My feeling is if Mr. Rider and his cohorts had any kind of a case, they would not have to reach and stretch as far as the Endangered Species Act in an attempt to make it work.
Tuesday, February 3, 2009
Ringling Bros. Elephant Trial Promises to Be a Circus--The ESA issue
Posted by
Wade G. Burck
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
16 comments:
Sorry, no. That's just a misinterpretation of the legal situation. The fact is that they wanted a federal case (because most state courts will refuse to take on something like this if they possibly can, and are difficult for evidentiary reasons as well) and the AWS does not allow people to sue to have it enforced. The ESA does contain a private right of action, so that's the only law available to sue under. Not because they do or don't have a case, but because there is no way to have a case under the AWA. A2
A2,
Don't be silly, it is a massive stretch and I would also assume they could have found someone much more credible, then Mr. Rider it there were valid charges. I suggest there have been thousands of employees, disgruntled or other wise who may show up his testimony. I think this was a nut case looking for a place to implode long before 1999, and he just happened to be in the elephant tent when he reached meltdown. I am glad he wasn't at McDonalds getting a burger, or we would all be worrying about "mental anguish" while enjoying a great gut bomb.
Wade
That's a whole other issue. I was only addressing the ESA point. And I was not being silly. It might well be a stretch but there were good reasons for making it. A2
A2,
You pretty much understand my stand on animal issues, that said, I am suspect of any thing that has Pat, PD, Derby, Or Pat Derby anyplace near by or in any proximity. There are issues there that predate any false animal sanctuary dating back to her day's of rustling cattle to feed her husbands cats.
Wade
Personally I would suggest that using the ESA subverts the intent of the law -- which allows the private right for redress to protect endangered species in threatened habitat. Had Congress failed to renew ESA -- which was a legit concern recently it would have had tragic consequences in terms of habitat protection under ESA. Because of the limitations of the ESA's intent, it's hard to believe that a "victory" by the plaintiffs will withstand the appeals process. Were a verdict upheld I suspect one of two things would happen. The ESA would face watering down, or any number of species with "commercial" uses would be delisted. Strictly in terms of legitimate conservation this tactic threatens to damage the foundations of good law without protecting the interests of endangered species.
There is no basis to claim that a favorable decision for the plaintiffs here will result in watering down the ESA. There were political reasons that the ESA had problems earlier that are not in existence anymore,
thank goodness.
And let's keep a watch to see who will be among the first on this blog - if Ringling wins - claiming that their entire method of handling animals has been vindicated. It won't be just an ESA issue then, will it? A2
A2,
Yes it will severely damage the ESA if a private citizen can press charges, Severely enough that it would be of not much use, and the asylum should just be turned over to the inmates. And you know better, to think I would claim a win as validation or any kind of abuse, Ringlings or otherwise.
Wade
I don't think anyone will claim that abuse is validated; I think there are many (and I wasn't actually thinking of you, Wade) will take the position that a win means a finding that there was no abuse. Whereas it may well just mean a finding that the ESA doesn't apply here.
And the ESA has always allowed private citizens to press charges. That is no "damage" - it's written right into the law. And it happens a lot. The damage that Ben was concerned about, if I understand him correctly, is that the ESA would now be extended to captive endangered species in addition to ones still in the wild. I disagree that in the political climate of today this would cause any rush to weaken the law or delist animals on account of the decision. A2
A2,
I was referring to it in the context of captive endangered species. And yes, it would be a major problem given the great difference's in wild and captive.
Wade
Reading the orginal complaint that was filed against Ringling, did any of you gentleman know that if the plaintiffs prevail in their claims for relief regarding forfeiture of the endangered elephants in defendants possession,they will have a statutory right to a REWARD for furnishing information that leads to such forfeiture,pursuant to the ESA,16 U.S.C.&1540(d).
Anonymous,
If you are A2 please sign that way, or I will have to ax the comments.
It is my understanding that is is only a couple of elephants that are in question, not all of them. How do they decide on the amount of the reward? Again as it was originally written for "wild" endangered species, to encourage uneducated natives to turn in poachers, if it is adjusted for "captive" endangered species that will be a real travesty, because it will reward the inmates while they are getting a chubby for turning something in that they know nothing about.
Wade
Wade
Nope, that wasn't me.
There are definitely parts of, if not all of, the ESA that clearly already DO apply to captive wildlife. In fact, somewhere in there is a bit exempting captive wildlife acquired prior to (I forget the exact date but i think) 1983.
Also, I believe that it was found to be a violation of the ESA when Benny was smuggled into Mexico without the appropriate permissions - and he was certainly a captive elephant, born in captivity. WIthout any death knell to the ESA or wild animals that I've heard of. A2
A2,
As stated in section 2 of the act, it was designed to protect critically imperiled species from extinction as a "consequence of economic growth and development untendered by adequate concern and conservation." I believe the law was written with Black Footed Ferrets, and North American land/marine species in mind. The stated purpose of the Endangered Species Act is to protect species and also "the ecosystems upon which they depend." The gentleman on my right amended it in 1973, for that purpose.
Wade
A2,
Here's my loophole given the war we are involved with at the moment,and the importance of keeping moral up(so nobody has any lasting psychological effects like Mr. Rider), by providing entertainment/diversion in the form of circus's and dancing elephants for the citizens of the US of A: The Secretary of Defense is authorized to specify exemptions from the Act for reasons of national security.
Wade
Wade, sure it was written with Black Footed Ferrets in mind but also with wildlife covered under various treaties and conventions including CITES. It was by no means intended as just a "preserve the prairie" if that's what you mean. And if you look at i think section 9, the prohibited acts, some of them are specifically meant to cover animals in captivity.
Your "keeping up morale" argument is a novel one, but I don't know that I'd want to confuse Homeland Security more than they already are... A2
A2,
It sure was written to "protect prairie." And Section 9 was written with the intent to make illegal the smuggling or interstate transport of wild caught endangered species. Peregrine Falcons, California Condors, etc. It's inclusion of cites was to include non native species for the same purpose.
ESA section 9, together with implementing rules, bars any person (or federal agency) from "taking" endangered or threatened wildlife. The term "take" is defined by the act to include "harming" a listed species. "Harm," in turn, is defined by FWS to include indirect harm by means of certain habitat alterations:
Harm in the definition of "take" in the Act means an act which actually kills or injures wildlife. Such act may include significant habitat modification or degradation where it actually kills or injures wildlife by significantly impairing essential behavioral patterns, including breeding, feeding, or sheltering.
Loss of habitat is recognized in the ESA as a principal threat to endangered species, and counteracting this trend is a key purpose of the act.
After the FWS promulgated new regulations clarifying that "harm" means "actual" harm. Section 9 bans only those activities that modify habitat to an extent that essential behavioral patterns are disrupted, or which cause a significant decline in species population.
Post a Comment