Endangered Species Feud Weighs on States’ Rights (Audio)

Federal attorneys say the law allows the agency to go around a state if necessary to say the species. The court fight is going on during uncertainty about the future of the Endangered Species Act. I've been talking with Charles Warren, head of the environmental practice at Cramer Levin Chuck tell us about the issue at the Tenth Circuit. Yeah. I think the first thing to know is that this is about the what they call a Mexican gray wolf, which is a species of gray wolf that's been on the

endangered list under the Endanger Species Act. There are very few of them left here in the United States, and um the FICTION Wildlife Service, which is in the Department of Interior has for a few the number of years now been reintroducing them back into various states, and they've had some success in some of the Great Lake States, not as not as well in Arizona and New Mexico.

And what they decided to do here was take captive Mexican great wolves and reintroduced them in New Mexico in certain areas, not not many, but but you know, a few. And of course the state took great umbrage at this because the ranchers and people in the states say, well, these are predators. They're going to start, you know, eating our livestock and so and you didn't consult with us, and this is a terrible idea. You didn't get a permit.

And the district court judge had said that's right, and he enjoined them, and so that's that's really what they were arguing about at the Circuit court, you know, yesterday, and he has the better side of the argument. Under the law, well, the Endangered Species Act gives the Department of Interior the chance to reintroduce species in order to help them come back once they've become endangered or threatened. And so this is a program that's certainly authorized under

the Act. But the Act, in one of the sections says they should consult with the states and comply with state permit requirements in connection with certain activities, except in instances where the Secretary of Interior determines that such compliance would prevent him from carrying out his statutory responsibilities. And one of those areas is carrying out research programs and involving the taking or possession of fish and wildlife, or

programs involving reintroduce reintroduction of fish and wildlife. So so the general idea is you're supposed to consult with the state and if they have perment requirements, and they do, and that's one of the things that they were saying to the judge. And they didn't get a permit, and and basically the Department of Interior said, look, we need they won't give us a permit, and we need this in order to carry it. We need to move forward in order to carry out our program to help save

this endangered species. And so I think it's a you know, it's and it's an interesting case. I think in the end, I think that the government has the better argument, because, um, the overall intent of the Endangered Species Act is to try and save endangers and threatened species, whether that's habitat protection or reintroduction of these species into areas where they once roamed. And I think that the you know, just

because the state doesn't like it. If if they're trying to throw up roadblocks to prevent it, and the Secretary of Interior thinks that that doesn't allow them to carry out the program, I think in the end, uh, the Court's going to side with the Secretary of Interior chucked. The Endangered Species Act was passed nearly unanimously in three to stop extinction of the symbol of our nation, the bald Eagle. Republicans are targeting it. How how important is

it and how likely is it that it will survive? Well, it's been a very important law, and it's been very important to protect habitat and to protect species. And it has been under attack for a lot of years since it passed in nineteen seventy three because often projects like big developments have been impacted and not not necessarily stopped, but maybe moved or truncated or things like that um

by the Endangered Species Act. And so it's been something that's that people have been against for a long time. I think there will be clearly an effort to do

something about it. I think though that the since it takes uh sixty votes in the United States Senate to break a filipbuster and you can still filipbuster legislation like this, I think that's it's likely that it won't get through the Senate because I think there are enough senators who support the Endangered Species Act that will end up blocking it.

So I mean, you never know, but I think that in the end, I don't think they'll be successful, and I think there'll be a lot of environmental and conservation people who are pushing very strongly. It's a very volatile type of thing and people really supported a lot and a lot of people oppose it, so I think it's it's going to be a big battle here. Again, we have another visual with with animals as opposed to two people. It's like we had to have the Sioux tribe out

in Denver. So it's it's really it's really going to be interesting. And uh, we appreciate your taking us through all these different environmental issues. Thanks so much. That's Chuck war and he's head of the environmental practice at Kramer Levin. Well, I want to that's it for this edition of Bloomberg Law. Thanks to our technical director Chris Trike Comey and our producer David Suckerman. Bloomberg Markets with Carol Master and Corey

Johnson is starting. Now, what do you have for us today? Carol? We have some great stuff coming up. We're gonna talk with the CEO of So Knows. It's a sound home sound system. Corey and I have it in our home, so we're talking about the direction for that company. Also giving a digital degree what that's all about. That's interesting. I have Stillness and I haven't hooked it up yet, So come on you. That's Bloomberg Markets, Carol Mazarin, Corey Johnson up next right here on Bloomberg Radio