This Press Release from, Center for Biological Dioversity dated September 2, 2011 makes it absolutely clear where CBD’s priorities are…

Border Patrol Plan to Triple Base Size on Arizona-Mexico Border Puts Endangered Wildlife, Fragile Lands at Risk

TUCSON, Ariz.— The Center for Biological Diversity today criticized a new environmental analysis by the Department of Homeland Security that fails to adequately assess the effects of its border-security and enforcement activities along the U.S.-Mexico border, including tripling the size of its base in the desert. In comments submitted to the Department, the group called on Homeland Security to produce a thorough, realistic analysis of the impacts of its activities on the fragile and diverse landscapes of the border region, home to a range of threatened and endangered species.

“In its slipshod analysis of the impacts of tripling the size of its forward operating base near Organ Pipe National Monument and Cabeza Prieta National Wildlife Refuge, Homeland Security seems to condone ongoing damage to these precious public lands and their wildlife,” said the Center’s Cyndi Tuell. “For imperiled species like Sonoran pronghorns, this lip-service study is a death knell.”

Organ Pipe and Cabeza Prieta lie adjacent to each other along the U.S.-Mexico border in Arizona and have been significantly hurt by off-road vehicle use in recent years — much of the damage has been the result of Border Patrol vehicles riding roughshod over wilderness areas.

“For an agency devoted to securing the border, the Border Patrol does an awful lot of off-road driving 15 to 20 miles north of the border, through extremely sensitive habitat for a range of species,” said Tuell. “Sonoran pronghorn are especially vulnerable to this kind of disruption, which can stop them from raising their fawns or getting enough to eat.”

Surveys and satellite data show that nearly 8,000 miles — and some estimate up to 20,000 miles — of illegal, “wildcat” roads now exist on the Cabeza Prieta, some of which were created by illegal cross-border vehicle activity, but an increasing percentage of which have resulted from misguided enforcement strategies.

“A memo of understanding between Homeland Security and the Department of the Interior was signed to create protocols for border-security activities on our precious public lands,” said Tuell. “In many places it works well, but on Organ Pipe and Cabeza Prieta, Homeland Security routinely ignores it.”

“The Department of Homeland Security should focus its enforcement efforts closer to the border to prevent damage to America’s public lands before it encroaches so far into the United States,” said Tuell. “And it needs to work more closely with land managers on the ground in these areas to reduce the damage caused by their activities.”

COMMENTARY: The border will never be secure against illegal entry and drug smuggling as long as portions of the border are widen open.

The reason these areas are wide open is because of federal land managers who put protecting lizards ahead of national security, and radical environmental groups like CBD who fight everything in the name of protecting endangered species.

I think it is time the federal government looks into where CBD gets its donations.

If I were in charge of the Mexican drug cartel I’d be giving money to outfits like CBD which fight securing the border. Groups like CBD consciously or unconsciously are aiding and abetting the Mexican drug cartels.

The people of America have got to stop this nonsense of debating border security versus proptecting the environment along the border. The drug smugglers and illegal aliens do not care about our environment and are destroying it. This must be stopped.

Environmental laws must be subordinated to national security in the area adjacent to our land borders so the Border Patrol can secure the border at the border.

Did you know it is a misdeamnor to illegally enter the country, but a felony to run over an endangered species lizard?

And those who want immigration law reform…it ought to be clear that is not going to happen until the border is secured.

Do not buy Janet Napoltiano’s claim the border is secured. We can show you exactly where it is not secure…the zone where illegal aliens killed Border Patrol agent Brian Terry west of Nogales. There is a wilderness area and national forest land along this stretch of the border that has virtually no Border Patrol access due toi environmental priorities.

Until the Border Patrol can gain access to the border, finish the fence, put in more roads, and saturate the border zone with agents, the border is not secure…and thus no immigration law reform.

Immigration reform advocates…your cause is being destroyed by groups like the Center for Biological Diversity.

More….

Jaguars versus the border fence

What is the difference between a drug smuggler and a deer?

Battle lines drawn–protect the environment? or protect national security?

Groups Call for Passage of Republican Legislation to Enhance Border Security on Federal Lands

Ranchers support improving Border Patrol access to federal lands

National Association of Former Border Patrol Officers support new legislation to improve Border Patrol access to federal lands

Federal land managers under the gun of the Endangered Species Act responsible for destruction of over 300,000 acres of border wild lands

Dept of Interior responds to claims it is hampering border security

Forest Service responds to claims it is hampering border security

Environmental lawyer trashes effort to improve Border Patrol access on federal lands

Federal land managers under the gun of the Endangered Species Act responsible for destruction of over 300,000 acres of border wild lands

More on how federal land managers compromise border security

GAO confirms federal environmental laws and federal land managers hinder securing our border

Republicans Introduce Bill to Secure Border on Federal Lands, Protect Environment

More on “politically correct fire stories”

Many in S. Ariz. fire zone blame border crossers

Chiricahua Mountains … another “sky island” turned to ash

Border security versus the environment 

 Wilderness Areas on the border? What a great idea if you are a cartel drug smuggler

The road to Hell is paved with good intentions…burning down our wildlands

Republicans Introduce Bill to Secure Border on Federal Lands, Protect Environment

Border security versus the environment

More on the envionmental litigation factory war on America….

Center for Biological Diversity — a multi-million dollar environmental litigation factory

Army of Western Lawmakers to Introduce Legislation to Combat Frivolous Lawsuits on Taxpayer Dime

Extreme environmental groups hurt environmental cause

Center for Biological Diversity seeks to destroy Fort Huachuca to save the San Pedro River

White House reveals plan to streamline Endangered Species Act

The Endangered Species Act series of articles:

Endangered Species Act…it ain’t what you think it is — Part 1

Endangered Species Act — Part 2– this land is not your land

Endangered Species Act – Part 3 – Never swat a fly

Background info on Endangered Species Act:

Endangered Species Act — an Introduction

Endangered Species Act — Which Animals and Plants are “Threatened” or “Endangered”?

Endangered Species Act — Section 7 Consultation

Endangered Species Act — USF&W Introduction and Key Sections

Endangered Species Act — Definition of ”Harm” and “Take”

Endangered Species Act–Listing and Critical Habitat

Endangered Species Act–Habitat Conservation Plans

America at a crossroads….protect endangered species or protect the American people?

From the Sacramento Bee:

Judge denies suit against Tahoe fire restoration

The Associated Press Published: Saturday, Jul. 16, 2011 – 6:05 am

CARSON CITY, Nev. — The U.S. Forest Service says it plans to begin restoration work this month in the Angora Fire area at Lake Tahoe after a federal judge rejected arguments by environmental groups that logging burned areas would harm the blackbacked woodpecker and other wildlife.

In an order filed in Sacramento, U.S. District Judge Garland Burrell granted the federal agency summary judgment against Earth Island Institute and Center for Biological Diversity.

More….

COMMENT: Bet CBD won’t be issuing a press release on this loss.

From TownHall.com June 13, 2011:

Catastrophic Wildfires? Thank the Greenies and Forest Service

By KatiePavlich  

…Under the disguise of non-profit organizations and saviors of the environment and endangered species, groups like the Sierra Club, Friends of the Forest Guardians and the Center for Biological Diversity have been strong advocates against logging, the burning of small natural fires, and grazing on federally held forest land. Excessive Forest Service regulation, Endangered Species Act regulations, clean water regulations and more, prevent the salvaging of dead trees and cleanup of excess dead vegetation. This has resulted in a dangerous and large build up of extremely dry dead trees, excess brush and thick vegetation undergrowth. A ticking time bomb waiting for a single lightening strike to set it off…..

…Before the U.S. Forest Service was founded in 1905, with a purpose of managing public lands in national forests and grasslands, smaller, natural fires would clear out excess fuels on a regular basis from the forest floor. Private industry practices such as logging and cattle grazing also kept excess fire fuel to a minimum. However, due to the influence of green environmental groups in the past 30 years, logging and cattle grazing have been essentially outlawed on public lands, resulting in the overcrowding of trees. In some areas of our forests, Ponderosa Pine trees grow at a rate of 300 to 700 trees per acre. The natural amount of trees per acre in Ponderosa Pine forests is between 20 and 50 trees per acre and with an overcrowding of trees, comes more competition for water, prolonging western droughts beyond normal time periods, resulting in more dead trees and more excess fire fuel.

More….

From E. J. Montini columnist for the Arizona Republic

Where there’s fire critics will blow smoke

By E. J. Montini

To most of us, a monster wildfire is a tragedy.

To others, it’s an opportunity to score political points, something they do by following this simple strategy: Blame “radical environmentalists.”

This is accomplished, first, by always referring to the people with whom you disagree on the protection of natural resources as “radical environmentalists.” After all, if they disagree with you, they must be radical.

Second, tell the world that if only the radical environmentalists didn’t use lawsuits to prevent forest thinning operations there would be no monster fires.

It’s an easy argument to make and a difficult one for regular people to refute, mostly because news organizations haven’t provided readers and viewers with the kind of coverage they need to make an informed judgment. And we know why.

The topic of forest management is (let’s be honest) boring.

It’s entertaining when a politician appears on TV or writes and op-ed for the newspaper railing about how radical environmentalists want to prevent ANY tree from being cut. And it’s fun when a member of the environmental community says that some politicians would allow their businessmen pals to cut down EVERY tree.

But it’s not useful.

Already some politicians, talk-show hosts and others are blaming environmentalists for the size of current wildfires, claiming it is a result of lawsuits that prevent the proper thinning of the underbrush.

I asked Robin Silver of Arizona’s Center for Biological Diversity if that was true.

“They tried that argument against us with the Rodeo-Chediski fire (in 2002) and it didn’t work,” Silver said. “They can say what they want but the fact of the matter is we’ve put together a two million-acre restoration project that has been stymied. It’s the only comprehensive plan that has been put forth and it comes from a coalition of government, business and us.”

He’s talking about what is called the “Four Forest Restoration Initiative,” a plan to restore 50,000 acres per year in the Apache-Sitgreaves, Kaibab, Coconino and Tonto National forests.

Gov. Jan Brewer has said of that plan, “The Four Forests Restoration Initiative stands out as a national-caliber model collaborative effort to accelerate forest restoration across northern Arizona with strong social, industry, and science support.”

Unfortunately, the plan hasn’t yet kicked in. Not because of lawsuits but because of bureaucracy. And because no one in elected (or appointed) office has done anything to get the program going.

Still, the critics will blame lawsuits filed by environmentalists?

“They can try to say that we’ve appealed some timber sales,” Silver said. “But the reality is that we’ve worked with these folks to provide a forum where they can thin small trees. They always throw in large trees, however, because that is their culture. The reality is that we have never been opposed to the sale of small trees.”

Our Internet-driven world is happy to reduce the argument over our natural resources into a shouting match about spotted owls or the clear-cutting of forests. The actual problem is more complex, however, and involves government, bureaucracy, industry, environmentalists and a lot of history.

Years ago, after one of Arizona’s other monster wildfires, I spoke with Stephen J. Pyne, perhaps the world’s foremost expert on fires, a scientist, author and long-time Arizona resident.

Among other things, Pyne told me, “What we have now is an accumulation of fuel and no consensus about how to deal with it… If we were to transpose our current fire suppression policy onto our health care system, it would be like pouring all of the money into the emergency rooms. You’d have a terrific emergency room, but no diseases would ever be cured or caught in the early stages.”

That hasn’t changed. As our most recent monster wildfire wanes the zealots will continue to blow smoke, keeping us from being able to see clearly even after the flames are out.

(Column for June 12, 2011 Arizona Republic)

And down in the borderlands you add a discarded cigarette or an abandoned campfire of illegal aliens or drug smugglers and thousands of acres of forest and grasslands are gone up in smoke.

From the Arizona Republic June 13, 2011:

Federal legislation pits environment against security

Plan to ease conservation laws for Border Patrol draws outcry

by Shaun McKinnon – Jun. 13, 2011 12:00 AM
The Arizona Republic

Federal authorities can’t secure sections of the U.S. border because of environmental laws that block access to public lands and slow efforts to stop drug smugglers and illegal immigrants, say backers of legislation that would waive those laws along the border.

But conservation groups say the congressional bills, two in the U.S. House and one in the Senate, create solutions for non-existent problems and are largely driven by opportunistic, anti-environmental lawmakers who want to weaken laws they always have opposed.

The proposals thrust together two of the West’s most volatile issues, border security and environmental regulation, and pit activists on both sides in a fight that likely will spill over into the 2012 elections.

The bills’ backers have tried to frame the debate as a choice between securing dangerous borders or complying with onerous, bureaucratic rules. The endangered desert pupfish emerged as a symbol last month of the clashing priorities. Both sides have cited the same federal audit of border-law enforcement to prove points.

The dispute is centered on thousands of acres of public lands along the border, most of them under the jurisdiction of federal agencies that enforce an array of restrictive environmental regulations.

The rules apply to any potential land user, including the Border Patrol and other Homeland Security agencies. They require the agencies to complete detailed environmental assessments to gauge the effects of roads or other developments, and they impose limits on various activities, such as crossing into protected wildlife habitats.

Supporters of the bills say the rules impede quick action on the border and give land-management agencies more authority over national-security decisions than the security agencies.

“The different trails that drug smugglers and human smugglers use change depending on where Border Patrol agents are stationed,” said Rep. Ben Quayle, R-Ariz., author of one of the three bills. “Our agents need to have the ability to move quickly. But sometimes it’s taking as much as four months to get them through all the hoops.”

Quayle’s bill would give the U.S. Customs and Border Protection ready access to federal lands for security activities, including motorized patrols and the deployment of temporary tactical infrastructure, such as surveillance equipment.

The agencies would be directed to protect natural and cultural resources as much as possible, but they would not be forced to comply with land-management rules. The unrestricted access would extend 150 miles from the U.S.-Mexican border, a distance that would stretch north of Phoenix.

Republican Arizona Sens. John McCain and Jon Kyl included a similar provision in a broader border-security bill, waiving environmental laws within the same 150-mile band along the southwestern border.

But a wider-reaching bill, introduced by Rep. Rob Bishop, R-Utah, pushed the issue to center stage. Bishop’s bill is more specific and expansive than the others. It lists nearly three dozen laws that would be waived along the border, including the Endangered Species Act, the Clean Air Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act and the Wilderness Act.

It would also allow the federal government to waive those laws within a 100-mile corridor around the entire U.S. border for border-enforcement agencies.

Critics jumped on that provision and produced a map to illustrate the reach of the bill. It would extend across all of Florida, most of the Northeast and all of Hawaii.

“It’s clear to me this is a political game being played by someone whose district is nowhere near the border, someone who doesn’t understand what’s going on along the border, someone with a political agenda,” said Randy Serraglio, a conservation advocate for the Tucson-based Center for Biological Diversity. “This is bad government waiting to happen.”

Bishop, who toured the Arizona border region earlier this year, said the environmental laws allow land managers to impose what he called “unacceptable restrictions” that give them more influence over border security than law-enforcement agencies have.

In a 2010 report, the Government Accountability Office found that environmental laws had led to restrictions on border enforcement and delays in patrolling and monitoring activities. The GAO said 14 Border Patrol agents in charge reported blocked access to land or slow response times by land agencies in issuing permits.

Those delays often occurred when agents needed access to an area without roads or when the agency needed to locate monitoring equipment. The report cited one instance when the Border Patrol asked to move a mobile surveillance system, but in the four months needed to process the request, illegal traffic had shifted to other areas.

Allowing bureaucratic procedures to dictate border-security measures, Bishop said, “has jeopardized the safety and security of all Americans.”

The GAO report also found that 22 of 26 patrol agents in charge said the overall security of their area had not been affected by environmental regulations despite the delays or time spent on paperwork. Conservation groups cite those findings, along with comments by patrol agents that their most pressing needs are more agents and more resources.

Although the GAO found issues at several locations along the U.S. border, the potential for conflict was highest in the Border Patrol’s Tucson Sector, where there is a high concentration of public lands: three national wildlife refuges, two national monuments, a national conservation area, a national forest and the Tohono O’odham Reservation.

In many cases, say supporters of the three bills, the multiple jurisdictions mean patrol agents can’t even keep up a chase because they don’t have permission to enter certain areas.

“The difficulties encountered by the Border Patrol to gain operational control are not the result of poor management or lack of resources,” said retired patrol agent Gene Wood, who testified at a hearing on behalf of Bishop’s bill. “It is simply an issue of denied access.”

Quayle and Bishop both say their bills ultimately could protect the environment if fewer illegal border crossers make their way north into the parks and monuments.

“The environmental damage that is currently occurring from drug smugglers and human smugglers will vastly outweigh any damages by the Border Patrol,” Quayle said. “The Border Patrol will have much better sense and take much better care of the area.”

Critics of the environmental laws also have complained about rules that protect riparian areas and wildlife habitat. One group tried to elevate the endangered desert pupfish to symbol status, alleging that Border Patrol agents had to chase illegal border crossers on foot in one area of southern Arizona to avoid disturbing the fish.

Homeland Security officials said the fish did not impede regular patrols or other activities.

The conservation groups say almost all of the complaints have been from outside the security agencies. They cite testimony by Ronald Vitiello, the Border Patrol’s deputy chief, during an April hearing in Washington. He gave numerous examples of his agency working with land managers in the border area and talked about the patrol’s commitment to protecting resources.

“There is no access issue for the Border Patrol,” said Jenny Neeley, an advocate for the Sky Island Alliance, a group that focuses on fragile habitats near the border. “They’re not asking for these additional waivers. To say that environmental rules are getting in the way of border security is just a complete farce. There’s no evidence of it.”

Vitiello, in his testimony, talked about cooperative agreements, signed in 2006 and 2008, that have provided guidelines for the various agencies, including the Border Patrol, the Forest Service, the Bureau of Land Management and the National Park Service to work with one another. Those agreements have resulted in successes, he said.

Matt Skroch, executive director of the Arizona Wilderness Coalition, said both security and resource protection would be better served by continued cooperation.

“It’s about balance,” he said. “Border security and natural resources are both very important. They can work with one another, not against one another. This waiver authority would set the clock back a decade.”

COMMENT: I think Congress ought to investigate the role the Center for Biological Diversity is playing in attacking our national security interests.

Securing the border at the border…while there would be roads and other environmental impact close to the border….a whole lot of country would be better protected for environmental values farther inside the country.

All you need to do is look at the burnt down Chirchahua Mountains to understand the trade-offs.

From FOX Business June 6, 2011:

Taxpayers Pay People to Sue the U.S.

By Elizabeth MacDonald

….”When the government stopped tracking (Equal Access to Justice Act) payments in 1995, it was a dream come true for radical environmental groups,” Rep. Lummis said in a statement. “Lack of oversight has fueled the fire for these groups to grind the work of land management and other federal agencies to a halt — and it does so on the taxpayers’ dime.”

Lummis points to two private studies, one done by a Cheyenne, Wyoming, law firm and another by Virginia Tech University, which show that despite Congress’s original intent to help out the little guy in fighting the federal government for its allegedly wrongful actions, the big business of large environmental groups now are potentially the biggest beneficiaries of EAJA payments.

Moreover, Rep. Lummis says, a number of environment groups have purposely flooded this lawsuit reimbursement system, in order to overwhelm the government to simply rubberstamp the refunds. Many government agencies have 90 days to respond to suits, and if they blow past that deadline, then the government ponies up.

For example, Lummis says, the Dept. of the Interior must answer petitions to list species as protected wildlife. The Interior Department must respond within 90 days to petitions to list species under the Endangered Species Act. If they don’t, environmentalists turn around and sue to get the listing and collect attorney fees from the Justice Department.

Many environmentalists purposely ram through hundreds and hundreds of petitions, knowing overwhelmed government officials can’t get to them within the allotted 90 days. They then sue and get their money back, at taxpayer expense.

More…

COMMENT: The Plaintiff environmental litigation factores are not winning on the “merits”…they are playing games with the unrealistic time limits the US Fish & Wildlife has to respond to petitions for endangered species listings and habitat protection.

A real solution is to reform the Endangered Species Act and not allow hundreds of listing petitions to be filed and to give USF&W more time to review petitions to make sure they are scientifically valid.

From the Siskiyou Daily News June 8, 2011

Taxpayer-funded job security

By Dan KeppenSiskiyou Daily News

Posted Jun 08, 2011 @ 02:31 PM

Klamath Falls, Ore. — Earlier this month, the Obama administration announced that it will clear a decades-long backlog of petitions for the endangered species list, agreeing to decide within six years whether 251 new species deserve federal protection. The settlement between the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and WildEarth Guardians could open the flood gates of new listings under the Endangered Species Act (ESA).

The amount of radical environmental litigation in the United States is staggering, and WildEarth Guardians is a driving force behind this movement. According to research conducted by the Budd-Falen law firm of Cheyenne, Wyo., from 2000 to 2009, just nine environmental groups, including WildEarth Guardians, filed 3,313 cases filed against the federal government for “enforcement” of environmental statutes. Many of these cases end up … are you ready? … getting “settled” with the feds.

According to Budd-Falen, the system works like this: A radical environmental group like the Center of Biological Diversity (or, “CBD,” which recently petitioned NOAA Fisheries to list Klamath River spring-run Chinook salmon under the ESA) files federal court litigation against a federal agency like NOAA Fisheries, complaining that the agency failed to timely act on a petition to list a species. The environmental group cannot get the court to tell NOAA Fisheries how it should make its decision; the court can only require a “timely” decision be made. NOAA Fisheries loses the case because it almost never makes a decision in the amount of time required by Congress. The federal government then pays the CBD attorneys fees for filing the litigation. So, not only does NOAA Fisheries have to go back and remake its decision, your tax dollars paid an environmental group to sue the fishery agency.

Funds awarded to the “prevailing” litigants are taken from the “losing” federal agencies’ budget. There is no oversight in spending this money, which could otherwise be funding on-the-ground programs to protect public lands, national forests, wildlife and other land uses. Instead, nonprofit, tax exempt groups are making millions of dollars, while ranchers and other citizens are being forced to expend millions of their own dollars to intervene or participate in these lawsuits to protect their way of life when they have no chance of the same attorney fee recovery if they prevail.

Currently, nearly 1,400 U.S. species are listed under the ESA. Once a plant or animal is listed as threatened or endangered with extinction, federal officials must designate critical habitat for it and require review by USFWS officials for any federal action that could impact it. These reviews often come in the form of biological opinions, similar to the ones prepared every year on Klamath Irrigation Project operations by USFWS (for endangered suckers) and NOAA Fisheries (for coho salmon).

Under the proposed Obama administration settlement, USFWS officials will decide whether to add to the endangered list 251 species that are now classified as “warranted but precluded” from the ESA list. The settlement still needs to be accepted by the court, and it remains unclear whether the Center for Biological Diversity will sign off.

In this instance, the Obama administration has given what appears to be a significant victory to an obscure environmental group that filed a lawsuit for the purpose of creating a pretext for the administration to do this very thing. But the predictably enormous costs and all the other damage that will come from agreeing to these listings is completely unknown. All of those problems won’t be identified until after the 2012 election. And if President Obama is not re-elected, this mess will be dumped in the lap of his successor.

This whole settlement agreement would be laughable, if not for the fact that some of us in the rural West (Klamath Basin 2001 and 2010, San Joaquin Valley 2009) have seen firsthand the economic devastation that can occur when single-species biological opinions are actually implemented. With the WildEarth Guardian settlement, the government has agreed to pay attorneys fees – not just for the litigation but also for the petitions that were prepared to try to get the 251 species listed in the first place – to one environmental group who is not even the biggest ESA litigator in America. And while the WildEarth Guardians have agreed to limit listing petitions (not petitions for up-listings, not petitions to designate critical habitat, not challenges for failure to do recovery plans), none of the other environmental groups are bound by a similar limit.

Plus, if USFWS does not (1) follow the new work plan timetable or (2) come to what some environmental group thinks is the right conclusion on one of the 251 species … federal court, here we come!

This settlement is simply another set up for failure that portends a grim future for western rural communities that rely on healthy agriculture and forestry economies.

But – it could prove to be a great cash cow for environmental attorneys … all at the American taxpayer expense.

– Dan Keppen is the executive director of the Family Farm Alliance in Klamath Falls, Ore.

COMMENT: Are you beginning to see that while the Center for Biological Diversity is the number one environmental litigation factory in America and is drawing federal legislation to stop the abuse of the Equal Access to Justice Act… there has not been one word about any of this in the Arizona Daily Star?

The Star has gone from being a Pulitizer Prize winning newspaper to nothing more than a public relations outpost of the Center for Biological Diversity.

Sad to see.
______________________________________

More on the envionmental litigation factory war on America….

Center for Biological Diversity — a multi-million dollar environmental litigation factory

Army of Western Lawmakers to Introduce Legislation to Combat Frivolous Lawsuits on Taxpayer Dime

Extreme environmental groups hurt environmental cause

Center for Biological Diversity seeks to destroy Fort Huachuca to save the San Pedro River

White House reveals plan to streamline Endangered Species Act

The Endangered Species Act series of articles:

Endangered Species Act…it ain’t what you think it is — Part 1

Endangered Species Act — Part 2– this land is not your land

Endangered Species Act – Part 3 – Never swat a fly

Background info on Endangered Species Act:

Endangered Species Act — an Introduction

Endangered Species Act — Which Animals and Plants are “Threatened” or “Endangered”?

Endangered Species Act — Section 7 Consultation

Endangered Species Act — USF&W Introduction and Key Sections

Endangered Species Act — Definition of ”Harm” and “Take”

Endangered Species Act–Listing and Critical Habitat

Endangered Species Act–Habitat Conservation Plans

_________________________________________________________

News about litigious environment group activities:

Dispatches from the litigious environmental group war on America

Center for Biological Diversity demands Rosemont Mine site be included in protected habitat for frog

Judge puts WildEarth Guardian endangered species agreement on hold

Center for Biological Diversity fights imperiled species deal

Stop The Drilling! A Lizard Is Imperiled

Desert Pupfish Forces Border Agents to Patrol on Foot

New high recorded in frivolous environmental litigation

EPA Doles-Out Taxpayer Dollars to Environmentalist Activist Groups

Legislation to stop huge legal fee payments to environmental litigation factories poised to be introduced

Environmental groups bury feds with Endangered Species petitions

From High Country News: http://www.hcn.org/issues/41.22/firebrand-ways

‘Firebrand ways’

A visit with one of the founders of the Center for Biological Diversity

by Tony Davis

Twenty years ago, they were Earth Firsters, living in tepees, trying to save spotted owls and grafting together a shoestring budget from their unemployment checks. Today, the Center for Biological Diversity has a budget of $7 million, 62 full-time staffers and 15 offices nationally, in locations from Washington, D.C., to Silver City, N.M. By filing 600 lawsuits and countless petitions against the federal government, the center has won the listing of 380 species as threatened or endangered. It also says it has secured 110 million acres of critical habitat and proposed another 130 million acres. CBD has won a reputation as the country’s most militant large environmental group, one that seldom shrinks from controversy.

From its Tucson headquarters, it’s expanded its species-saving tactics to protect rivers, stop sprawl, battle overgrazing and even tackle climate change. Last year, the group helped get the polar bear listed as a threatened species. Here, one of CBD’s founders, 45-year-old director Kieran (pronounced Keer-Onh) Suckling, looks back at how the group got where it is and explains how it differs from the “Big 10″ green groups
….

HCN What role do lawsuits play in your strategy to list endangered species? 

SUCKLING They are one tool in a larger campaign, but we use lawsuits to help shift the balance of power from industry and government agencies, toward protecting endangered species. That plays out on many levels. At its simplest, by obtaining an injunction to shut down logging or prevent the filling of a dam, the power shifts to our hands. The Forest Service needs our agreement to get back to work, and we are in the position of being able to powerfully negotiate the terms of releasing the injunction.

New injunctions, new species listings and new bad press take a terrible toll on agency morale. When we stop the same timber sale three or four times running, the timber planners want to tear their hair out. They feel like their careers are being mocked and destroyed — and they are. So they become much more willing to play by our rules and at least get something done. Psychological warfare is a very underappreciated aspect of environmental campaigning. …

More…

The Tucson based Center for Biological Diversity has been waging a nation-wide war against ranchers, mines, military bases and other land uses.

In a form filed with the IRS for 2008 the Center for Biological Diversity repoprted the following salaries for its top officials:

Peter Galvin, Director $94,922
Todd Schulke Treasurer 51,500
Robin D. Silver Secretary 81,500
Kieran Suckling Exec Dir 104,313

The Center for Biological Diversity is also one of the targets in federal efforts to stop litigious environmental groups from soaking US taxpayers with a tsunami of law suits.

According to the 2008 IRS filing, the Center received $1,398,161 for its legal fees and costs from suing the government. That dropped to $ 1,173,517 in 2009 and to $ 685,981 in 2010 according to its annual reports for a toital of $ 3,257,659 over a 3 year period.

The CBD received $ 1,423,127 in foundation grants in 2009 and $ 1,876,800 in foundation grants in 2010.

The CBD received $ 4,795,424 in memberships and donations in 2009 and $ 5,389,003 in memberships and donations in 2010.

Total revenue from legal fees, foundations and memberships was $7, 392,068 in 2008 and $ 7,951,784 in 2010.

Obviously fighting for the environment is a serious business financially.

______________________________

Here is some publicly available financial information about the Center for Biological Diversity:

From the IRS 2008 form 990 posted at http://dynamodata.fdncenter.org/990_pdf_archive/850/850420285/850420285_200812_990.pdf

Cost recovery for environments litigation $1,398,161

List all states in which the organization is registered or licensed to solicit funds or has been notified it is exempt from
registration or licensing.
AL, AK, AZ, AR, CA, CO, CT, FL, GA, HI, IL, KS, KY, LA, ME, MD, MA, MI, MN, MS, MO, NH, NJ, NM, NY, NC, ND, OH, OK, OR, PA, RI, SC, SD, TN, UT, VA, WA, WI

Compensation of Officers , Directors , Trustees , Key Employees

Peter Galvin, Director $94,922
Todd Schulke Treasurer 51,500
Robin D. Silver Secretary 81,500
Kieran Suckling Exec Dir 104,313

Center for Biological Diversity 2009 2010 from annual report

http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/publications/reports/AnnualRpt2010.pdf
SUPPORT AND REVENUE 2009   2010

Grants and donations

Foundation grants $ 1,423,127   $ 1,876,800

Membership and donations 4,795,424 5,389,003

Revenue

Legal returns $ 1,173,517    $ 685,981

Contracts    5,780     7,354

Miscellaneous 15,162 52,017

Investment income 69,531     14,104

EXPENSES

Program services

Endangered Species 1,261,075     1,339,726

Climate 987,648     1,118,601

Public Lands 1,368,117 1,586,664

International 207,108     171,880

Oceans 638,570     735,379

Urban Wildlands 369,136     528,052

General and administrative 284,064 414,437

Fundraising 675,408      445,361

_____________________________
More

Army of Western Lawmakers to Introduce Legislation to Combat Frivolous Lawsuits on Taxpayer Dime

Extreme environmental groups hurt environmental cause

Center for Biological Diversity seeks to destroy Fort Huachuca to save the San Pedro River

White House reveals plan to streamline Endangered Species Act

The Endangered Species Act series of articles:

Endangered Species Act…it ain’t what you think it is — Part 1

Endangered Species Act — Part 2– this land is not your land

Endangered Species Act – Part 3 – Never swat a fly

Background info on Endangered Species Act:

Endangered Species Act — an Introduction

Endangered Species Act — Which Animals and Plants are “Threatened” or “Endangered”?

Endangered Species Act — Section 7 Consultation

Endangered Species Act — USF&W Introduction and Key Sections

Endangered Species Act — Definition of ”Harm” and “Take”

Endangered Species Act–Listing and Critical Habitat

Endangered Species Act–Habitat Conservation Plans

_________________________________________________________

News about litigious environment group activities:

Dispatches from the litigious environmental group war on America

Center for Biological Diversity demands Rosemont Mine site be included in protected habitat for frog

Judge puts WildEarth Guardian endangered species agreement on hold

Center for Biological Diversity fights imperiled species deal

Stop The Drilling! A Lizard Is Imperiled

Desert Pupfish Forces Border Agents to Patrol on Foot

New high recorded in frivolous environmental litigation

EPA Doles-Out Taxpayer Dollars to Environmentalist Activist Groups

Legislation to stop huge legal fee payments to environmental litigation factories poised to be introduced

Environmental groups bury feds with Endangered Species petitions

Press Release from US Rep Denny Rehberg (R Montana)  June 1, 2011:

Rehberg Among Army of Western Lawmakers to Introduce Legislation to Combat Frivolous Lawsuits on Taxpayer Dime

06/01/11

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Montana’s Congressman, Denny Rehberg, has introduced legislation with Representative Cynthia Lummis (WY-AL) to reduce taxpayers’ burden to pay for the attorneys’ fees of environmental obstructionist groups who abuse the legal system to block economic development and destroy jobs.  The Government Litigation Savings Act makes long overdue reforms to the implementation and oversight of funds distributed through the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA).

“The abuse of our legal system and attack on Montana jobs is a big enough problem without the government asking the taxpayer to foot the bill for the lawyers,” said Rehberg, a member of the Congressional Western Caucus.  “Whether it’s wolf management, timber production or energy development, you can’t walk across the street in Montana without being sued by an out-of-state environmental obstructionist group.  And while these groups have millions in the bank, they’re using tax dollars to fund their legal obstruction.  This bill helps change that.”

“When the government stopped tracking EAJA payments in 1995, it was a dream come true for radical environmental groups. Lack of oversight has fueled the fire for these groups to grind the work of land management and other federal agencies to a halt — and it does so on the taxpayer’s dime.  Americans have unwittingly funded these obstructionist political agendas for far too long at the expense of individuals, small businesses, energy producers, farmers and ranchers who must pay out of their own pocket to defend the federal government against relentless litigation,” said Lummis. “This common sense legislation would help restore integrity to EAJA and return the program to the original intent of Congress.”

In 1980, Congress passed EAJA to help individuals, small businesses and non-profit organizations with limited access to financial resources defend themselves against harmful government actions.  EAJA allows for the reimbursement of attorney’s fees and costs associated with suing the federal government. When operating as it was intended, EAJA allows plaintiffs who sue the federal government to recover part of their attorney’s fees and costs if they “prevail” in the case.

The original legislation required annual reports to Congress on the amount and nature of EAJA payments, but those reports ended in 1995.  Two private studies, one by a Wyoming law firm and another by Virginia Tech University, have shown that despite congressional intent to assist small organizations, some large environmental obstructionist groups appear to be the biggest beneficiaries of EAJA payments.  The Wyoming study, for example, found that more than 1,200 federal cases were filed in 19 states and the District of Columbia by just 14 environmental groups.  The cost to the taxpayer was $37 million.

Rehberg’s legislation returns EAJA to its original intent reforming eligibility requirements to receive EAJA reimbursements, limiting repeated lawsuits, and reinstating tracking and reporting requirements to make EAJA more transparent.  Under the Government Litigation Savings Act, veterans, social security claimants, individuals and small businesses will still enjoy full access to EAJA funds.

“No one wants to restrict access to the courts,” said Rehberg.  “But let’s use some common sense and stop asking the taxpayer to fund the very lawsuits that are destroying their jobs and livelihoods.”

The legislation has been endorsed by over 85 agriculture, sportsmen, recreation and energy groups including the Montana Association of State Grazing Districts, Montana Public Lands Council, Montana Stockgrowers Association and Montana Wool Growers Association.  The full list is below:
• Boone and Crockett Club
• National Rifle Association
• Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies
• National Federation of Independent Businesses
• Public Lands Council
• National Cattlemen’s Beef Association
• National Association of Conservation Districts
• Congressional Sportsman Foundation
• National Rural Electric Cooperative Association
• National Council of Farmer Cooperatives
• Safari Club International
• Western Energy Alliance
• National Mining Association
• United States Cattleman’s Association
• American Sheep Industry
• National Association of Forest Service Retirees
• Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership
• Recreational Off-Highway Vehicle Association
• Motorcycle Industry Association
• Americans for Responsible Recreational Access
• Specialty Vehicle Institute of America
• American Agri-Women
• Mule Deer Foundation
• Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation
• Independent Petroleum Association of America
• Foundation for Environmental and Economic Progress
• Women in Farm Economics
• National Trappers Association
• Pheasants Forever/Quail Forever
• U.S. Sportsmen’s Alliance
• Wildlife Forever
• Wildlife Management Institute
• Archery Trade Association
• Campfire Club of America
• Catch-a-Dream Foundation
• Masters of Foxhounds Association of America
• Orion-the-Hunter’s Institute
• Quality Deer Management Association
• Ruffed Grouse Society
• Tread Lightly!
• Pope and Young Club
• Association of National Grasslands
• Specialty Equipment Market Association

Regional, State, and Local Associations
• Western Legacy Alliance
• Western Business Roundtable
• Intermountain Forestry Association
• Wyoming Stock Growers Association
• Black Hills Forest Resource Association
• Wyoming Wool Growers Association
• Colorado Timber Industry Association.
• Wyoming Farm Bureau Federation
• Idaho Farm Bureau Federation
• Wyoming Association of Conservation Districts
• South Dakota Cattlemen’s Association
• Wyoming Petroleum Association
• Independent Cattlemen’s Association of Texas
• Dallas Safari Club
• Houston Safari Club
• Delta Waterfowl Foundation
• Texas Wildlife Association
• Texas Cattle Feeders Association
• Oregonians for Food and Shelter
• New Mexico Cattle Growers’ Association
• New Mexico Wool Growers, Inc.
• Arizona Farm Bureau Federation
• Arizona Cattle Growers’ Association
• Arizona Public Lands Council
• California Cattlemen’s Association
• California Wool Growers Association
• Central Committee of Nevada State Grazing Boards
• Nevada Cattlemen’s Association
• Colorado Cattlemen’s Association
• Colorado Public Lands Council
• Colorado Wool Growers Association
• Florida Cattlemen’s Association
• Georgia Cattlemen’s Association
• Hawaii Cattlemen’s Association
• Idaho Cattle Association
• Idaho Wool Growers Association
• Iowa Cattlemen’s Association
• Kansas Livestock Association
• Minnesota State Cattlemen’s Association
• Montana Association of State Grazing Districts
• Montana Public Lands Council
• Montana Stockgrowers Association
• Montana Wool Growers Association
• North Dakota Stockmen’s Association
• Oklahoma Cattlemen’s Association
• Oregon Cattlemen’s Association
• Utah Cattlemen’s Association
• Utah Farm Bureau Federation
• Washington Cattlemen’s Association

From Idaho Statesman:

Idaho Sens. Crapo, Risch and Rep. Simpson co-sponsor bill to spotlight lawsuits against feds

Submitted by Dan Popkey on Fri, 05/27/2011 – 7:48am.

GOP Sens. Mike Crapo and Jim Risch and 2nd District GOP Rep. Mike Simpson are co-sponsors of companion bills they say will protect taxpayers by shining a light on those who sue the United States.

A news release from Crapo and Risch cited court documents providing examples of certain groups having sued the government over 1,200 times and receiving upwards of $35 million in taxpayer funds. In response, the act would require organizations that file numerous lawsuits to show a “direct and personal monetary interest” in the legal action, establish caps on attorney fees, and create an online database to track funds paid out of the Equal Access to Justice Act.

“These proposals represent common-sense efforts to level the playing field for Idahoans and all westerners who use federal public lands day in and day out,” said Crapo in a news release about the Government Litigation Savings Act and the Grazing Improvement Act of 2011. “Idaho’s ranchers and other public land users deserve a fair shake when it comes to managing our federal lands and addressing critical natural resource issues, whether it be through the permit process or in the courts.”

More…

From Idaho Congressman Mike Simpson…

Simpson Seeks Reform of Taxpayer Lawsuit Subsidies

Idaho Congressman cosponsors legislation reforming the Equal Access to Justice Act

Washington, May 25 –

Idaho Congressman Mike Simpson today acted to protect taxpayers by requiring new transparency in a federal program that pays people to sue the federal government. Simpson did so by signing on as an original cosponsor to the Government Litigation Savings Act, authored by Rep. Cynthia Lummis (R-WY), which reforms the federal Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA) and shines a spotlight on abuses of the program, which are particularly prevalent with regards to land management agencies. Simpson is the Chairman of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Interior and the Environment.

“For too long, the Equal Access to Justice Act, and its millions of dollars in yearly federal payouts, has operated without review by Congress and without regard for taxpayers, allowing litigation to become a cottage industry,” said Congressman Mike Simpson. “The Government Litigation Savings Act is a prudent, responsible step in the right direction toward a more accountable and less costly judicial access program for those with limited means. It is well past time for this program to see fundamental reforms, and I am pleased a bill like this is now before Congress.”

Among its many provisions, the Government Litigation Savings Act:

Requires that EAJA filers must show a “direct and personal monetary interest” in the action to be eligible for payments. Direct and personal interest includes personal injury, property damage, or unpaid agency disbursement.

Establishes a cap of $175 per hour for attorney’s fees, pegged to inflation.
Caps total EAJA reimbursements to $200,000 for any single action, and allows no more than three EAJA awards in a calendar year.

Establishes reporting requirements government-wide, including an explanation from the agency explaining why its position was not substantially justified, and establishes an online, searchable database for funds paid out of EAJA and to whom the funds were paid.
Requires that funds paid from EAJA in sealed settlement agreements must be included in the online report.

In addition, the legislation requires the Government Accountability Office to conduct an audit of EAJA payments over the last 15 years.

“The EAJA program was originally intended to help people with limited resources seek redress against the wrongs of the federal government, and nobody disagrees with that intent,” said Simpson. “Unfortunately, it has turned into a program that uses taxpayer dollars to subsidize the litigious addictions of special interest groups. American taxpayers, businesses, farmers, and ranchers, as well as our nation’s court system, are ill-served by EAJA in its current form and that is why this legislation is so important.”

From Billings Gazette in Montana..

Bill would limit attorney fees in suits

Posted: Monday, May 30, 2011 12:30 pm

CHEYENNE, Wyo. — A bill introduced by members of Wyoming’s congressional delegation would limit the amount of attorneys’ fees recovered in lawsuits against the government.

Rep. Cynthia Lummis and Sen. John Barrasso, both R-Wyo., introduced the Government Litigation Savings Act in their respective chambers last week, according to the Wyoming Tribune Eagle on Monday. If approved, it would cap attorneys’ fees and block groups whose net worth exceeds $7 million from filing for payment under the 1980 Equal Access to Justice Act.

“When the government stopped tracking (Equal Access to Justice Act) payments in 1995, it was a dream come true for radical environmental groups,” Lummis said in a statement. “Lack of oversight has fueled the fire for these groups to grind the work of land management and other federal agencies to a halt — and it does so on the taxpayers’ dime.”

Barrasso’s office said a study by the Cheyenne-based Budd-Falen Law Offices found 12 environmental groups that filed more than 3,300 lawsuits in the past decade.

More…

COMMENT: There is a major war going on in the West over abuse of the Equal Access to Justice Act by Tucson’s own Center for Biological Diversity.

And one has to wonder why none of this is being reported in the Arizona Daily Star….

More
Extreme environmental groups hurt environmental cause

Center for Biological Diversity seeks to destroy Fort Huachuca to save the San Pedro River

Wilderness Areas on the border? What a great idea if you are a cartel drug smuggler

Desert Pupfish Forces Border Agents to Patrol on Foot

Republicans Introduce Bill to Secure Border on Federal Lands, Protect Environment

Border Patrol Banned From Top Smuggler Routes

White House reveals plan to streamline Endangered Species Act

The Endangered Species Act series of articles:

Endangered Species Act…it ain’t what you think it is — Part 1

Endangered Species Act — Part 2– this land is not your land

Endangered Species Act – Part 3 – Never swat a fly

Background info on Endangered Species Act:

Endangered Species Act — an Introduction

Endangered Species Act — Which Animals and Plants are “Threatened” or “Endangered”?

Endangered Species Act — Section 7 Consultation

Endangered Species Act — USF&W Introduction and Key Sections

Endangered Species Act — Definition of ”Harm” and “Take”

Endangered Species Act–Listing and Critical Habitat

Endangered Species Act–Habitat Conservation Plans

_________________________________________________________

News about litigious environment group activities:

Dispatches from the litigious environmental group war on America

Center for Biological Diversity demands Rosemont Mine site be included in protected habitat for frog

Judge puts WildEarth Guardian endangered species agreement on hold

Center for Biological Diversity fights imperiled species deal

Stop The Drilling! A Lizard Is Imperiled

Desert Pupfish Forces Border Agents to Patrol on Foot

New high recorded in frivolous environmental litigation

EPA Doles-Out Taxpayer Dollars to Environmentalist Activist Groups

Legislation to stop huge legal fee payments to environmental litigation factories poised to be introduced

Environmental groups bury feds with Endangered Species petitions