https://biologicaldiversity.or...otection-2023-02-13/


For Immediate Release, February 13, 2023

Contact:

Tanya Sanerib, Center for Biological Diversity, (206) 379-7363, tsanerib@biologicaldiversity.org
Rodi Rosensweig, The Humane Society of the United States/Humane Society International, (202) 809-8711, RRosensweig@humanesociety.org

Imperiled Leopards One Step Closer to Increased Endangered Species Act Protection

U.S. Government Agrees to Decision Deadline

WASHINGTON— In response to a lawsuit by animal protection and conservation groups, today the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service finally agreed to a June 2027 deadline to determine if leopards warrant increased protection under the Endangered Species Act. Increased safeguards would ensure closer scrutiny of African leopard trophy imports and help boost funding to counter suspected population declines.

Humane Society International, the Humane Society of the United States and the Center for Biological Diversity filed a petition in July 2016 requesting additional protections for leopards. The groups sued in November 2021 after the Fish and Wildlife Service missed its legal deadline for responding to the petition and failed to even set a timeline for its response. As part of the settlement, the Service agreed to the new, binding deadline.

“The leopard is being driven to extinction by so many human-induced threats already, and U.S. hunters who kill these magnificent animals only to satiate their selfish desire for macabre trophies to display in their homes or to take selfies with their kills are only exacerbating their decline,” said Sarah Veatch, wildlife policy director for Humane Society International. “It is critical that this iconic species receives the full Endangered Species Act protections they so desperately need before it is too late.”

Wild populations of African leopards are thought to be declining because of habitat loss and fragmentation, human persecution, illegal wildlife trade, ceremonial use of skins, prey decline and poorly managed trophy hunting. The U.S. is the world’s biggest importer of African leopard hunting trophies. Between 2014 and 2018, U.S. hunters imported trophies of 1,640 leopards, more than half of those globally traded.

The leopard is legally protected as a threatened species under the U.S. Endangered Species Act, but the animals are currently exempt from the Act’s strictest limitations on trophy imports. The lax existing provisions facilitate the outsized role the U.S. plays in driving trophy hunting of the species.

“The government left imperiled leopards to languish in legal limbo, but now we’re hoping for decisive action to protect these beautiful animals,” said Tanya Sanerib, international legal director at the Center for Biological Diversity. “These iconic big cats are tanking. While we have the legal tools to help them, the government hasn’t acted. With the extinction crisis looming larger than life, we need proactive wildlife protection from the Biden administration to save life on Earth.”

The heightened protections sought in the petition would ensure closer scrutiny of African leopard trophy imports, making it more difficult to import them into the country.

Background

The International Union for Conservation of Nature classifies the leopard as “vulnerable,” meaning it is facing a high risk of extinction in the wild. According to IUCN, by 2015 the sub-Saharan African leopard population had likely declined by more than 30% over the prior 22 years, and that population is continuing to decline. Leopards are threatened by habitat loss and fragmentation, human persecution, illegal wildlife trade, ceremonial use of skins, prey base declines and poorly managed trophy hunting.

Leopard populations in Asia and northern Africa are listed as “endangered” under the Endangered Species Act. However, leopards in 18 countries in sub-Saharan Africa are listed as “threatened” under the law, and those leopards are not entitled to the Act’s full range of protections.

While leopards receive the strictest protections under the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species, unscientific leopard export quotas and lax application of CITES import and export requirements have allowed for a poorly regulated and unsustainable trophy industry that is fueled in large part by U.S. hunters.

https://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws...lement_Agreement.pdf

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
HUMANE SOCIETY INTERNATIONAL, et
al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
DEBRA HAALAND, in her official capacity
as Secretary of the Interior, et al.,
Defendants.

Case No. 1:21-cv-02945-CKK
STIPULATED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

This Stipulated Settlement Agreement (“Agreement”) is entered into by and between
Plaintiffs Humane Society International, the Humane Society of the United States, and the Center
forBiological Diversity (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) and Defendantsthe United States Fish and
Wildlife Service (“Service”) and Debra Haaland, in her official capacity as Secretary of the
United States Department of the Interior (“Interior”) (collectively, “Defendants”), who, by and
through their undersigned counsel, state as follows:
WHEREAS, the Endangered Species Act (“ESA”), 16 U.S.C. § 1531 et seq., provides
that within 12 months after receiving a petition that is found to present substantial information
indicating the petitioned action may be warranted, the Secretary shall make a finding as to
whether the petitioned action is not warranted, warranted but precluded, or warranted (“12-
month finding”), 16 U.S.C. § 1533(b)(3)(B);
WHEREAS, the ESA provides that, if the Secretary finds that the petitioned action is
warranted, she “shall promptly publish in the Federal Register a general notice and the complete
text of a proposed regulation to implement” the petitioned action and take other steps, including
publishing a final listing determination pursuant to certain deadlines, 16 U.S.C. §§
1533(b)(3)(B)(ii), (b)(4)–(6);
Case 1:21-cv-02945-CKK Document 23 Filed 02/13/23 Page 1 of 7
2
WHEREAS, the ESA provides that, if the Secretary finds that the petitioned action is not
warranted or warranted but precluded, then that finding is subject to judicial review, 16 U.S.C. §
1533(b)(3)(C)(ii);
WHEREAS, when the Service makes a warranted-but-precluded finding on a petition, the
ESA requires the Service to treat the petition as one that is resubmitted as of the date of the
finding and that presents substantial scientific or commercial information that the petitioned
action may be warranted, 16 U.S.C. § 1533(b)(3)(C)(i);
WHEREAS the leopard (Panthera pardus) is currently listed under the ESA as an
endangered species wherever found, except the population in southern Africa that is currently
listed as a threatened species, 50 C.F.R. § 17.11(h);
WHEREAS, on July 25, 2016, Plaintiffs submitted a petition requesting under the ESA
that the Service reclassify the leopard to an endangered species throughout all of the species’
current range, and a petition requesting under the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”) that the
Service require ESA permits for the import of threatened leopard hunting trophies by rescinding
the rule promulgated under Section 4(d) of the ESA that allows, under certain circumstances, for
the importation of leopard hunting trophies from the threatened population in southern Africa
without an ESA permit, 50 C.F.R. §17.40(f) (“4(d) rule petition”);
WHEREAS, in accordance with 16 U.S.C. § 1533(b)(3)(A), the Service issued a “90-day
finding” in response to Plaintiffs’ petition to reclassify the leopard, in which the Service
concluded that the petition presented substantial information indicating that the reclassification
of the leopard as endangered “may be warranted,” see 81 Fed. Reg. 86,315-86,318 (November
30, 2016); see also 82 Fed. Reg. 60,362, 60,365 (Dec. 20, 2017) (correcting errors in prior
notice);
WHEREAS, on October 28, 2020, Plaintiffs notified Defendants by letter of their intent
to file suit to compel the Service to complete a 12-month finding on the petition to reclassify the
leopard pursuant to 16 U.S.C. § 1533(b)(3)(B), and to substantively respond to Plaintiffs’ 4(d)
rule petition;
Case 1:21-cv-02945-CKK Document 23 Filed 02/13/23 Page 2 of 7
3
WHEREAS, on December 18, 2020, the Service responded to Plaintiffs’ October 28,
2020, letter, and provided an update regarding the agency’s prioritization of its existing backlog
of listing petitions for foreign species including the leopard;
WHEREAS, on November 9, 2021, Plaintiffs filed a complaint in the above-captioned
action to compel the Service to complete a 12-month finding on the petition to reclassify the
leopard, and to substantively respond to Plaintiffs’ 4(d) rule petition by dates certain, see ECF
No. 1 (“Complaint”);
WHEREAS, the Service intends to endeavor to meet the obligations of Paragraph 1 of
this settlement agreement before June 30, 2027, should resources become available to do so;
WHEREAS, if a proposed rule is submitted to the Office of the Federal Register in
accordance with Paragraph 1, the Service intends to make a final listing determination in
accordance with the statutory timeframes provided in 16 U.S.C. § 1533(b)(6)(A)–(B);
WHEREAS, Plaintiffs and Defendants (collectively, “the parties”), by and through their
authorized representatives, and without any admission or final adjudication of the issues of fact
or law with respect to Plaintiffs’ claims, have negotiated a settlement that they consider to be in
the public interest and a just, fair, adequate, and equitable resolution of the disputes set forth in
Plaintiffs’ Complaint;
NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereby stipulate and agree as follows:
1. On or before June 30, 2027, the Service shall review the status of the leopard and
submit to the Office of the Federal Register a 12-month finding as to whether the reclassification
of the species as endangered throughout its range is (a) not warranted; (b) warranted; or (c)
warranted but precluded by other pending proposals, pursuant to 16 U.S.C. § 1533(b)(3)(B);
2. On or before June 30, 2027, the Service shall substantively respond to Plaintiffs’
petition to require ESA permits for the import of threatened leopard hunting trophies by
rescinding the 4(d) rule that currently allows the importation of leopard hunting trophies from the
threatened population in southern Africa without an ESA permit;
3. The order entering this Agreement may be modified by the Court upon good
Case 1:21-cv-02945-CKK Document 23 Filed 02/13/23 Page 3 of 7
4
cause shown, consistent with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, by written stipulation
between the parties filed with and approved by the Court, or upon written motion filed by one of
the parties and granted by the Court. In the event that either party seeks to modify the terms of
this Agreement, including the deadlines specified in Paragraphs 1 and 2, or in the event of a
dispute arising out of or relating to this Agreement, or in the event that either party believes that
the other party has failed to comply with any term or condition of this Agreement, the party
seeking the modification, raising the dispute, or seeking enforcement shall provide the other
party with notice of the claim or modification. The parties agree that they will meet and confer
(either telephonically or in person) at the earliest possible time in a good-faith effort to resolve
the claim before seeking relief from the Court. If the parties are unable to resolve the claim
themselves, either party may seek relief from the Court.
4. In the event that Defendants fail to meet either deadline specified in Paragraphs 1
or 2 and have not sought to modify it, Plaintiffs’ first remedy shall be a motion to enforce the
terms of this Agreement, after following the dispute resolution procedures described above. This
Agreement shall not, in the first instance, be enforceable through a proceeding for contempt of
court.
5. This Agreement requires only that the Service take the actions specified in
Paragraphs 1, 2, and 6. No provision of this Agreement shall be interpreted as, or constitute, a
commitment or requirement that Defendants take action in contravention of the ESA, the APA,
or any other law or regulation, either substantive or procedural. Nothing in this Agreement shall
be construed to limit or modify the discretion accorded to the Service by the ESA, the APA, or
general principles of administrative law with respect to the procedures to be followed in making
any determination required herein, or as to the substance of any determinations made pursuant to
Paragraphs 1 and 2. To challenge any final determinations issued pursuant to Paragraph 1 or 2,
Plaintiffs will be required to file a separate action. Defendants reserve the right to raise any
applicable claims or defenses to such challenges.
6. Without waiving any defenses or making any admissions, Defendants agree to
Case 1:21-cv-02945-CKK Document 23 Filed 02/13/23 Page 4 of 7
5
pay Plaintiffs $30,323.19 in attorneys’ fees and costs. Plaintiffs agree that all $30,323.19 will be
received by the Humane Society of the United States. Plaintiffs agree to accept the $30,323.19
from Defendants in full satisfaction of any and all claims, demands, rights, and causes of action
for any and all attorneys’ fees and costs Plaintiffs reasonably incurred in connection with the
above-captioned litigation through the signing of this Agreement.
7. The Humane Society of the United States agrees to furnish Defendants with the
information necessary to effectuate the payment set forth by Paragraph 6. Payment will be made
to the Humane Society of the United States by electronic funds transfer. Defendants agree to
submit all necessary paperwork for the processing of the attorneys’ fees award within fifteen (15)
days from receipt of the necessary information from the Humane Society of the United States or
from approval of this Agreement by the Court, whichever is later.
8. By this agreement and following the Humane Society of the United States’ receipt
of the payment specified in Paragraph 6, Plaintiffs Humane Society International and the Center
for Biological Diversity waive and agree to forgo any claim for attorneys’ fees and costs incurred
in connection with the above-captioned litigation through the signing of this Agreement.
9. By this agreement, Defendants do not waive any right to contest fees and costs
claimed by Plaintiffs or Plaintiffs’ counsel in any future litigation or continuation of the present
action.
10. No part of this Agreement shall have precedential value in any litigation or in
representations before any court or forum or in any public setting. No party shall use this
Agreement or the terms herein as evidence of what does or does not constitute a reasonable
timeline for making determinations regarding the listing of any species under the ESA or acting
on petitions for rulemaking under the APA for any species.
11. Nothing in this Agreement shall be construed or offered as evidence in any
proceeding as an admission or concession of any wrongdoing, liability, or any issue of fact or
law concerning the claims settled under this Agreement or any similar claims brought in the
future by any other party. Except as expressly provided in this Agreement, the parties do not
Case 1:21-cv-02945-CKK Document 23 Filed 02/13/23 Page 5 of 7
6
waive or relinquish any legal rights, claims, or defenses they may have. This Agreement is
executed for the purpose of settling Plaintiffs’ Complaint, and nothing herein shall be construed
as precedent having preclusive effect in any other context.
12. Nothing in this Agreement shall be interpreted as, or shall constitute, a
requirement that Defendants are obligated to pay any funds exceeding those available, or take
any action in contravention of the Anti-Deficiency Act, 31 U.S.C. § 1341, or any other
applicable appropriations law.
13. The parties agree that this Agreement was negotiated in good faith and it
constitutes a settlement of claims disputed by the parties. By entering into this Agreement, the
parties do not waive any legal rights, claims, or defenses, except as expressly stated herein. This
Agreement contains all of the terms of agreement between the parties concerning Plaintiffs’
Complaint, and is intended to be the final and sole agreement between the parties with respect
thereto. The parties agree that any prior or contemporaneous representations or understanding
not explicitly contained in this written Agreement, whether written or oral, are of no further legal
or equitable force or effect.
14. The undersigned representatives of each party certify that they are fully
authorized by the party or parties they represent to agree to the terms and conditions of this
Agreement and do hereby agree to the terms herein. Further, each party, by and through its
undersigned representative, represents and warrants that it has the legal power and authority to
enter into this Agreement and bind itself to the terms and conditions contained in this
Agreement.
15. The terms of this Agreement shall become effective upon entry of an order by the
Court ratifying the Agreement.
16. Upon adoption of this Agreement by the Court, all counts of Plaintiffs’ Complaint
shall be dismissed with prejudice. Notwithstanding the dismissal of this action, however, the
parties hereby stipulate and respectfully request that the Court retain jurisdiction to oversee
compliance with the terms of this Agreement and to resolve any motions to modify such terms.
Case 1:21-cv-02945-CKK Document 23 Filed 02/13/23 Page 6 of 7
7
See Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375 (1994).
Dated: February 13, 2023 Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Margaret Robinson
MARGARET ROBINSON
(DC Bar No. 241415)
The Humane Society of the United States
1255 23rd Street, NW, Suite 450
Washington, DC 20037
Tel: (434) 260-4871
E-mail: mrobinson@humanesociety.org
/s/ Tanya M. Sanerib
TANYA M. SANERIB
(DC Bar No. 473506)
Center for Biological Diversity
1037 NE 65th Street, #128
Seattle, WA 98115
Tel: (206) 379-7363
E-mail: tsanerib@biologicaldiversity.org
/s/ Sarah Uhlemann
SARAH UHLEMANN
(DC Bar No. 501328)
Center for Biological Diversity
1037 NE 65th Street, #128
Seattle, WA 98115
Tel: (206) 327-2344
E-mail: suhlemann@biologicaldiversity.org
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
TODD KIM
Assistant Attorney General
S. JAY GOVINDAN
Section Chief
MEREDITH L. FLAX
Assistant Section Chief
/s/ Christian Carrara
CHRISTIAN H. CARRARA
Trial Attorney
(NJ Bar No. 317732020)
United States Department of Justice
Environment & Natural Resources Division
Wildlife & Marine Resources Section
Benjamin Franklin Station, P.O. Box 7611
Washington, DC 20044-7611
Tel: (202) 305-0217
Fax: (202) 305-0275
E-mail: christian.carrara@usdoj.gov
Attorney

What a crock of shit…

quote:

Originally posted by jdollar:
What a crock of shit…

Exactly!! Totally a crock of shit!!

+1

Stupid, ignorant idiots on a feel good trip!

They know absolutely NOTHING about conservation.

No but they have money and an agenda and their feels.

And that is all it takes.

As far as hunting goes I’m glad I’m in Canada so far I’ve got a Cheetah and a Black Faced Impala that can’t be imported into the USA. Doing a Leopard hunt this year.

So sad to see this nonsense! I’m booked for leopard next year in Mozambique and that’s starting to look like a very good decision!

As the old adage goes: The squeaky wheel gets the grease. We don't fight enough or squeak enough. Thankfully we do have at least one organization that's doing some fight for our rights-SCI's Legal Advocacy and Federal Affairs Team of Lawyers in Washington, D.C. I am sure that this is already on their legal radar and let's hope that they gear up for it. They do carry a fairly potent legal punch and have benefitted hunters and hunting issues, both nationally and internationally, for many, many years. I do wish that DSC had a similar legal team to do the same. If they do, I've never been aware of it. Someone correct me if I'm mistaken.

quote:

“The leopard is being driven to extinction by so many human-induced threats already, and U.S. hunters who kill these magnificent animals only to satiate their selfish desire for macabre trophies to display in their homes or to take selfies with their kills are only exacerbating their decline,” said Sarah Veatch, wildlife policy director for Humane Society International. “It is critical that this iconic species receives the full Endangered Species Act protections they so desperately need before it is too late.”

This statement should tell you everything you need to know about this person. Anyone using language like this, which is obviously overly emotional and anthropomorphic, should have absolutely NO INFLUENCE on wildlife policy whatsoever.

The inmates continue to run the asylum...

The hunting investment in Markhor has literally saved and encouraged important populations of snow Leopard