Braking news that arrived yesterday or before.
NRA Lawsuit Sets Legal Precedents for Defending Hunter’s Rights
by C.D. Michel
Although the case is still pending and a final ruling is yet to be issued, NRA’s intervention on behalf of its members in the case Center for Biological Diversity v. U.S. Bureau of Land Management, et al., has already resulted in several legal victories.
CBD’s lawsuit, filed on January 27, 2009, alleges that the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) are illegally mismanaging federal lands in Arizona. CBD contends California condors in Arizona and elsewhere are becoming ill or dying as a result of scavenging game that was shot by hunters using lead shot or bullets. NRA has collected thousands of documents via public records act requests over the last year. Many of these documents raise doubts about the veracity of that calim. In fact, many documents obtained by NRA indicate that claim is based on faulty science, and plainly show that California condors were reintroduced to Arizona based in large part on express promises by FWS and other agencies that the “reintroduction” would not impact hunting.
The publication of the decision followed an earlier NRA partial victory in this case; NRA’s legal arguments caused the CBD to abandon and dismiss its California condor related Endangered Species Act (ESA) claims rather than litigate them against NRA. CBD’s ESA claims were based in part on an incorrect belief that “any take of [California] condors from the use of lead ammunition would be a per se violation of the ESA.” CBD’s revised its lawsuit and dropped the ESA claims that CBD was primarily using as part of an attempt to obtain a ban on the use of lead ammunition for hunting on these federal lands at issue.
Screw the Center for Biological Diversitude. They are neither Central nor Diverse – but you can smell their Biology a mile away.