Why Fish and Wildlife is wrong on critical habitat

Recently, the Sacramento Bee ran an op-ed entitled “Why Fish and Wildlife is right on endangered frogs” that criticized a lawsuit filed by the Pacific Legal Foundation on behalf of California farmers and ranchers. The op-ed misrepresents the lawsuit and perpetuates a misconception about the Endangered Species Act.

PLF’s lawsuit does not question whether the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service was right to list three California amphibians as protected species under the ESA. Nor does it question whether the Service was right to designate critical habitat to conserve the species. Under the law, the Service is required to make these determinations.

Designating non-habitat as "critical habitat?" Where does it stop?

In 2014, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service listed the Gunnison sage-grouse as “threatened” under the Endangered Species Act and designated over 1.4 million acres as “critical habitat” in Colorado … ›

PLF sues U.S Fish and Wildlife to protect small businesses

There appears to be a universal recognition that small business is the lifeblood of our economy and a necessary component of our way of life: Economic freedom is the foundation … ›

White House WOTUS update

We reported here that the Administration had proposed withdrawing the 2015 WOTUS rule as directed by Executive Order. And, that EPA would soon be issuing a new rule defining “waters … ›

PLF petitions "unprecedented and sweeping" Endangered Species Act case to U.S. Supreme Court

In February, 2013, PLF filed suit in federal court on behalf of Markle Interests, LLC., challenging the designation of the landowners’ property as “critical habitat” by the U.S. Fish and … ›

The Nation's WOTUS problem!

In response to the President’s Executive Order directing the EPA to revise the controversial rule redefining “waters of the United States” issued in 2015, EPA proposes to withdraw the rule, … ›

Running down the controlling opinion in Rapanos v. United States

In February of this year, the President signed  an Executive Order calling for the Army Corps of Engineers and EPA to review and revise the government’s ill-fated definition of “waters … ›

Briefing on WOTUS Rule begins in Supreme Court

On behalf of landowners, we filed our initial challenge to the Army Corps and EPA  “waters of the United States” or “WOTUS” rule in the Federal District Court of Minnesota … ›

Tenth Circuit lets the dogs out

Federal and state law requires the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to obtain a permit from the State of New Mexico before releasing wolves into the State. That has worked … ›

Brand Logo for the blog page

Why Fish and Wildlife is wrong on critical habitat

Recently, the Sacramento Bee ran an op-ed entitled “Why Fish and Wildlife is right on endangered frogs” that criticized a lawsuit filed by the Pacific Legal Foundation on behalf of California farmers and ranchers. The op-ed misrepresents the lawsuit and perpetuates a misconception about the Endangered Species Act.

PLF’s lawsuit does not question whether the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service was right to list three California amphibians as protected species under the ESA. Nor does it question whether the Service was right to designate critical habitat to conserve the species. Under the law, the Service is required to make these determinations.

Designating non-habitat as "critical habitat?" Where does it stop?

In 2014, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service listed the Gunnison sage-grouse as “threatened” under the Endangered Species Act and designated over 1.4 million acres as “critical habitat” in Colorado … ›

PLF sues U.S Fish and Wildlife to protect small businesses

There appears to be a universal recognition that small business is the lifeblood of our economy and a necessary component of our way of life: Economic freedom is the foundation … ›

White House WOTUS update

We reported here that the Administration had proposed withdrawing the 2015 WOTUS rule as directed by Executive Order. And, that EPA would soon be issuing a new rule defining “waters … ›

PLF petitions "unprecedented and sweeping" Endangered Species Act case to U.S. Supreme Court

In February, 2013, PLF filed suit in federal court on behalf of Markle Interests, LLC., challenging the designation of the landowners’ property as “critical habitat” by the U.S. Fish and … ›

The Nation's WOTUS problem!

In response to the President’s Executive Order directing the EPA to revise the controversial rule redefining “waters of the United States” issued in 2015, EPA proposes to withdraw the rule, … ›

Running down the controlling opinion in Rapanos v. United States

In February of this year, the President signed  an Executive Order calling for the Army Corps of Engineers and EPA to review and revise the government’s ill-fated definition of “waters … ›

Briefing on WOTUS Rule begins in Supreme Court

On behalf of landowners, we filed our initial challenge to the Army Corps and EPA  “waters of the United States” or “WOTUS” rule in the Federal District Court of Minnesota … ›

Tenth Circuit lets the dogs out

Federal and state law requires the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to obtain a permit from the State of New Mexico before releasing wolves into the State. That has worked … ›

The Morning Docket

Stay up to date with the Morning Docket, a weekly highlight of PLF's best articles, videos, and podcasts.

Why Fish and Wildlife is wrong on critical habitat

Recently, the Sacramento Bee ran an op-ed entitled “Why Fish and Wildlife is right on endangered frogs” that criticized a lawsuit filed by the Pacific Legal Foundation on behalf of California farmers and ranchers. The op-ed misrepresents the lawsuit and perpetuates a misconception about the Endangered Species Act.

PLF’s lawsuit does not question whether the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service was right to list three California amphibians as protected species under the ESA. Nor does it question whether the Service was right to designate critical habitat to conserve the species. Under the law, the Service is required to make these determinations.

Designating non-habitat as "critical habitat?" Where does it stop?

In 2014, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service listed the Gunnison sage-grouse as “threatened” under the Endangered Species Act and designated over 1.4 million acres as “critical habitat” in Colorado … ›

PLF sues U.S Fish and Wildlife to protect small businesses

There appears to be a universal recognition that small business is the lifeblood of our economy and a necessary component of our way of life: Economic freedom is the foundation … ›

White House WOTUS update

We reported here that the Administration had proposed withdrawing the 2015 WOTUS rule as directed by Executive Order. And, that EPA would soon be issuing a new rule defining “waters … ›

PLF petitions "unprecedented and sweeping" Endangered Species Act case to U.S. Supreme Court

In February, 2013, PLF filed suit in federal court on behalf of Markle Interests, LLC., challenging the designation of the landowners’ property as “critical habitat” by the U.S. Fish and … ›

The Nation's WOTUS problem!

In response to the President’s Executive Order directing the EPA to revise the controversial rule redefining “waters of the United States” issued in 2015, EPA proposes to withdraw the rule, … ›

Running down the controlling opinion in Rapanos v. United States

In February of this year, the President signed  an Executive Order calling for the Army Corps of Engineers and EPA to review and revise the government’s ill-fated definition of “waters … ›

Briefing on WOTUS Rule begins in Supreme Court

On behalf of landowners, we filed our initial challenge to the Army Corps and EPA  “waters of the United States” or “WOTUS” rule in the Federal District Court of Minnesota … ›

Tenth Circuit lets the dogs out

Federal and state law requires the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to obtain a permit from the State of New Mexico before releasing wolves into the State. That has worked … ›

Why Fish and Wildlife is wrong on critical habitat

Recently, the Sacramento Bee ran an op-ed entitled “Why Fish and Wildlife is right on endangered frogs” that criticized a lawsuit filed by the Pacific Legal Foundation on behalf of California farmers and ranchers. The op-ed misrepresents the lawsuit and perpetuates a misconception about the Endangered Species Act.

PLF’s lawsuit does not question whether the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service was right to list three California amphibians as protected species under the ESA. Nor does it question whether the Service was right to designate critical habitat to conserve the species. Under the law, the Service is required to make these determinations.

Designating non-habitat as "critical habitat?" Where does it stop?

In 2014, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service listed the Gunnison sage-grouse as “threatened” under the Endangered Species Act and designated over 1.4 million acres as “critical habitat” in Colorado … ›

PLF sues U.S Fish and Wildlife to protect small businesses

There appears to be a universal recognition that small business is the lifeblood of our economy and a necessary component of our way of life: Economic freedom is the foundation … ›

White House WOTUS update

We reported here that the Administration had proposed withdrawing the 2015 WOTUS rule as directed by Executive Order. And, that EPA would soon be issuing a new rule defining “waters … ›

PLF petitions "unprecedented and sweeping" Endangered Species Act case to U.S. Supreme Court

In February, 2013, PLF filed suit in federal court on behalf of Markle Interests, LLC., challenging the designation of the landowners’ property as “critical habitat” by the U.S. Fish and … ›

The Nation's WOTUS problem!

In response to the President’s Executive Order directing the EPA to revise the controversial rule redefining “waters of the United States” issued in 2015, EPA proposes to withdraw the rule, … ›

Running down the controlling opinion in Rapanos v. United States

In February of this year, the President signed  an Executive Order calling for the Army Corps of Engineers and EPA to review and revise the government’s ill-fated definition of “waters … ›

Briefing on WOTUS Rule begins in Supreme Court

On behalf of landowners, we filed our initial challenge to the Army Corps and EPA  “waters of the United States” or “WOTUS” rule in the Federal District Court of Minnesota … ›

Tenth Circuit lets the dogs out

Federal and state law requires the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to obtain a permit from the State of New Mexico before releasing wolves into the State. That has worked … ›