Lawsuits Impact Wildlife Funding, Taxpayer Dollars

[Mr VJP]

Lawsuits Impact Wildlife Funding, Taxpayer Dollars

 

  MISSOULA, Montana-Legal defense costs are an increasing drain on  conservation funding today. Alarmed by the trend, the Boone and Crockett  Club has launched a new examination of federal statutes that enable ongoing  litigation at a high cost to wildlife and the American taxpayer.

 

  The Club's primary concern is the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA),  which reimburses organizations that successfully sue federal agencies for  non-compliance with federal law.

 

  Although well intended, abuses of EAJA are escalating into a modern  conservation issue with potentially  severe long-term consequences.

 

  "The Club was and is deeply involved in designing and now protecting the  economic engines that drive conservation in America," said Ben Wallace,  president of Boone and Crockett Club, "Since the 1880s, we've been the  guardian of the most successful wildlife conservation system in the world.  It's a system that depends on funding, and we take very seriously the fact  that money and other resources intended to support conservation are being  diverted elsewhere."

 

  Past Club President Lowell E. Baier is leading the ongoing investigation  and his preliminary findings were reported in a two-article series  published in Boone and Crockett's magazine, "Fair Chase."

 

  The articles, complete with detailed background and statistics, are now  available free to the public at www.boone-crockett.org

 

  EAJA was written to reimburse legal costs incurred by small nonprofit  organizations  along with for-profit organizations with net worth of less  than $7 million. However, America's two largest animal rights groups have  filed numerous cases under EAJA even though their 2009 combined net assets  exceeded $209.6 million and cash balances exceeded $44.5 million.

 

  Another abuse uncovered by Baier: In 2008, an animal rights group won a  legal ruling regarding wolves and petitioned a federal court in Missoula,  Mont., for $388,370 in attorney fees. The judge awarded $263,099, which was  based on an hourly rate of $300-even though the federal limit is $125 per  hour.

 

  In 2007, the same litigant was awarded $280,000 following a similar case  in the Great Lakes area.

 

  The defendant in both cases was the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, whose  budget-regardless of whether it's spent on wildlife or lawyers-is financed  by a combination of sportsmen fees and tax dollars.

 

  Taxpayers bear all EAJA reimbursements to plaintiffs.

 

  Indirect costs are considerable, too. Nearly all resource management  proposals are now subject to ever-higher hidden fees as federal agencies  spend more and more time and resources on elaborate environmental impact  statements and other attempts to "suit proof" their decision-making  processes. In some cases, where the intent of the lawsuit is to stop a  proposed federal action, the delays and costs to a federal agency can  derail time sensitive projects even if the eventual court ruling goes  against the plaintiffs.

 

  Along with wildlife, other public land- and water-based resource agencies  that deal with energy, timber, agriculture, livestock and fisheries also  are increasingly impacted by legal actions taken under the provisions of  EAJA. 

 

  EAJA clearly encourages frequent legal challenges by some nonprofits that  are, in reality, "big business." These organizations are literally making  their living by suing a variety of government agencies. Does  EAJA,  especially its payments to successful litigants with no reciprocal  penalties for losses in court, still make sense today?

 

  Baier's preliminary study finds that EAJA needs intensive review.  Appropriate modifications could help make laws that are more effective,  efficient and resistant to courts deciding wildlife management policies via  taxpayer subsidized lawsuits.

[nyantler]

I get upset just reading that

[Bballhunter11]

Agree nyantler

[132 eight pointer]

 

  EAJA was written to reimburse legal costs incurred by small nonprofit  organizations  along with for-profit organizations with net worth of less  than $7 million. However, America's two largest animal rights groups have  filed numerous cases under EAJA even though their 2009 combined net assets  exceeded $209.6 million and cash balances exceeded $44.5 million.

 

  Another abuse uncovered by Baier: In 2008, an animal rights group won a  legal ruling regarding wolves and petitioned a federal court in Missoula,  Mont., for $388,370 in attorney fees. The judge awarded $263,099, which was  based on an hourly rate of $300-even though the federal limit is $125 per  hour.

 

  In 2007, the same litigant was awarded $280,000 following a similar case  in the Great Lakes area.

 

  The defendant in both cases was the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, whose  budget-regardless of whether it's spent on wildlife or lawyers-is financed  by a combination of sportsmen fees and tax dollars.

 

  Taxpayers bear all EAJA reimbursements to plaintiffs.

 

  Baier's preliminary study finds that EAJA needs intensive review.  Appropriate modifications could help make laws that are more effective,  efficient and resistant to courts deciding wildlife management policies via  taxpayer subsidized lawsuits.

If the judges are ignorant of the existing laws how will modifications change anything? Perhaps a lawsuit to recoup the unjust compensation is needed . If the courts would get it right the first time none of this would happen.