actually the case is called Weyerhaeuser v. United States Fish and Wildlife Service. anyways a local company - timber, wood and paper products giant Weyerhaeuser won a unanimous 8-0 Supreme Court appeals decision yesterday, Tues, Nov. 28th. the issue? FWS had designated over 1,500acres of private Weyerhaeuser land in Louisiana as a "critical habitat" for the endangered Dusky Gopher Frog. that would restrict their development of the land (timber harvesting, etc.) and of course, restrict their profits out of $33million. but what about the frogs?
this is where FWS bungled the protection of this endangered species:
-- the frogs are not native to and do not reside naturally in Louisiana
-- they require ephemeral ponds that alternate between wet and dry, so land would need to be altered
-- they also require an open canopy, whereas the the land has a closed canopy forest
-- looks like the court was hung up on the definition of "habitat" vs. "critical habitat" and as briefed above, essentially the land owned by the timber company did not meet the definition of "critical habitat"
anyways i'm torned on this decision. i hope these cool lil frogs make it. but i have a problem w/ the government just seizing your land. but then again Weyerhaeuser will be pillaging that land very soon b/c they are a profit driven corporation. what do you do?
story here: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/27/u...pher-frog.html
The Dusky Gopher Frog Loses a Round in the Supreme Court
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court unanimously ruled on Tuesday that an appeals court must take a fresh look at whether the Fish and Wildlife Service had gone too far in its attempt to protect an endangered species, the dusky gopher frog.
The species is in danger of extinction, and the only known remaining frogs live in the De Soto National Forest in Mississippi. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., writing for the court, described the creature’s distinguishing characteristics.
“The amphibian Rana sevosa is popularly known as the ‘dusky gopher frog’ — ‘dusky’ because of its dark coloring and ‘gopher’ because it lives underground,” the chief justice wrote. “The dusky gopher frog is about three inches long, with a large head, plump body, and short legs.”
“Warts dot its back, and dark spots cover its entire body,” he added. “It is noted for covering its eyes with its front legs when it feels threatened, peeking out periodically until danger passes. Less endearingly, it also secretes a bitter, milky substance to deter would-be diners.”
In 2012, the federal government, fearing that extreme weather or an infectious disease could wipe out the species, came up with a backup plan to designate private land in Louisiana as “critical habitat” for the frogs’ survival. The frogs do not live there now, and the designation could limit the ability of the owners to develop the land, by one account potentially costing them about $33 million.
The landowners sued, and they lost in the lower courts. A divided three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, in New Orleans, said the government’s designation was entitled to judicial deference.
The Endangered Species Act requires the Fish and Wildlife Service to identify species in peril and to designate their “critical habitat,” meaning places they live now or places “essential for their conservation.” The service designated the land in Louisiana as the second sort of place.
It found that the land included the ponds crucial to the frogs’ survival. But it acknowledged that the frogs needed more, including an open forest canopy, while the Louisiana land had a closed canopy. The service said it would not take an unreasonable effort to thin the canopy.
Chief Justice Roberts said the case turned on the meaning “critical habitat.”
“According to the ordinary understanding of how adjectives work, ‘critical habitat’ must also be ‘habitat,’ ” he wrote. “Adjectives modify nouns — they pick out a subset of a category that possesses a certain quality. It follows that ‘critical habitat’ is the subset of ‘habitat’ that is ‘critical’ to the conservation of an endangered species.”
The appeals court, Chief Justice Roberts wrote, had concluded that the term “critical habitat” was “not limited to areas that qualified as habitat.” In sending the case back to the appeals court, the chief justice instructed it to decide whether the land in question qualified as the frogs’ habitat.
The Supreme Court also ruled in favor of the landowners on a second issue, that of whether the courts were entitled to review the government’s assessment of whether the designation had imposed a disproportionate burden on the landowners. Chief Justice Roberts said the courts had that power, and he instructed the appeals court to do so if it did not rule for the landowners on the first question.
The case, Weyerhaeuser v. United States Fish and Wildlife Service, No. 17-71, was argued on Oct. 1, before Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh joined the court. He did not participate in the decision.
and here: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...rt/2124206002/
Supreme Court finds unity in decision against the endandered dusky gopher frog
WASHINGTON – The endangered dusky gopher frog lost a round at the Supreme Court Tuesday, but its fate is not yet final.
In a unanimous 8-0 opinion by Chief Justice John Roberts, the justices overruled a federal appeals court that upheld the designation of more than 1,500 acres of forested land in Louisiana as "critical habitat" for the frog – even though no dusky gopher frogs reside there now.
"According to the ordinary understanding of how adjectives work, 'critical habitat' must also be 'habitat,'" Roberts wrote. "Only the 'habitat' of the endangered species is eligible for designation as critical habitat."
The Weyerhaeuser timber company had challenged the federal government's designation, which it said could reduce the land's value by up to $34 million if it could not be developed.
In his opinion, Roberts said the lower court failed to consider adequately the frog's absence from the area now and said the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's designation of the area as critical habitat may have been flawed.
By sending the case back to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit for further review, Roberts likely mustered the unanimous verdict. During oral argument on the first day of the court's new term in October, it had appeared all four liberal justices were on the side of the frogs. Associate Justice Brett Kavanaugh had not yet been confirmed, so he did not participate in the decision.
Nearly extinct in Mississippi because breeding requires ephemeral ponds that alternate between wet and dry, the tiny frogs would have been destined for Louisiana if the agency's decision was upheld.
Roberts described the subjects of the court's first case as "about three inches long, with a large head, plump body, and short legs. Warts dot its back, and dark spots cover its entire body."
When the frog was listed as endangered in 2001, its population had been reduced to approximately 100 adult frogs in a single pond in Mississippi. The government designated four Mississippi counties as potential habitat, later adding the disputed parcel in Louisiana, where the frogs had existed until 1965.
During oral argument last month, Roberts said the most important factor was how much the land would need to be altered to welcome the frogs, and at whose cost. Otherwise, he said, the government could require hot air greenhouses in Nome, Alaska.
"If you have the ephemeral ponds in Alaska, you could build a giant greenhouse and plant the long-leaf pines, and the frog could live there," he said. "In other words, there has to be presumably some limit on what restoration you would say is required."
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by bcr229
