I know the reason why the USFWS is dragging their feet. SEE: Sweet Home Chapter of Communities for a Great Oregon v. Bruce BABBITT, Secretary of the Interior --------------------------------------------------------------------- This case was Decided on July 23, 1993, and then denied on May 2, 1994. The US Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit, denied the US Fish and Wildlife Service to use its expansive definition of "harm" to include "habitat modifications." To "harm" an endangered species is to "take", which is in violation of the Endangered Species Act. If the USFWS pursues its expansive definition of "harm" in other locations (i.e. Arizona, NM) they might lose their muscle in requiring the forest industry to avoid habitat modifications on private lands. Ruling on the Sweet Home Case: The Court of Appeals, per curiam, held that regulation defining "harm" to an endangered species to include ...habitat modification... did NOT violate the Endangered Species Act. Next Stop, THE US SUPREME COURT !!! To the extremist: There are already enough regulations on the books to protect most threatened or endangered species. You continue crying that "it isn't enough." If things keep going the way they are... We may lose the regulations that we have NOW. Sincerly, A Practical Environmentalist
Mail converted by
MHonArc 1.1.0