previously said the study was no good. They take Dr. Phillips comments out of context and claim that they mean the opposite of what they actually state! I can't disclose what I've been told by the legal team since it's not something that can be discussed in public as it could hurt our stance. There's also the FWS's own comment " Jane Hendron herself, said in an interview that this needs to be decided in court." which indicates to me that the FWS, as has been suggested by some experts I've spoken with, did a poor job on purpose to just buy themselves time and keep the plant listed. Given how many PEER/CBD members work in the carlsbad office they have a vested interest in keeping the plant listed despite any proof that it has no business being listed. Delisting the plant would also require the FWS to admit that they were wrong...and when was the last time a government agency did that without being forced to in court. The way that document reads to me says the FWS wants the plant delisted but wants the court to force them to so they can say "we didn't delist the courts forced us to" and save face with the enviros and not have to admit they screwed up. |
I LOVE YOU JASON
.... WHEN WE GETTIN' HITCHED?
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.