Dave@desertfab.com
12-28-2004, 10:36 PM
Another suit to Delist the PMV
Dear Fellow Sand Sport Enthusiast:
As many of you know, the Peirson's milk vetch (PMV) listing for
protection under
the corrupted Endangered Species Act (ESA) was dubious from the
start. The answer
to our delisting petition, obtained only after a successful suit
against the
Fish and Wildlife Service, is even more questionable. Now we are
asking a judge
to decide.
Recently, ASA, in conjunction with ORBA and SDORC, filed suit asking a
judge
to reverse the Fish and Wildlife decision to maintain the listing of
the PMV.
An excerpt of the complaint is below followed by a link to a complete
download.
*Quote:
*
2. Plaintiff’s bring this action on grounds that (1) defendants did
not adequately
address all claims set forth in the Delisting Petition; (2)
defendants did not
demonstrate that the original decision to list the Peirson’s
Milk-Vetch (“PMV”)
was based on sound or adequate scientific data; (3) defendants did
not provide
sufficient evidence to rebut the data submitted by plaintiffs showing
that the
PMV is abundant and not threatened; (4) defendants relied on outdated
and inferior
data to deny the Delisting Petition; (5) defendants did not support
with substantial
evidence their contention that the PMV remains threatened by
off-highway vehicle
(“OHV”) use or other human or natural phenomena; and (6) defendants
demanded
from plaintiffs a level of scientific certainty that is unreasonably
high and
beyond that required by the ESA and beyond that employed by
defendants when
they made the initial decision to list the PMV as threatened in 1998.
For these
reasons, and others, the defendants’ decision to deny plaintiffs’
Delisting
Petition was arbitrary and capricious, and in violation of both the
Administrative
Procedures Act (“APA”), 5 U.S.C. § 702, and the ESA, 16 U.S.C.
§ 1533(b).
3. Through this action, plaintiffs seek a Court Order that (1)
overturns defendants’
denial of plaintiffs’ Delisting Petition, and (2) directs defendants
to publish
a rule under 16 U.S.C. § 1533(b) officially removing the PMV
from the federal
list of threatened and endangered species. Plaintiffs also seek to
recover all
reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in this action, as
provided under
Section 11(g)(4) of the ESA. 16 U.S.C. § 1540(g)(4).
http://www.glamisonline.org/downloads/ComplaintChallengingDenialofDelistingPetition.doc
)
Thank
you for your support,
The American Sand Association
Unite, Inform and Mobilize
PS:
Best Holiday Wishes to you and yours.
Dear Fellow Sand Sport Enthusiast:
As many of you know, the Peirson's milk vetch (PMV) listing for
protection under
the corrupted Endangered Species Act (ESA) was dubious from the
start. The answer
to our delisting petition, obtained only after a successful suit
against the
Fish and Wildlife Service, is even more questionable. Now we are
asking a judge
to decide.
Recently, ASA, in conjunction with ORBA and SDORC, filed suit asking a
judge
to reverse the Fish and Wildlife decision to maintain the listing of
the PMV.
An excerpt of the complaint is below followed by a link to a complete
download.
*Quote:
*
2. Plaintiff’s bring this action on grounds that (1) defendants did
not adequately
address all claims set forth in the Delisting Petition; (2)
defendants did not
demonstrate that the original decision to list the Peirson’s
Milk-Vetch (“PMV”)
was based on sound or adequate scientific data; (3) defendants did
not provide
sufficient evidence to rebut the data submitted by plaintiffs showing
that the
PMV is abundant and not threatened; (4) defendants relied on outdated
and inferior
data to deny the Delisting Petition; (5) defendants did not support
with substantial
evidence their contention that the PMV remains threatened by
off-highway vehicle
(“OHV”) use or other human or natural phenomena; and (6) defendants
demanded
from plaintiffs a level of scientific certainty that is unreasonably
high and
beyond that required by the ESA and beyond that employed by
defendants when
they made the initial decision to list the PMV as threatened in 1998.
For these
reasons, and others, the defendants’ decision to deny plaintiffs’
Delisting
Petition was arbitrary and capricious, and in violation of both the
Administrative
Procedures Act (“APA”), 5 U.S.C. § 702, and the ESA, 16 U.S.C.
§ 1533(b).
3. Through this action, plaintiffs seek a Court Order that (1)
overturns defendants’
denial of plaintiffs’ Delisting Petition, and (2) directs defendants
to publish
a rule under 16 U.S.C. § 1533(b) officially removing the PMV
from the federal
list of threatened and endangered species. Plaintiffs also seek to
recover all
reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in this action, as
provided under
Section 11(g)(4) of the ESA. 16 U.S.C. § 1540(g)(4).
http://www.glamisonline.org/downloads/ComplaintChallengingDenialofDelistingPetition.doc
)
Thank
you for your support,
The American Sand Association
Unite, Inform and Mobilize
PS:
Best Holiday Wishes to you and yours.