> From: Steve Meyers <meyers@Forestry.Auburn.EDU> > Subject: Re: Agencies Defy Court Order to Avoid Wildlife Protection > To: Robin Silver <silver@indirect.com> please send to your list, Robin > ////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// This in responce to a previous message by Robin Silver: > 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 U.S. 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