[env-trinity] [EXTERNAL] Supreme Court limits Endangered Species Act: Habitat must contain endangered species

[Glase, Jay]

huh, as usual, I'm confused. I see these two lines that seem to contradict
each other.

*Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. said the “critical habitat” of an
endangered species “must also be a habitat” now.*


*"But in the end, they agreed with the chief justice that the law’s
reference to protecting “critical habitat” was best understood as referring
to places where an endangered animal could currently live.*

What does "could currently live" mean? Might they be there because it's
good habitat, might they be there based on previous surveys but we don't
see them right now, might they be there now and then?
And most importantly, if I can manage to extirpate a living thing from an
area, can I then not worry that this area might be critical habitat when
someone tries to recover that species?

I've only read the article in this post, so is this the supreme court or
the journalist writing the article causing my confusion.  Or maybe I'm not
really all that confused but just pretending to be.  I'm sure someone will
let me know.

cheers to all you critical habitat enthusiasts

On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 10:02 AM Tom Stokely <tstokely at att.net> wrote:

>
> https://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-court-endangered-20181127-story.html
> Supreme Court limits Endangered Species Act: Habitat must contain
> endangered species
> By DAVID G. SAVAGE
> <https://www.latimes.com/la-bio-david-savage-staff.html#nt=byline>
> NOV 27, 2018 | 7:35 AM
> | WASHINGTON
>
> <?subject=Supreme%20Court%20limits%20Endangered%20Species%20Act%3A%20Habitat%20must%20contain%20endangered%20species&body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.latimes.com%2Fpolitics%2Fla-na-pol-court-endangered-20181127-story.html>
> A guard stands outside the U.S. Supreme Court in Washington, DC. (Mark
> Wilson / Getty Images)
> The Supreme Court in a unanimous decision on Tuesday limited the reach of
> the Endangered Species Act, ruling that the government can designate a
> protected “habitat” only in areas where a threatened animal now lives.
>
> The justices set aside a ruling that restricted development in a wooded
> area in Louisiana where an endangered frog could live. But in fact, the
> roughly 100 remaining dusky gopher frogs live only in a wooded area nearby
> in Mississippi.
>
>
> Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. said the “critical habitat” of an
> endangered species “must also be a habitat” now.
>
> The ruling is a victory for Weyerhaeuser and other development companies
> that challenged the broad habitat protections imposed by the U.S. Fish and
> Wildlife Service.
>
>

-- 

Jay Glase
Midwest Regional Fishery Biologist
National Park Service
2800 Lake Shore Drive East
Ashland, WI  54806

jay_glase at nps.gov
Phone 402-661-1512
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www2.dcn.org/pipermail/env-trinity/attachments/20181127/9b528bc0/attachment.html>