Showing posts with label legal action. Show all posts
Showing posts with label legal action. Show all posts

Wednesday, 9 December 2015

Australia considers legal action against Japan's decision to resume whaling

Government joins 32 nations protesting Japan’s decision to hunt in the Southern Ocean this summer

A Japanese whaling ship leaves the port of Shimonoseki in Japan on 1 December to resume whale hunting in the Antarctic. Photograph: Jiji Press/AFP/Getty Images

Australian Associated Press

Monday 7 December 2015 08.00 GMTLast modified on Monday 7 December 201508.02 GMT

The Turnbull government is considering legal action in response to Japan’s decision to resume whaling in the Southern Ocean this summer.

The government says it is exploring options for further legal action and has joined 32 nations protesting the decision in a bid to build international consensus against Japanese whaling.

“The Australian government does not support what is a deeply disappointing decision by Japanand we will continue to raise our concerns at the highest level of the Japanese government,” the foreign affairs minister, Julie Bishop, and the environment minister, Greg Hunt, said in a statement on Monday.

Australia’s concerns were raised in a demarche, or joint letter, with New Zealand and European Union members.

The demarche conveys “serious concerns” regarding Japan’s decision to resume whaling in the Southern Ocean in the 2015/16 season under what Japan calls its New Scientific Research Whale Program.

Sunday, 30 June 2013

Fish and Wildlife Service sued over decision to not list dunes sagebrush lizard---Two groups say Texas conservation plan too vague, overseen by oil industry insiders - Herp Digest

By Mella McEwen, Midland Reporter-Telegram, June 19, 2013 --A year after the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service decided not to list the dunes sagebrush lizard as endangered under the Endangered Species Act, the reptile is the subject of a lawsuit filed Wednesday by Defenders of Wildlife and the Center for Biological Diversity.

The lawsuit focuses on Texas’ voluntary conservation plan, which the two groups say risks the lizard’s future “by relying on a voluntary state conservation plan in which Texas maintains that individual agreements with landowners to conserve the lizards’ habitat cannot be made available to the federal agency or the public.” New Mexico’s conservation plan was not part of the lawsuit.

“The Fish and Wildlife Service is operating completely in the dark in Texas on this one,” said Jason Rylander, senior attorney for Defenders of Wildlife in announcing the lawsuit. “Denying Endangered Species Act protection for a species that is clearly imperiled based on a wink and a nod from the state is downright negligent at best, since the service has no way of validating the quality or effectiveness of the agreements.”

Said Noah Greenwald, endangered species director at the Center for Biological Diversity, “It may sound cliché, but this really is an example of letting the fox guard the hen house. The dunes sagebrush lizard is hanging by a thread and needs the protections of the Endangered Species Act to have any chance at survival.”

Ben Shepperd, president of the Permian Basin Petroleum Association, said that while he had not yet read the lawsuit, “I feel the Fish and Wildlife Service made the correct decision not to list the lizard. The reason is that the decision was based on scientific fact and that is the data did not justify a listing. The lizard is doing just fine. The population appears to be strong, based on studies we’ve seen.”

The two groups noted, in announcing the lawsuit, that the species’ narrow range has gotten narrower due to increased oil and gas drilling and herbicide spraying on livestock grazing land.

Shepperd said such claims “of habitat fragmentation have been vastly overblown. Recent studies have shown over the last 40 years, less than 10 percent of the lizard’s habitat has been fragmented or developed. That doesn’t appear to be a large impact.”

He added, “we encourage the Fish and Wildlife Service to stand behind that decision.”

In announcing the lawsuit, Defenders of Wildlife and the Center for Biological Diversity criticized the Texas conservation agreement, saying it only vaguely described the actions required and leaving specific conservation measures to be spelled out in certificates between each participant and the state of Texas. They criticized the fact that those certificates are guarded from public access by state law, leaving “no way for Fish and Wildlife, or scientists and other experts, to determine whether such measures are adequate to prevent the lizard’s extinction. The lack of knowledge and transparency in this case not only further threatens the survival of dunes sagebrush lizard, but also sets a dangerous precedent for other species waiting in line for protection.”



Compounding the problem, the two groups said, Texas has delegated authority to implement the agreement to a private entity, the “Texas Habitat Conservation Foundation,” which is run by three lobbyists from the Texas Oil and Gas Association.

Monday, 18 March 2013

Court Hearing Focuses on Whether EPA Must Protect Hundreds of Endangered Species From Pesticides


For Immediate Release, March 15, 2013 

Contact: Jeff Miller, Center for Biological Diversity, (415) 669-7357 

SAN FRANCISCO— A federal district court in San Francisco will hear arguments today in the most comprehensive legal action ever brought under the Endangered Species Act to protect imperiled animals from pesticides. The Center for Biological Diversity and Pesticide Action Network North America are challenging the Environmental Protection Agency’s failure to assess the impacts of hundreds of pesticides known to be harmful to more than 200 endangered and threatened species. 

Today’s hearing addresses motions filed by the EPA and pesticide industry groups to dismiss the lawsuit. 

“For decades, the EPA has turned a blind eye to the disastrous effects pesticides have on some of America’s rarest species,” said Jeff Miller, a conservation advocate with the Center. “We’re trying to make sure the EPA does its legal and moral duty to make sure harmful chemicals aren’t sprayed in the same places where these vulnerable wild animals are trying to survive.” 

The lawsuit seeks protection from harmful pesticides for 212 endangered and threatened species throughout the United States, including Florida panthers, California condors, piping plovers, black-footed ferrets, arroyo toads, Indiana bats, bonytail chubs and Alabama sturgeon. Documents from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and EPA, as well as peer-reviewed scientific studies, show that these species can be harmed by the more than 300 pesticides at issue. 

Despite the well-documented risks of pesticides to hundreds of imperiled species, for decades the EPA has “registered,” that is permitted pesticide uses, without required consultations with expert federal agencies to properly study their impacts. This noncompliance prevents the Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service from evaluating pesticide risks and restricting pesticide uses known to be harmful to protected species. 

After the filing of this lawsuit in 2011, the EPA and the two federal wildlife agencies requested that the National Academy of Sciences’ National Research Council examine the agencies’ joint responsibilities under the Endangered Species Act and provide recommendations regarding how best to complete the consultation process under the Act. The final Academy report is expected this month. 

Today’s hearing, before Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero, will be at 9:30 a.m. at 450 Golden Gate Avenue, Courtroom G – 15th Floor, in San Francisco. The hearing is open to the public. Center attorney Collette Adkins Giese will be available after the hearing to discuss the case. To arrange an interview, please call (651) 955-3821. 

Related Posts with Thumbnails

ShareThis