Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="gst" data-source="post: 183799" data-attributes="member: 373">There is a thread on here where that information was shared a while back. Any number of threads have shared information on the Acess to Equal Justice Act where by your tax dollars are used to pay for the orgs that have impacted these changes thru lawsuits. here is one that has not been shared on here before. <a href="http://forestpolicypub.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Forest-Service-Land-Management-Litigation-1989%E2%80%932002.pdf" target="_blank">http://forestpolicypub.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Forest-Service-Land-Management-Litigation-1989–2002.pdf</a>ConclusionThis study analyzed a census of legalchallenges to Forest Service national forestmanagement initiated from 1989 to 2002; itrepresents the most complete picture of nationalforest litigation assembled to date.The results confirm many policymakers’ andstakeholders’ perceptions: three of every fourcases involve parties seeking less resourceuse; Region 6, the Pacific Northwest, experiencedalmost a quarter of all litigation; andNEPA was the statutory basis in nearly 7 ofevery 10 cases. We expected variation in the number ofcases by Forest Service region. Other researchreported similar findings. However,the large volume of Region 6 cases was unforeseen,despite the public focus on thespotted owl and the Northwest Forest Plan.The underlying cause of this volume mayinvolve the region’s large number of bothendangered species and advocacy organizations.Although logging was the focusof most lawsuits, other management activitiesaccounted for more than 60% of cases.Planning cases (involving a challenge toa national forest’s land and resource managementplan) and logging cases each accountedfor more than 10% of all cases.Combined, salvage and logging cases represented37.8% of all cases. The Forest Servicewin, loss, and settlement rates in cases involvingthese activities were close to its overallpercentages during this time. The ForestService won more than 65% of cases involvingmining, road (construction or decommission),and special-use permits (issued atthe Forest Service’s discretion for a widerange of activities, such as concessions, skiareas, facility use, and tour guides). It lostmore than a quarter of its wilderness andwildlife cases. It was more likely to settle watercases (including dams, water diversion,and riparian zone management) than anyother category of case.The ForestService was more likely to lose challenges inRegion 1 (North Dakota, Montana, andnorthern Idaho), and it also settled the mostcases in this region (28.7%). T- - - Updated - - -<a href="http://www.eastvalleytribune.com/news/lawsuits-stall-forest-thinning/article_9e900755-2c18-5a50-900b-94e32d20df51.html" target="_blank">http://www.eastvalleytribune.com/news/lawsuits-stall-forest-thinning/article_9e900755-2c18-5a50-900b-94e32d20df51.html</a><a href="http://www.opb.org/news/article/lawsuits-target-forest-plan-in-oregon/" target="_blank">http://www.opb.org/news/article/lawsuits-target-forest-plan-in-oregon/</a><a href="http://earthjustice.org/sites/default/files/files/2016.08.08-WOPR%20Jr.%20Complaint%20%281%29.pdf" target="_blank">http://earthjustice.org/sites/default/files/files/2016.08.08-WOPR Jr. Complaint (1).pdf</a>Here is a link ot an article explaining the EAJA <a href="https://www.eenews.net/assets/2011/07/11/document_gw_01.pdf" target="_blank">https://www.eenews.net/assets/2011/07/11/document_gw_01.pdf</a>“Paying litigants to sue certainlyencourages legal action”(Thomas 2000, p. 9). Thisquote by former chief of the US Forest Service,Jack Ward Thomas, expresses concernsthat the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA;codified at 28 USC §2412 and 5 USC§5045) may be an incentive for litigationagainst the US Forest Service and other federalland-management agencies. The EAJAis a fee-shifting statute that allows litigants torecover attorney fees and other legal expenses(such as court filing fees) from thefederal government when they successfullysue an administrative agency.Numerous scholars have described theincreasing use of litigation as a tool to influenceUS Forest Service land-managementdecisions. Jones and Taylor (1995) completedthe first study, examining cases decidedbetween 1971 and 1993. They foundthat the frequency of US Forest Service lawsuitsincreased during these 20 years andconcluded that litigation was used as a toolto effect change within the agency.Malmsheimer et al. (2004) examined allpublished federal Court of Appeals casesfrom 1970 through 2001 in which the USForest Service was a defendant. They foundthat the number of lawsuits involving theagency had increased since 1970 and that“judicial review of national forest managementis intensifying”3. The original intent of the EAJA hasdrifted with its use in national forestmanagement litigation. In our study,most EAJA payments were made to environmentalinterest groups with widelyvarying financial capabilities. We notethat many are quite well financed andtherefore not the class of plaintiffs forwhich the law was designed to provideaccess to the expensive federal litigationsystem. The increasing capabilities andsophistication of such public interest litigants,their relative financial resources,and the social desirability of an evolutionin the usage of the EAJA might beTable 8. Description and 2005 financial summary of the organizations listed as aplaintiff in more than one lawsuit against the US Forest Service, which resulted in EqualAccess to Justice Act award payments from 1999 through 2006, by number of timeslisted.Organization name Net assets ($) Revenues ($)American Wildlands 438,600 521,833Center for Biological Diversity 2,347,991 3,477,044Earthjustice 28,261,755 21,086,300Forest Guardians 511,326 764,626Heartwood 86,539 159,435Idaho Sporting Congress 31,657 60,428Kettle Range Conservation Group Tax extension filedKlamath Siskiyou Wildlands Center 73,199 350,684League of Wilderness Defenders 16,171 82,996Native Ecosystems Council Information not available on GuidestarOregon Natural Resources Council (now Oregon Wild)a 1,181,477 1,214,995Sierra Clubb 54,604,888 85,183,435Swan View Coalition 84,040 37,891The Ecology Center 1,166,694 3,158,765Total 88,804,337 116,098,442a Guidestar data from 2004.b Agency records repeatedly list the Sierra Club as an EAJA fee recipient. Because the Sierra Club is ineligible to receive fees as a501(c)(4) organization, the court awards were most likely awarded to the Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund.Source: Guidestar.org., n.d.Journal of Forestry • September 2011 357related topics of inquiry for future policystudies of fee shifting and the EAJA.- - - Updated - - -That is the tip of the iceberg, but it should get you started..............perhaps you will begin to see why what happens out west in Federal forests and grasslands ultimately impacts designations here in ND.</blockquote>

Verification: What is the most common fish caught on this site?

Reply to thread

Recent Posts

Friends of NDA