Activist Judges in 9Th Circuit Rule Against Hunters and Fishermen

[JoseCuervo]

Updated: May 5 -- Activist Judges in 9Th Circuit Rule Against Hunters and Fishermen

From the same looney tune judges that think you don't need to say the Pledge of Allegiance, they now don't think you need to be able to hunt or fish in the West. A sad day for all hunters and fishermen in the 9th Circuit.

Idaho Rancher’s Case Means Environmentalists Can No Longer Terrorize Property Owners with Baseless Allegations. In an important victory for western property owners, the United States Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled for Pacific Legal Foundation, and Idaho rancher Verl Jones’ family, in a closely watched case that addresses the standard by which injunctions can be issued under the Endangered Species Act.

The Ninth Circuit’s ruling clarifies—for the first time—that environmental plaintiffs must present actual evidence that a species is likely to be harmed before an injunction can be issued against a property owner, and that a lack of evidence of past harm is indicative of the likelihood of future harm.

For years, environmental plaintiffs have been able to get injunctions ordering private property owners to cease legal activity on their land on the basis of mere allegations alone. PLF has long argued, as it did in the Joneses’ case, that there must be an evidentiary showing of real harm to a species before a court can issue an injunction that would result in serious economic harm to the property owner. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals agreed.

"The court said environmentalists have to prove their case, not just allege it," said Russ Brooks, managing attorney for Pacific Legal Foundation’s Pacific Northwest Center. "The court’s decision means that environmental activists can no longer use the Endangered Species Act as a weapon against property owners without a shred of evidence that any species is actually being harmed."

"For too long, environmentalists have been able to easily obtain injunctions against property owners on the basis that courts should give the benefit of the doubt to the species. The Ninth Circuit has just put environmentalists on notice that now they are going to have to give courts legitimate evidence of a likelihood of harm—they can’t get away with destroying people’s lives on baseless allegations anymore," Brooks said.

The Jones family operates a small ranch near Challis, Idaho. Since 1961, they have diverted water from nearby Otter Creek in the summer months to irrigate their alfalfa pastures for livestock.

An antigrazing, environmental activist group, the Idaho Watersheds Project, sued Verl Jones and his family in 2001, claiming the family was violating the ESA by diverting water from Otter Creek and killing bull trout protected under the Act. The group presented no evidence that bull trout were being harmed to support their claim.

PLF says the environmental groups’ real aim was to shut off the Joneses’ water use to force the family into bankruptcy and off their land. PLF presented evidence to the court, including testimony by the Jones family and a longtime ranch hand, that no one has ever seen a bull trout injured in Otter Creek, let alone killed, in the 40 years the family has operated their irrigation diversion.

Nevertheless, the federal District Court granted the environmentalists’ request for summary judgment and issued the injunction, ordering Jones to stop diverting water to the family ranch. As a result, the Jones family has been forced to buy about 100 tons of hay per year to make up for the loss of irrigation water for the past three years.

The Ninth Circuit overturned the District Court’s decision, and ruled that courts cannot defer to environmentalists’ mere assertion of harm to a species. The court reversed and remanded the case to the lower court for trial to consider the evidence—and lack of evidence—presented. The unpublished decision is significant because it is the first time the Ninth Circuit has clarified the type of evidence that must be demonstrated in order for an environmental plaintiff to obtain an injunction under the ESA.

"The Ninth Circuit said that if the evidence shows a bull trout has not been harmed in 40 years, it isn’t likely to be harmed in the next 40 years—certainly not likely enough to support an injunction shutting of the Joneses’ water," PLF’s Brooks said.

As Brooks explained, the Joneses’ case has been widely watched by Idaho property owners who have for years been terrorized by environmental activist groups that have used the ESA as a means to shut down land use activity they oppose.

"For the Jones family, like other citizens in Idaho and across the west, the Endangered Species Act has brought nothing but despair, hardship, and lawsuits. Instead of restoring fish, the ESA has been used by environmental groups to hurt people who work the land for a living," said Brooks.

"This decision should give a lot of property owners hope where they have felt powerless against environmentalists’ frivolous lawsuits for years," added Brooks. "It’s been a long time coming, but the tide is turning—and it’s turning for the rights of property owners and reasonableness in environmental laws."

Why we must cater to Fat Cats and Big Business over Hunters every time???

 

[ringer]

Maybe they are finally realizing that many of their rulings have been overturned for a reason so they better tow the line and rule with some sense of political correctness before Bush replaces them with heterosexual judges.

 

[JoseCuervo]

Ringer,
And you are good with Judges ruling against hunters and fishermen in favor of your homosexuality?

 

[ringer]

Jose'-why are you so fixated on my sexuality? Just accept my offer for a free fishing day on my boat and we can resolve your issues. Do you think the Montoya/USO ruling was good for hunting?

 

[Nemont]

The group presented no evidence that bull trout were being harmed to support their claim.

"The Ninth Circuit said that if the evidence shows a bull trout has not been harmed in 40 years, it isn’t likely to be harmed in the next 40 years—certainly not likely enough to support an injunction shutting of the Joneses’ water," PLF’s Brooks said

Jose,
Here is a family raising hay on private land using a water right they had for forty years and then Marvel and his goon squad decided they didn't like that. So they sue without any evidence that there was indeed harm to the bull trout population in the stream. Doesn't that scare even you, and your alter ego, up in your own private Idaho. Marvel is no longer content to end ranching just on public land he now wants it ended on private lands as well. Here is a group who hasn't presented proof of harm that can not convince the 9th circuit, of all courts, that there was harm done. Maybe you have eaten one too many tequila worms but this decision was the correct own. It will have NO affect on hunting or fishing opportunities.
|oo |oo

Why we must cater to Fat Cats and Big Business over Hunters every time???

Why must land owners be exposed to stupid lawsuits and injunctions against them when there is no evidence of harm?
Nemont

 

[JoseCuervo]

Nemont,

If the pro-hunting and pro-fishing WWP can show that bull trout THRIVE in the creek ABOVE the dewatering point, where the habitat for bull trout is ran out across a pasture. And that once the water is diverted NO fish exsist in the creek on the private land. Do you really need proof that fish are harmed ON the land???

The Brooks argument is as looney as the Dubya administration with Salmon. Gosh, there aren't any salmon in the rivers now, so there must not be any impact on the salmon, and my daddy doesn't remember the salmon....

 

[ringer]

Well, at least we understand that you are pissed about the decision. Are you an attorney for the huggers Jose'? Must be someone paying you to push the agenda as you are very consistent. You and your groups are also losing the battle and no amount of whining and sniping on a hunting website will change that fact. The majority of Americans are flat tired of being bent over by a small minority who always cries that the sky is falling. New rules: "if it is good for the majority then we will look seriously at your claim-if it is a joke then it will be treated as such".

 

[Nemont]

If the pro-hunting and pro-fishing WWP can show that bull trout THRIVE in the creek ABOVE the dewatering point, where the habitat for bull trout is ran out across a pasture. And that once the water is diverted NO fish exsist in the creek on the private land.

Then why didn't they present any evidence in court? And why if the guy has been diverting water for 40 years is the case just coming up now? The bull trout was declared endangered on Nov. 1, 1999 but Marvel didn't file suit until 2001. What gives? You aren't worried now that Marvel has began his long predicted attack on private land rights? The guy wants to end all grazing of cattle period regardless of who he ruins in the process.

Nemont

 

[JoseCuervo]

ringer,
Is it not the responsibility of the Government to protect the Minority FROM the oppression of the Majority? Why should our public lands be managed for the "good" of the majority? Why would we not want to manage the lands for the good of the LAND and the good of the ANIMALS that live there???

 

[JoseCuervo]

Nemont,
How do you propose that the pro-hunting and pro-fishing WWP group get access ON the Private land?

 

[Nemont]

How do you propose that the pro-hunting and pro-fishing WWP group get access ON the Private land?

Why do they need access to private land?

Nemont

 

[ringer]

Hoser-If you are being discriminated against as a racial, religious or sexual minority I will buy your premise. Managing federal lands should discriminate in favor of the people who own them and that IS the majority. Not some fringe minority that wants to close the land to all uses except for their own. Using the courts to screw the majority of citizens to protect the endangered willow flycatcher exploding toads is ending. Get used to it.

 

[Nemont]

Hey Jose,

I subscribed to WWP's newsletter a while back, in addition I made a donation so I could get their "insight" and have scoured their literature, website and rhetoric and have yet to find one word that says they are pro-hunting. They are Anti just about everything else including anti family, anti rancher (both public & private), anti private property rights (unless you want to build a mansion and hob nob with John Kerry near Challis or Sun Valley). They want to end life in west for anyone who even thinks about making $1 farming or ranching. Just thought you would want to know.

Nemont

 

[Michaelr]

Sybil,
Why the stupid act?
I don't believe for a minute that you are THAT stupid.

 

[JoseCuervo]

Marvel Comments on the alleged "precedent"

Challis Ranch Wins Appeal; Fight Far from Over

A Washington-based legal center is claiming "an important victory for western property owners" against "environmentalists' frivolous lawsuits," after an appeals court ruled in support of a Challis rancher who diverted a nearby stream for agricultural uses. An unpublished ruling by the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, released Monday by the property rights group Pacific Legal Foundation, overturned a former decision in U.S. District Court that prohibited ranchers Verl and Tuddie Jones from taking water out of nearby Otter Creek until they installed a fish screen and head gate to protect endangered bull trout.

In a prepared statement, the Foundation alleged that the "real aim" of the conservation groups the Western Watersheds Project and the Committee for Idaho's High Desert was "to shut off the Jones's water use to force the family into bankruptcy and off their land," under the protection of the Endangered Species act. "For the Jones family, like other citizens in Idaho and across the west, the Endangered Species Act has brought nothing but despair, hardship, and lawsuits. Instead of restoring fish, the ESA has been used by environmental groups to hurt people who work the land for a living," said Foundation Lawyer Russ Brooks.

According to John Marvel, executive director of Idaho branch of the Western Watersheds Project, the Ninth Circuit ruling will not be the end of the debate. He said that the groups would continue to pursue the protection of Otter Creek and its bull trout through a federal trial. "I don't regard this as a big setback," he told BW. "We think that they're breaking the law, and all they've done is send it back for trial to develop more information. If we go to trial, that's fine. We'll provide information that will confirm the original decision." As for Brooks' claim of an important precedent being set against environmentalists, Marvel replied, "The fact that this was not released for publication, and that all it did was return it for a trial, does not establish any precedent at all."

 

[1_pointer]

If there's not proof of harm, then there's no proof that by eliminating the diversion it would help the trout either.

'Gunner- You've said more than once that the federal agencies should study things before we do them. Why should that be any different for WWP? Don't the appealants have the burnden of proof? The court it just making them play by the rules.

 

[jmcd]

Sybil,
Why the stupid act?
I don't believe for a minute that you are THAT stupid

I think he's suffering from lack of oxygen to the brain. A definite side effect of having one's head permanently lodged up their ass.

 

[ELKCHSR]

LOL jmcd...

I would say that and the fact he/she isn't quite sure who he/she wants to be today...

Its an ever changing world, and an everchanging personality swap for the poor guner/sybil...

 

[JoseCuervo]

Cheese,
Do you even understand the topic here? Why do you think anybody wants to read any of your idiotic ramblings in a thread where you don't have a clue as to the topic?

 

[Bandit]

Well pertaining to the topic, I agree with 1-Pointer, If there's no proof of damage being caused, then leave well enough alone and go make your pockets fat some other way. It's people like you jose that are never happy with things the way they are because you don't get to have your hands in on it. Bring some proof in, and I mean beyond a shadow of a doubt type proof, and I'll consider retracting my statement. Until then, Pull your head on out, and take a look around you. |oo