October, 29 2018, 12:00am EDT

For Immediate Release
Contact:
Andrea Treece, Earthjustice, (415) 217-2089, atreece@earthjustice.org
Emily Ehrhorn, the Humane Society of the United States, (202) 779-1814, eehrhorn@humanesociety.org
Rebecca Bullis, Defenders of Wildlife, 202-772-0295, rbullis@defenders.org
Supreme Court Halts Effort to Reinstate Failed "No Otter Zone" in California
Supreme Court denies appeal of decision upholding U.S. Fish & Wildlife decision to end experimental program that set back California sea otter recovery
WASHINGTON
The U.S. Supreme Court today declined to review a Ninth Circuit decision that upheld the U.S. Fish and Wildlife's termination of a failed experimental program known as the "No Otter Zone." The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service had determined the program would harm the California sea otter by excluding the animals from their historic range along the Southern California coast.
The high court's decision marks the end of years of litigation by fishing groups, represented by the Pacific Legal Foundation, aimed at forcing the government to reinstate the program even though it would harm sea otters and prevent the species from recovering.
"It's a relief to see common sense win the day. The decision to end the "No Otter Zone" was not only reasonable--it was the only option for protecting otters and complying with the law," said Earthjustice attorney Andrea Treece. "Otters are an irreplaceable part of our coastal ecosystem - otters need kelp forest and seagrass habitat, and those habitats need otters. Allowing otters to expand their population southward without human interference helps sea otters and coastal habitats."
Earthjustice, on behalf of Friends of the Sea Otter, Defenders of Wildlife, The Humane Society of the United States and Center for Biological Diversity, intervened to help defend the Service's decision.
Several fishing industry groups sued the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service multiple times, arguing that it was obligated to continue to implement the "No Otter Zone," even after the agency determined that doing so would jeopardize the species' chances at survival and recovery. Two district courts ruled against the industry groups and they appealed the previous rulings.
The Ninth Circuit ruled against these industry groups, confirming that the agency acted fully within its authority by ending the experimental sea otter translocation and management program when it determined it was preventing sea otter recovery rather than promoting it.
"This decision is a win for sea otters and endangered species everywhere," said Anna Frostic, managing attorney for wildlife and animal research for the Humane Society of the United States. "The court reinforced that the government has the obligation to amend or terminate a program when it is no longer helping the imperiled species that the government is required to protect."
"The Supreme Court's decision confirms the ruling that the Fish and Wildlife Service made the right decision to let sea otters expand their range naturally, without artificial barriers. If this species is to recover, wider distribution throughout the historic sea otter range is essential," said Friends of the Sea Otter Board Chair Jennifer Covert. "It is gratifying that the fight we have been involved in for approximately two decades to end the no otter zone has now been confirmed by the courts."
The conservation groups defending the decision opposed high court review, pointing out that the decision was also fully consistent with the Fish and Wildlife Service's independent obligation to protect and recover listed species under the Endangered Species Act.
"It's great to see the Supreme Court deferring to wildlife professionals on ending this ill-conceived program. Sea otters and the people who love them should be applauding this victory," said Miyoko Sakashita, oceans program director for the Center for Biological Diversity. "This decision helps keep California's sea otters on the path toward recovery."
"If we want threatened sea otters to make a comeback in California, we need programs that encourage recovery instead of hindering it," said Kim Delfino, director of California programs for Defenders of Wildlife. "The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service recognized that the 'No Otter Zone' would do more harm than good to sea otters by blocking their access to vital habitat. The court's decision reaffirms that fact."
Background:
Congress established the "No Otter Zone" in 1986 as part of a plan by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to translocate sea otters to San Nicolas Island to establish a second population. At the time, the agency suggested the translocation program would aid the recovery of the California sea otter, protected as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act. The "No Otter Zone" was established by Congress in response to complaints from fishermen that moving otters to a new location could interfere with their fishing activities.
Many relocated otters swam back to their waters of origin; others died as the result of being captured or transported. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ultimately determined that enforcing the "No Otter Zone" was hurting the sea otter's recovery chances. In 2003, the agency determined again that eliminating the zone and allowing otters to expand to their natural, historical range south of Point Conception was necessary to achieve recovery of the species.
Fishing industry groups sought in two lawsuits to force the Service to re-establish the "No Otter Zone." In September 2015, U.S. District Court Judge Walter found that forcing the Service to continue the failed program would be absurd, given that the purpose of the program had been to protect otters and the program was now known to harm their survival and recovery.
In March 2017, Judge Dolly M. Gee of the U.S. District Court, Central District of California, also ruled in favor of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's decision to end the program.
In March 2018, the Ninth Circuit upheld both of the district courts' decisions.
While the California sea otter population has rebounded from historical lows, the species remains threatened by pollution, disease, and competition with fisheries. The California sea otter population is believed to have been between 14,000 and 16,000 animals before fur traders arrived. In recent years, it has hovered around 3,000 animals.
Earthjustice is a non-profit public interest law firm dedicated to protecting the magnificent places, natural resources, and wildlife of this earth, and to defending the right of all people to a healthy environment. We bring about far-reaching change by enforcing and strengthening environmental laws on behalf of hundreds of organizations, coalitions and communities.
800-584-6460LATEST NEWS
Mehdi Hasan Booted From MSNBC After 'Daring to Practice Journalism'
"Mehdi Hasan's program has felt like an oasis on air and more needed than ever," said one Palestinian American advocate of the journalist's Gaza coverage.
Nov 30, 2023
Progressives on Thursday said the American public was losing a vital voice that for nearly two months has offered rare critical coverage of the U.S.-backed Israeli assault on civilians in Gaza, as MSNBC announced it was canceling "The Mehdi Hasan Show."
The show began on the streaming service Peacock in 2020 and Hasan has hosted the weekend program on the network since 2021. He has gained recognition in the past for his incisive interviews of former Blackwater CEO Erik Prince and GOP presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy.
More recently he has provided viewers with commentary on the war in Gaza, in which more than 15,000 Palestinians have been killed so far, while also condemning Hamas' attack against civilians in southern Israel on October 7 as "undeniably, a vicious act of terror."
"How many more innocent people are going to die, and what will be achieved?" asked Hasan in one segment last month. "Does killing innocent Palestinians in Gaza, and not just members of Hamas, killing a Palestinian child every 15 minutes since October 7... Does that help defeat Hamas?"
Guardian columnist Owen Jones said there is "no better interviewer than Mehdi Hasan: forensic, razor-sharp, an encyclopedic knowledge."
"So MSNBC has now canceled his show," Jones said. "The few mainstream voices who challenge Israel's mass slaughter of Gaza are under attack."
As the cancellation of Hasan's show was announced, Palestinian American human rights lawyer Noura Erakat pointed to his recent interview with Mark Regev, an adviser to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, as "a whole class on journalistic method."
In the interview, Hasan implored Regev to admit Israel's onslaught has led to a high death toll of Palestinians, pushed back against his claim that Israel has targeted Hamas members, and demanded he address misinformation from his own government about the war.
"They canceled Mehdi Hasan for interviews like this—evidence-based and willing to challenge power," said author Sarah Kendzior of the Regev segment, "and it is doubtful he will be the only journalist pushed out for daring to practice journalism."
The Progressive Change Campaign Committee (PCCC) pointed out that on Wednesday evening Hasan appeared on "The Daily Show" to promote his program.
"To be clear, there was no instigating outrage. No shocking new thing," said the group. "He was acceptable (and cool) enough for 'The Daily Show,' and MSNBC let him go out and promote the network, and then they blindside one of their best hosts?"
"It's a huge programming mistake to kick voices like Mehdi Hasan off the air instead of asking: Why are they resonating with the public as they challenge power and question conventional wisdom?" the PCCC added.
MSNBC president Rashida Jones reportedly told staffers that the network was reshuffling its weekend programming—cutting Hasan's show and adding a program with hosts including Democratic strategist Symone Sanders-Townsend and former Republican National Committee Chair Michael Steele—"to better position ourselves as we head into the presidential election."
In canceling Hasan's show, noted journalist David Sirota, MSNBC is eliminating not only one of its most vocal critics of Israel, but also "one of the only people in cable TV news who has been willing to report critically on both parties."
"Canceling him," said Sirota, "is another step in the deliberate homogenization of news content into pure red-vs-blue infotainment" ahead of the election.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Outrage After Russia Outlaws 'International LGBT Movement'
"This is real repression. There is panic in Russia's LGBT community," said one gay official in St. Petersburg. "People are emigrating urgently."
Nov 30, 2023
In a decision that Amnesty International decried as "shameful and absurd," Russia's Supreme Court on Thursday banned the "international LGBT movement"—which critics noted doesn't actually exist—as an "extremist organization," a move human rights groups said will subject the country's already oppressed queer community to further repression.
During a closed hearing, Russia's highest court sided with the country's Justice Ministry, which earlier this month filed a lawsuit accusing the "LGBT movement" of fomenting social and religious discord.
LGBTQ+ advocates said the ruling will effectively silence queer activism in a country that banned so-called "gay propaganda" a decade ago, one of numerous legal attacks on gay rights including a law signed in July by Russian President Vladimir Putin prohibiting gender-affirming healthcare and stripping transgender people of marriage and parental rights.
"Russian authorities should immediately end this perverse persecution of LGBT people and concerned countries should support LGBT people and their advocates facing extreme risks and persecution in Russia," Human Rights Watch (HRW) said in a statement.
According to HRW:
Under Russian criminal law, participating in or financing an extremist organization is punishable by up to 12 years in prison. A person found guilty of displaying such groups' symbols faces up to 15 days in detention for the first offense and up to four years in prison for a repeat offense. The authorities may include individuals suspected of involvement with an extremist organization in the countrywide "list of extremists" and freeze their bank accounts. People deemed to be involved with an extremist organization are barred from running for public office.
Tanya Lokshina, HRW's associate Europe and Central Asia director, asserted that the court's move "apparently serves a dual purpose."
"It is meant to increase the scapegoating of LGBT people to appeal to the Kremlin's conservative supporters before the March 2024 presidential vote and to paralyze the work of rights groups countering discrimination and supporting LGBT people," she said.
Sergei Troshin, a municipal deputy in St. Petersburg who came out as gay last year, told the BBC that he thinks the court's ruling "will mean that anyone whom the state considers an LGBT activist could receive a long prison sentence for 'participating in an extremist organization.'"
"For the organizer of such a group, the prison term will be even longer," he added. "This is real repression. There is panic in Russia's LGBT community. People are emigrating urgently. The actual word we're using is evacuation. We're having to evacuate from our own country. It's terrible."
Since Russia invaded Ukraine last year, the Kremlin has increasingly touted "traditional values" as a bulwark against "degrading" Western cultural influences. An expanded version of the 2013 "gay propaganda" law is currently advancing in Russia's State Duma, the lower house of the country's Federal Assembly.
The advocacy group Rainbow Europe this year ranked Russia the third-worst European nation for LGBTQ+ rights, ahead of only Turkey and Azerbaijan.
Yan Dvorkin, an exiled Russian transgender activist who heads the advocacy group Center T, toldAl Jazeera that the court's ruling marks a "new low point of insanity."
Dvorkin said that since Russia is "losing the war" in Ukraine, many Russians are "very frustrated and dissatisfied with the government."
"It's very easy to take that anger out on LGBTQ people," he added.
Vitaly Milonov, a notoriously homophobic member of the State Duma from the ruling United Russia party, told the BBC that the Supreme Court ruling is "not about sexual minorities or the private life of individuals."
"It's more about the political agenda proclaimed by this LGBT international movement," he said.
"And I'm looking forward to the next step: banning the six-color rainbow flag," Milonov added. "We don't need this flag. It's a symbol of the fight with the traditional family. I hope that no one can show this flag in Russia."
Keep ReadingShow Less
200,000+ Urge DOE to 'Do the Right Thing' and Block LNG Buildout
One project in particular, the CP2 export terminal, "would be the most harmful facility built in the United States," one frontline activist said as campaigners delivered petition signatures.
Nov 30, 2023
Climate and environmental justice campaigners on Thursday delivered more than 200,000 petition signatures calling on the Biden administration to reject the Calcasieu Pass 2, or CP2, liquefied natural gas export facility as well as all other planned LNG infrastructure.
Environmental advocates and progressive lawmakers have been increasingly raising the alarm about CP2 and the broader expansion in LNG exports, pointing out that they put both the U.S. climate goals and frontline Gulf Coast communities at risk. CP2, for example, would emit 20 times as many greenhouse gases as the controversial Willow oil drilling project in Alaska.
"CP2, the proposed liquefied natural gas project that is proposed to come right in my backyard, where me and my children live, would be the most harmful facility built in the United States," Roishetta Ozane, founder and director of the Louisiana-based mutual aid organization Vessel Project, said in front of the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE).
The petition, circulated by Fossil Free Media, urged President Joe Biden and Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm to halt all new approvals for LNG export projects until the DOE changes how it determines whether such projects serve the public interest.
"It is critical that DOE assess the climate, environmental justice, and consumer impacts when determining whether exports are in the public interest, especially as the agency considers its current pipeline of nearly 20 LNG export projects under review," the petition reads in part.
It first argues that exporting LNG will hurt U.S. energy customers, since exporting the fuel would raise domestic prices. Second, it points to a Sierra Club analysis finding that existing and proposed LNG export facilities would have the same impact on the climate over their lifetimes as 675 coal plants.
"We are already overburdened and overflowing with fossil fuel extractive industry."
"Every time the United States approves a new LNG facility, that is giving us 30 more years of pollution," Ozane said Thursday. "How are we going to meet our climate goals? We are contributing to this climate catastrophe that we are in."
The petition also points out that CP2 and other LNG export facilities would only increase the local pollution burden on communities in the Gulf Coast already disproportionately impacted by the oil, gas, and petrochemical activities. Frontline activists have highlighted that Venture Global, the company behind CP2, has a history of environmental violations. Its Calcasieu Pass terminal, after which CP2 would be modeled, violated its air permit more than 2,000 times during its first year of operations.
During the petition delivery, Ozane said that she has to call her children inside every time that gas or smoke flares from one of the 12 petrochemical facilities in her vicinity, adding that she was "afraid of the air that they are breathing."
"We are already overburdened and overflowing with fossil fuel extractive industry," Ozane said. "We don't need any more."
After delivering the signatures to the DOE, the activists then presented them at the headquarters of Venture Global.
Ozane noted that the petition delivery comes as world leaders gather for the United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP28) in the United Arab Emirates. Ozane said that she would attend the conference next week to let the delegates know that the U.S. was not keeping its climate promises as it plans to expand LNG exports.
350.org and Third Act co-founder Bill McKibben, who publicized the fight against the LNG buildout in a September New Yorker article, has noted that, while climate accounting rules don't count a country's fossil fuel exports as part of its total emissions, they still contribute to the climate crisis.
"If this buildout continues, and if you counted the emissions from this gas against America's totals, it would mean that American greenhouse gas emissions would not have budged since 2005," McKibben wrote on his Substack.
But climate activists like McKibben and Ozane are hoping that the Biden administration will heed their warnings and stop the LNG expansion.
"With the agency's pending decision on the CP2 export application, in particular, the stakes could not be higher," the petition concludes. "Please do the right thing and stop approving these projects that hurt our climate, communities, and economy."
McKibben celebrated Thursday's action on social media.
"200,000 signatures is nothing to sneeze at," he tweeted, "and my sense is this fight is just going to grow!"
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular