Steve... FYI... In the last few years, in the Southwest, besides violating the law to avoid protecting the Mexican spotted owl, the Fish and Wildlife Service has broken the law to avoid protection of the Mt. Graham red squirrel, the Northern goshawk, loach minnow, spikedace, cactus ferruginous pygmy owl, Huachuca water umbel, ladies' tresses orchid, Huachuca tiger salamander, razorback sucker, Gila topminnow, desert pupfish, and southwestern willow flycatcher. (These are all of the specific examples that I can think of at this late hour.) The FWS drags there feet and continues to break the law because they never have enforced the ESA. All the while they were violating the law instead of enforcing it, what is just as bad is that they have done a horrible job of educating the public concerning the reasons that species need protection in the first place. In the Southwest, the FWS has cared only that they would insult consumptive industries. They do not deserve the mission of stewardship of anything except their short term career goals. Robin On Wed, 30 Nov 1994, Steve Meyers wrote: > 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