Ninth Circuit Court Rules Goshawk Needs No Protection
A three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that the Northern Goshawk is not endangered, upholding a decision by U. S. District Judge Helen Frye, who ruled in 2001 that Fish and Wildlife officials did not “arbitrarily and capriciously” reject a petition to list the bird.
Matt Kenna, attorney for the Center for Biological Diversity, said a ruling favoring goshawk listing “would have meant a reduction of logging,” throughout the west.
Spokesman for the American Forest and Paper Association, Michael Klein, hailed the ruling saying; “[T]his was essentially a frivolous lawsuit brought by activists who didn’t know what they were talking about.”
The 3-0 ruling came after thirteen years of litigation and reinforces the 1998 decision by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service that the goshawk did not merit protection under the Endangered Species Act.
Federal Appeals Court Says No Protection For Northern Goshawk
Monday July 21, 2003, 02:55:09 PM
SAN FRANCISCO (AP) - Thwarting environmentalists, a federal appeals court here Monday upheld the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's view that the Northern Goshawk don't need federal protection throughout the West.
The 3-0 decision by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals came after 13 years of extensive litigation, in which environmentalists wanted the government to list the large raptor, usually found in the western United States, as endangered or threatened.
A contrary ruling could have impacted logging throughout the West. The American Forest & Paper Association filed briefs in the case, urging the court to side with the Fish and Wildlife Service's decision in 1998 not to grant goshawk protection under the Endangered Species Act. "Clearly, that was a concern of ours," said Michael Klein, a spokesman for the Forest & Paper Association, which represents 150 wood, pulp and paper companies, along with forest landowners. "But, where we were coming from, was this was essentially a frivolous lawsuit brought by activists who didn't know what they were talking about."
The decision upholds U.S. District Judge Helen Frye of Oregon, who in 2001 ruled that Fish and Wildlife Service officials did not "arbitrarily and capriciously" reject a petition by several environmental groups to have the goshawk listed.
Appeals Judge Donald P. Lay wrote the raptor has indeed declined since "European settlement of the western states." But Lay concluded the government undertook sufficient studies to determine "that the goshawk population is relatively stable at the broadest scale."
The Northern Goshawk is a bird of prey. It sports a black crown and cheeks and has a broad, white stripe over the eye. A male goshawk's wingspan typically reaches 39 inches. Female wingspans measure to 45 inches.
The U.S. Forest Service considers goshawks a sensitive species, a cautionary and pre-emptive threshold before a species reaches the threatened or endangered list.
Matt Kenna, an attorney for the Center for Biological Diversity, which sought the listing, said a ruling favoring goshawk "would have meant a reduction of logging."
"We think that was one of the reasons for the decision," he said. The center was considering its legal options, he said.
Blain Rethmeier, a Fish and Wildlife Service spokesman, said the government was "pleased with the decision."
In 1998, seven years after the lawsuit was filed, the Clinton administration concluded that data did not indicate the goshawk was in danger of extinction or likely to become so in the foreseeable future.
Generally, goshawk live in mature and old growth forests in all western states. Environmentalists asserted that it numbers have plummeted.
They say it has vanished from Southern California and the coastal mountains of Central California and has been virtually eradicated from the coast mountain ranges of Northern California, Oregon and Washington.
The center said the raptor has declined in Montana, Idaho, Arizona and New Mexico. Its viability is threatened in Nevada, Utah and Wyoming.
The case is Center for Biological Diversity v. Badgley, 01-35829.
Editors: David Kravets has been covering state and federal courts for a decade.
In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, any copyrighted work in this message is distributed under fair use without profit or payment for non-profit research and educational purposes only. [Ref. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml]