Opinion
Civil Action No. 01-813 (GK)
October 30, 2003
MEMORANDUM OPINION
On July 31, 2003, the Court granted Intervenors' Motions for Summary Judgment and denied Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment, finding that Plaintiffs did not having standing because they had "failed to demonstrate that they will likely obtain redress from a favorable decision on the merits." Mem. Op. at 17. This matter is now before the Court on Plaintiffs' Motion for Reconsideration.
Plaintiffs have asked the Court to reconsider its conclusion that they lack standing based on their failure to meet the redressability requirement. However, their argument in the Motion for Reconsideration is basically no different than the argument they presented in their underlying Motion for Summary Judgment. The sole basis for their pending Motion is Plaintiffs' claim that it is likely that their injuries — based on harm to argali sheep — would be redressed if the Court were to issue "a ruling that imports [of argali sheep] must temporarily cease at least until [Mongolia, Tajikistan and Kyrgystan] can . . . develop sound argali conservation programs." Pls. Mot. for Reconsideration at 2.
Plaintiffs claim that if the United States stops issuing argali importation permits, these three countries will increase their conservation efforts in order to get the U.S. to re-issue these permits. However, Plaintiffs ignore the two primary pieces of evidence presented by Intervenors, which show that decreased injury to argali sheep and increased conservation efforts would be unlikely if issuance of U.S. importation permits were enjoined as requested by Plaintiffs.
First, when the United Stated previously prohibited argali importation from Tajikistan from 1993-1996, the killing of argali sheep actually increased. This result occurred because hunting permits were bought at lower prices by non-U.S. hunters. The diminished revenues from the sale of hunting permits led, in turn, to increased argali poaching due to local villagers returning to poaching to support their families after losing their hunting camp jobs, and decreased employment of the game guards who stop argali poaching. See Ex. 1 to Intervenors Safari Club International et al.'s Opp'n, Decl. of Robert Kern at 2 ("Kern Decl.").
Second, argali conservation efforts will likely decrease if U.S. importation permits are withdrawn because these countries do not have excess governmental funds for argali conservation. See Decl. No. 9 to FNAW International et al.'s Opp'n to Pls.' Mot. for Summary J., Decl. of Raymond Lee at 2 ("Lee Decl.") ("If hunting programs are eliminated, the funding available for wildlife conservation programs would also be eliminated. . . . The revenues from U.S. hunting interest is both indispensable and irreplaceable.").
Plaintiffs argue that the Intervenors' affidavits actually support Plaintiffs' claims that these three countries have a great financial incentive to develop conservation programs once issuance of U.S. argali importation permits stops. However, Plaintiffs fail to suggest how these countries would fund such conservation efforts in the absence of revenue generated by selling hunting permits to U.S. hunters. See Kern Decl. at 3 ("These [three] developing countries are unable . . . to adequately fund argali management programs without assistance," and "substantial revenues earned through the sale of argali permits [to high paying U.S. hunters] are the largest single source for argali conservation and management"); see also Lee Decl. at 2.
Regardless of the theoretical economic incentives that these three countries may have for taking steps to maintain the issuance of U.S. argali importation permits, Plaintiffs provide no firm facts to dispute Intervenors' claims that cessation of the U.S. importation permits would actually lead to increased injury to argali sheep and decreased conservation efforts. While Plaintiffs can only speculate that "a decision granting the relief they ask will both eliminate the source of the harm they fear and prevent the injury from occurring," Intervenors have presented factual evidence showing it highly unlikely that "diminution in demand [for argali sheep by United States citizens] would correlate directly to the diminution in harm to plaintiffs." Animal Protection Institute of America v. Mosbacher, 799 F. Supp. 173, 177 and n. 7 (D.D.C. 1992).
In sum, Plaintiffs have failed to "show that there is a substantial probability that, if the Court affords the relief requested, the injury will be removed." Animal Welfare Inst. v. Kreps, 561 F.2d 1002, 1009 (D.C. Cir. 1977) (internal quotations and citations omitted). The Court concludes that Plaintiffs still fail to fulfill the redressability requirement of standing because they cannot show that it is highly likely "that the injury [to argali sheep] will be redressed by a favorable decision." Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 561 (1992) (internal quotations and citations omitted).
Plaintiffs argue that their redressability and standing claims are supported by a new draft policy regarding issuance of permits for threatened and endangered foreign species recently issued by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. See 68 Fed. Reg. 49, 512 (Aug. 18, 2003). This ruling, concerning Plaintiffs' lack of standing under the facts of this case, has no applicability to the validity of this new draft policy.
Accordingly, upon consideration of the Motion, the Oppositions, and the Reply, and for the reasons stated above, Plaintiffs' Motion for Reconsideration is denied. An Order will issue with this Opinion.