![]() During the last two days of the hunt, approximately 1,000 of the same type vehicles would be in the southern portion of Conservation Area 3A. The four-day hunt, supervised and controlled by the Florida Game and Freshwater Fish-Commission, would bring into the northern section of Conservation Area 3A approximaterly 300 airboats and half-tracks (specially outfitted motor vehicles for travel in swamp or marsh area) containing hunters during the first two days of the hunt. 3A is a part of the South Florida Water Conservation District and is state-owned and regulated.) Because of a high water level, a deer herd had become trapped in relatively small areas of high ground in Conservation Area 3A, with limited food resources.ĭefendant, Florida Game and Freshwater Fish Commission, proposed the hunt to eliminate what they perceived as serious overcrowding which they predicted would result in starvation of the entire deer population, and other related problems. Plaintiffs were seeking to prevent a deer hunt planned to take place over a period of four days in an area of the South Florida Everglades known as Florida State Conservation Area 3A, in Dade and Broward Counties, Florida. On July 15, 1982, and July 17, 1982, this Court held hearings and took testimony regarding these matters. This cause was before this Court based upon motions for a temporary restraining order, both preliminary and permanent injunctions, and declaratory relief. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DISSOLVING TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND DENYING MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION Flagler St., Miami Fl 33130Ģ911 Grand Ave., Suite 4A, Coconut Grove FL 33133 It rules that plaintiffs have failed to establish (1) a substantial likelihood of success on the merits, (2) that they will suffer irreparable injury, (3) that the threatened injury to plaintiffs outweighs the threatened harm to defendants, and (4) that injunctive relief is in the public interest.ĩ33 City Nat'l Bank Bldg., 25 W. The court denies plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction. ![]() After noting that the conservation area is a public hunting area where airboats and other all-terrain vehicles are allowed, the court concludes that the four extra days' use of such vehicles would neither significantly distrupt normal behavior patterns of any endangered species nor significantly degrade their habitat. The court, assuming that other endangered species exist in Conservation Area 3A, holds that the proposed hunt would not constitute a taking of an endangered species. They are not listed as an endangered species and the court rules that to be considered part of the same species as the endangered Key deer under § 3(16) of the ESA, the two types of deer would have to interbreed in fact, which is rendered impossible by the Key deer's island habitat. It finds that the Florida white-tail deer, the deer to be hunted, are not entitled to the protection of the ESA. However, the court determines that plaintiffs have standing under the citizen suit provisions of the ESA and that it has jurisdiction under the Act. In addition, it rules thatthe Migratory Bird Treaty Act, the Migratory Bird Conservation Act, the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act are inapplicable. Initially, the court rules that neither the National Environmental Policy Act nor the Administrative Procedure Act is applicable because the proposed hunt has no federal involvement. The court denies preliminary injunctive relief under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and other environmental statutes against the Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission's proposed four-day deer hunt to alleviate overcrowding in Florida State Conservation Area 3A. ![]() ![]() Florida Game & Fresh Water Fish CommissionNo. Florida Game & Fresh Water Fish CommissionĨ | Environmental Law Reporter | copyright © 1983 | All rights reservedįund for Animals, Inc.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |