Court victory restores property rights for Alabama landowners
For generations, Alabama’s Skipper family has managed their forests with care—only to find themselves branded as stewards of an endangered snake habitat that no one could prove actually existed.
This week, a federal judge handed the family a decisive victory, ruling that the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service had overreached when it declared more than 39,000 acres in Clarke County as “critical habitat” for the black pine snake without credible evidence.
Conservation Partnership Turned Punishment
Since 1902, the Skipper family has managed Alabama forestland, practicing sustainable timber harvesting while protecting native longleaf pine habitat. Over generations, their stewardship has included rotation-age harvesting, prescribed burns, and selective thinning—methods that foster a healthy and diverse forest ecosystem.
For 60 years, the family partnered with the State through the Scotch Wildlife Management Area, opening their land for public recreation and aiding in the recovery of white-tail deer and other species.
That relationship collapsed in February 2020, when federal officials designated more than 10,000 acres of the family’s land as critical habitat based on a single snake sighting in 25 years—contradicting a comprehensive state survey that found no pine snakes on the property. Feeling punished for their conservation efforts, the family withdrew from the wildlife management program.
In 2021, the Skippers, along with the Goodloe family and the Forest Landowners Association, sued the Service under the Endangered Species Act, the Regulatory Flexibility Act, and the Administrative Procedure Act. They argued the agency unlawfully labeled their property as “occupied” habitat without credible science, failed to weigh economic harms, and ignored the disproportionate burden on small timber operations.
Court Rejects Flawed Science and Analysis
The court agreed, citing multiple fatal flaws in the Service’s reasoning. On the Skipper property, the agency relied on one pine snake sighting in two decades, plus four older anecdotal reports—all at the edge of the designated area. A 2008–2009 field survey found none.
In its opinion, the court held that the Service’s designation of Units 7 and 8 as “occupied” critical habitat was arbitrary and capricious. The judge rejected the notion that “suitable habitat” is equivalent to actual occupancy, stressing that federal agencies cannot stretch the definition of “occupied” beyond where a species is truly present.
The court also faulted the agency’s economic analysis. While acknowledging that designations depress land values—affecting some $180 million worth of private property—the Service claimed it was unable to quantify harm to landowners. The court dismissed that excuse, emphasizing that agencies cannot sidestep statutory requirements for meaningful economic review.
Precedent for Property Rights
This ruling sets an important precedent: Federal agencies must ground critical habitat designations in solid science and conduct rigorous economic impact assessments.
For the Skipper family, it means the freedom to manage their land without an unwarranted federal overlay—continuing a tradition of responsible stewardship that has protected Alabama forests for more than a century.
