In a blow to efforts to prevent the lose of endangered species, the United States Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that petitioners for injunctions to cease a potentially harmful activity must provide evidence that there is a likelihood of harm occurring to a species. Previously, a plausible likelihood of harm to the species was enough to support an injunction. Before this ruling, endangered species where given the benefit of doubt, and time was allotted for further study. If this stands, no more.
Western Farm Press
In an important victory for western property owners, the United States Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled for Pacific Legal Foundation, and Idaho rancher Verl Jones' family, in a closely watched case that addresses the standard by which injunctions can be issued under the Endangered Species Act. The Ninth Circuit's ruling clarifies -- for the first time -- that environmental plaintiffs must present actual evidence that a species is likely to be harmed before an injunction can be issued against a property owner, and that a lack of evidence of past harm is indicative of the likelihood of future harm.
On the face of it this ruling may seem reasonable. Why not have to show proof that an activity is harmful to the species? One reason is that the effect of making a mistake is irreversible. In so far as endangered species management is like emergency room medicine (they both deal with critically ill patients, and the need for action without complete information), I offer the following analogy. I would expect that an MD would not discharge an emergency room patient before performing a diagnosis. Similarly, I would expect that a conservation biologist would not declare a species safe because no evidence of a likelihood of harm has been demonstrated, when they know from past experience and their training that harm is likely. Both are dealing with situations where a mistake could be fatal to the patient/species.
Coming on the heels of the rediscovery Ivory-billed Woodpecker, this news is sobering.