LYNX HEARINGS UPDATE
- Skip Trask, Legislative Liaison
 | ||||||
New Lawsuit 10-15-09
- As I expect you've heard by now, the plaintiffs in the lynx related lawsuit have filed yet another motion with the court. Their new motion for a preliminary injunction asks the judge to shut down the two week canine season. I've been on the phone with our attorneys discussing this latest development, and, without getting into all the legal ramifications, I'll try to summarize where things currently stand. The latest motion is likely to have little impact, except that it may push the judge to issue his decision on the entire lawsuit (a decision we have been expecting since about the first of September). The new motion contains no evidence that hasn't been previously provided to the court, and, as a result, we (the interveners) are working with the State to decide if and when a response to this motion is necessary. We're hoping that the judge will give some indication within the next few days as to how he plans to proceed. I should know more fairly soon and will keep you informed. The best advice I can give you is to go ahead with your trapping plans. If the judge grants the latest motion, which we believe is highly unlikely, the State will be required to notify all trappers accordingly. Have a safe and enjoyable season! Skip
10-20-2009 - Lynx lawsuit
Good afternoon - Here are the latest developments in the ongoing efforts by the plaintiffs in the lynx lawsuit to stop us from trapping. As you already know, plaintiffs filed a motion with the court for a temporary restraining order on October 10th, asking the court to shut down the two-week fox and coyote season (scheduled for October 18th through October 31st). When they didn't receive an immediate response from the court, they filed a second motion - this one was filed on October 19th, the second day of the fox and coyote season. Their new motion for a temporary restraining order asked the court to immediately stop the current canine season and to delay the start of the regular trapping season until the court issues a decion on the entire lawsuit (a decision the court had hoped to be able to issue around the first of September). Earlier today, the court denied both of the plainiff's motions. Judge Woodcock issued a five page decision on the two latest motions, concluding with the following comments:
"The record in this and the predecessor case should confirm that the Court has conscientiously attempted to give careful and thorough attention to the issues the parties have raised. Just last December, the Court concluded that the Plaintiffs had not sustained their burden to justify the extraordinary remedy of an injunction following the DIFW’s court-ordered tightening of its trapping regulations. The circumstances that led the Court to deny the Plaintiffs’ emergency motion for a temporary restraining order have not changed. The regulations remain as they did in December and, as there has been no trapping, the facts on the ground are the same. The Plaintiffs have therefore failed to provide a justification for revisiting the December 16, 2008 Order. Although the Court can appreciate Plaintiffs’ frustration, the issues before the Court are unusually complex, require shifting through a voluminous record, and applying nuanced, intricate and contested principles of law. The Court assures counsel for the Plaintiffs that it is acutely aware of their desire for a speedy decision, but has opted for a considered, rather than an immediate opinion. At the same time, the Court reminds counsel for the Plaintiffs that their case is not the only one the Court has pending before it."
"The Court DENIES the Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction to Enjoin the Early Fox and Coyote Trapping Season for 2009 (Docket # 107); and Plaintiffs’ Motion for Temporary Restraining Order to Enjoin the Early Fox and Coyote Trapping Season, and, if Necessary, Postpone the Regular Trapping Season (Docket # 109)."
Although both of the latest motions have been denied, which is great news, we still have no indication as to when we'll get a decision on the lawsuit itself. Based on the comments in the latest decision, it may be quite a while before we hear anything further. When something new develops, I'll let you know. In the meantime, keep trapping and have fun! Skip (Note: Am sending this message to several different lists of people, so you may receive it more than once.)
11-11-2009
Good morning - By this time of day in early November I'm usually several miles upstream in my canoe checking traps. Not today! I've spent the early morning hours reviewing the thirty page decision that Judge Woodcock handed down late yesterday on the lynx related lawsuit - ending more than a year of litigation, including a six day trial. Although I will not go into much detail about the decision this morning, I wanted to make you all aware that the lawsuit is over, and the results couldn't be better. Here are just a few quotes from the 30-page decision that pretty much tell the story:
"Each trapping season, the current state of regulation in Maine has the effect of tolerating the incidental takes of a certain number of lynx, an intolerable state of affairs to animal rights advocates. Twice in the last three years, they have come to federal court seeking declaratory relief and injunctions against Maine laws and regulations."
"To prevent further incidental takes of Canada lynx, AWI sought the issuance of a permanent injunction against the state of Maine, and in mid-April and late June, 2009, the Court held six days of hearing in which the parties presented exhaustive testimonial and documentary evidence. Following the hearing, AWI expressly asked for injunctive relief that would "(1) prohibit the use of leghold traps on land in the identified lynx WMDs as well as in WMD 7 where . . . lynx have been identified as present and have been trapped; and (2) prohibit the use of killer-type traps with an opening of more than four inches in both ground and elevated sets."
"To the extent the case has been a battle of the experts, the Court has relied on Dr. Elowe's testimony over the testimony of both Dr. Paquet and Ms. Fox."
"The Court finds AWI's generic evidence and speculative inferences much less convincing than IF&W's specific records and finds Dr. Elowe's testimony more convincing than the opinions of either Dr. Paquet or Ms. Fox."
"The Court denies the Plaintiffs' request for permanent injunction against the state of Maine's current trapping regulations because it finds that the Plaintiffs have failed to prove the Canada lynx as a species will suffer irreparable harm if the injunction is not granted."
I'll provide more detail in future newsletter reports. Have a great day. I'm going trapping! (I'm sending this message to several of my email lists so you may receive it more than once.)
Skip
10-20-2010
Good afternoon - I just received word that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit has affirmed in all respects Judge Woodcock’s favorable judgment in the lynx lawsuit. The First Circuit’s opinion is a published opinion and, as a result, is binding law in New England and persuasive precedent in the rest of the country. The opinion makes it clear that plaintiffs seeking an injunction under the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) must prove irreparable harm to the species and that courts are not required to issue injunctions to end ESA violations (even where plaintiffs prove that a violation has taken place) if plaintiffs fail to show irreparable harm. This is a huge victory for Maine trappers. This bogus lawsuit is no longer hanging over our heads as we start the 2010 trapping season. This decision will make it much harder in the future for the animal fanatics to use the federal ESA to attack trapping, hunting or any other activity that could result in a threatened or endangered species being taken incidentally. I'll provide more details in the next MTA/MPGA newsletters. Skip
