50% of FS, BLM $ Lawsuits

[Wildman]

As some of you may know, in my opinion, a lack of public land management has significantly contributed to many of the issues related to wildlife numbers on federal lands (mule deer in particular).

I just thought I would put this out there. Do you know that 50% of both the Forest Service's and BLM's budgets are spent on litigating lawsuits- mostly from environmentalist extremist activist groups.

Just image how many riparian areas could be fenced, water sources improved and range improvement projects accomplished with 50% of these agencies' budgets that are being wasted on lawsuits.

Just a thought.

 

[BrowningRage]

If the number is anywhere near 50%, that is appauling...

"Therefore, wo be unto him that is at ease in Zion!" 2 Ne. 28: 24

 

[DW]

All part of the master plan to collapse the system on itself!

 

[littlebighorn]

So if your figures are true, shouldn't wildlife organizations be making that a media issue and get it out to the public that these law suits are wasting taxpayer dollars?
I am very interested to know where your information came from. What source?

 

[BigFin]

Not a chance it is 50% of their budgets. Not even close. Got a citation for that statistic?

That said, if the Equal Access to Justice Act, or as I call it, the Environmental Organization Welfare Annuity Act, could get reformed, these groups would have no economic benefit from all these lawsuits. Once that changes, these groups would have to fund their lawsuits with their own money, not taxpayer money. Then, things would change in a hurry.

Hunters would be well served to learn how the EAJA is being abused by these groups and used as a profit center. Boone and Crockett Club has been a leader in getting this information out there.

Guarantee your blood pressure will rise when you see how they are scamming the system.

But, nowhere near 50% of those agency budgets are related to lawsuits.



"Hunt when you can - You're gonna' run out of health before you run out of money!"

 

[huntin50]

I know about 10 years ago sportsmen groups were going to make a guzzler in a wilderness desert area that would benifit Sheep, mule deer, chuckers,antelope, etc and they were threatened with a lawsuit, becuase it wasn't a natural water source. Do these groups really care about the environment and wildlife. Southern wilderness alliance, and other environmental groups, that stop such projects are certinally not friends to wildlife.

 

[DW]

>I know about 10 years ago
>sportsmen groups were going to
>make a guzzler in a
>wilderness desert area that would
>benifit Sheep, mule deer, chuckers,antelope,
>etc and they were threatened
>with a lawsuit, becuase it
>wasn't a natural water source.
> Do these groups really
>care about the environment and
>wildlife. Southern wilderness alliance,
>and other environmental groups, that
>stop such projects are certinally
>not friends to wildlife.

50 their ultimate goal is to completely lock up all lands and eliminate people all together! That is their desire to let the earth go back to "normal" b4 we arrived! Their wackadoes!

 

[hank4elk]

51% goes to fight fires. Caused by poor FS work and greenie lawsuits.
The lawsuits are costly in time and $ to fight.Nothing gets done.
That is greenie agenda along with no access.
The Gov. should just counter sue for frivolis lawsuit and fill the coffers to do some projects and maint.

 

[DeerHunter1953]

They are doing this in California with gusto, they have figured out how to get to us hunters by using our own money against us.
Their object is to use wolves, mountain lions, grizzly bears all to control the wildlife so they don't need hunters.
Something has to change, I guess they would rather see a mountain lion or grizzly bear instead of elk, deer etc.

 

[Wildman]

littlebighorn,

"So if your figures are true, shouldn't wildlife organizations be making that a media issue and get it out to the public that these law suits are wasting taxpayer dollars?"

I was thinking the same thing.

BigFin and hank4elk,

"Not a chance it is 50% of their budgets."

"51% goes to fight fires. Caused by poor FS work and greenie lawsuits."

Although I respect your right to your opinion, the 50% figure was not just pulled out of thin air and did not include fighting fires.

Anyone from one of the agencies care to dispute the 50% figure?

 

[Wildman]

LAST EDITED ON Aug-27-14 AT 03:13PM (MST)[p]"If the number is anywhere near 50%, that is appauling... "

I agree.

 

[grizzly]

The direct costs of litigation are the fee payments that
the Forest Service makes under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA).
The Forest Service paid EAJA fees in the amount of $565,000 in FY 2012,
$1,472,000 in FY 2011, and $113,000 in FY 2010. In FY 2012 the EAJA
fees paid were less than 0.036 percent of National Forest System (NFS)
total discretionary appropriations (EAJA can be paid by any Forest
Service budget line item) and did not have an appreciable effect on
program funding for the agency as a whole. Individual units of the NFS,
however, may experience significant funding impacts from specific
court-ordered EAJA awards. Similarly in FY 2011, EAJA fees paid were
less than 0.01 percent of NFS appropriations and did not have an
appreciable effect on nation-wide program funding. Refer to the EAJA
Special Exhibit, pp.14-34 to 14-37 in the FY 2014 Budget Justification
for a detailed listing of these cases.
Indirect costs associated with litigation, such as staff time spent
responding to litigation and the cost of project delays due to
litigation, are not tracked within the Forest Service. Our accounting
system does not allow for an easy or efficient way of keeping indirect
litigation cost information separate from other expenses associated
with a project's development, such as the project's initial design,
analysis under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and
project implementation. Costs, including staff time and resources
associated with litigation, are charged to the appropriation that funds
a project (e.g., vegetation management, wildlife habitat improvement,
recreation management), as are other costs associated with its
implementation.

Source...http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-113shrg81299/html/CHRG-113shrg81299.htm


Grizzly

 

[grizzly]

The simple solution to all frivolous lawsuits is:

All plaintiffs must declare damages they are seeking, both punitive and compensatory, at the time of initial filing. All plaintiffs must then bond an amount equal to 50% of that claim. If the lawsuit has merit, there are plenty of law firms that will post the bond... if not, the lawsuit never gets filed. Also, if the defendant prevails in the lawsuit the money is awarded to the defendant to cover attorney's fees and damages.

Done Deal.

Grizzly

 

[mtnrunner260]

BigFin,
Thank you for the post. Your points are valid and true.
I also hope that the Equal Justice act will be changed.

If anyone has a chance of spending 50% of their budget on hippie lawsuits it would be the Federal Fish and Wildlife Service who manages the ESA.

 

[Wildman]

LAST EDITED ON Aug-28-14 AT 09:26AM (MST)[p]LAST EDITED ON Aug-28-14 AT 09:17?AM (MST)

Grizzly,

I honestly appreciate your input, but your post could easily be summarized in one sentence. "Other than the $0.5-1.5 million per year the F.S. pays in EAJA fees, we really don't have a clue how much litigation is costing us."

As I understand it, that is not the case.

 

[grizzly]

LAST EDITED ON Aug-28-14 AT 11:29AM (MST)[p]>Grizzly,
>
>I honestly appreciate your input, but
>your post could easily be
>summarized in one sentence.
>"Other than the $0.5-1.5 million
>per year the F.S. pays
>in EAJA fees, we really
>don't have a clue how
>much litigation is costing us."
>
>
>As I understand it, that is
>not the case.

Wildman, Stopping the public funding of these groups is paramount for both financial and management reasons. People had asked for actual numbers and I quickly found that page from a Google Search and thought I'd post the relevant quote from it. I agree it does not give a true picture of the litigation cost but think it is clear it is not a full 50%.

I 100% agree with the principle behind your original post.

Grizzly

 

[TMas]

Wouldn't surprise me. The U.S. Sheep Research Station up in Dubois Idaho has been ridden with lawsuits from environmental activist for years because the allotments where they summer range their sheep are in habitat that Grizzlies have inhabited since moving out of Yellowstone. After all these years of fighting (but winning) the lawsuits, they are getting shut down due to lack of funding...the Environmentalist never have to win a single lawsuit to beat us guys, they just have to have have money once we have run out.

 

[Wildman]

Grizzly,

"Stopping the public funding of these groups is paramount for both financial and management reasons."

"I 100% agree with the principle behind your original post."

No doubt these resources would be doing a lot more good on the ground.

"People had asked for actual numbers and I quickly found that page from a Google Search and thought I'd post the relevant quote from it. I agree it does not give a true picture of the litigation cost but think it is clear it is not a full 50%"

It is somewhat mind boggling to think about, but it is far from clear that it is not 50%. As I mentioned earlier, the 50% figure was not just pulled out of thin air.

 

[Wildman]

LAST EDITED ON Aug-28-14 AT 07:03PM (MST)[p]Grizzly,

To avoid further confusion, I will clarify my original statement to make my intent more specific.

When I say 50% of the Forest Service's and BLM's budgets are spent on litigation, I was inferring that there are Forests and BLM Field Offices that are spending 50% of their budgets on litigation.

Hopefully, that clears things up a bit, but the underlying point is still the same. The money would be a lot better spent on the ground.

 

[grizzly]

Wildman, gotcha.

Grizzly