Speaker 1: A scuffle in a broader battle over states rights and
Speaker 1: the Endangered Species Act took place at the ten Circuit
Speaker 1: Court of Appeals in Denver yesterday. The federal government asked
Speaker 1: the appeals court to overturn an order that bars the
Speaker 1: release of endangered gray wolves in New Mexico without the
Speaker 1: state's permission. New Mexico and eighteen other states argue the
Speaker 1: law requires the US Fish and Wildlife Service to cooperate
Speaker 1: with them on how to reintroduce endangered species within their states.
Speaker 1: Federal attorneys say the law allows the agency to go
Speaker 1: around a state if necessary to say the species. The
Speaker 1: court fight is going on during uncertainty about the future
Speaker 1: of the Endangered Species Act. I've been talking with Charles Warren,
Speaker 1: head of the environmental practice at Cramer Levin Chuck tell
Speaker 1: us about the issue at the Tenth Circuit. Yeah. I
Speaker 1: think the first thing to know is that this is
Speaker 1: about the what they call a Mexican gray wolf, which
Speaker 1: is a species of gray wolf that's been on the
Speaker 1: endangered list under the Endanger Species Act. There are very
Speaker 1: few of them left here in the United States, and
Speaker 1: um the FICTION Wildlife Service, which is in the Department
Speaker 1: of Interior has for a few the number of years
Speaker 1: now been reintroducing them back into various states, and they've
Speaker 1: had some success in some of the Great Lake States,
Speaker 1: not as not as well in Arizona and New Mexico.
Speaker 1: And what they decided to do here was take captive
Speaker 1: Mexican great wolves and reintroduced them in New Mexico in
Speaker 1: certain areas, not not many, but but you know, a few.
Speaker 1: And of course the state took great umbrage at this
Speaker 1: because the ranchers and people in the states say, well,
Speaker 1: these are predators. They're going to start, you know, eating
Speaker 1: our livestock and so and you didn't consult with us,
Speaker 1: and this is a terrible idea. You didn't get a permit.
Speaker 1: And the district court judge had said that's right, and
Speaker 1: he enjoined them, and so that's that's really what they
Speaker 1: were arguing about at the Circuit court, you know, yesterday,
Speaker 1: and he has the better side of the argument. Under
Speaker 1: the law, well, the Endangered Species Act gives the Department
Speaker 1: of Interior the chance to reintroduce species in order to
Speaker 1: help them come back once they've become endangered or threatened.
Speaker 1: And so this is a program that's certainly authorized under
Speaker 1: the Act. But the Act, in one of the sections
Speaker 1: says they should consult with the states and comply with
Speaker 1: state permit requirements in connection with certain activities, except in
Speaker 1: instances where the Secretary of Interior determines that such compliance
Speaker 1: would prevent him from carrying out his statutory responsibilities. And
Speaker 1: one of those areas is carrying out research programs and
Speaker 1: involving the taking or possession of fish and wildlife, or
Speaker 1: programs involving reintroduce reintroduction of fish and wildlife. So so
Speaker 1: the general idea is you're supposed to consult with the
Speaker 1: state and if they have perment requirements, and they do,
Speaker 1: and that's one of the things that they were saying
Speaker 1: to the judge. And they didn't get a permit, and
Speaker 1: and basically the Department of Interior said, look, we need
Speaker 1: they won't give us a permit, and we need this
Speaker 1: in order to carry it. We need to move forward
Speaker 1: in order to carry out our program to help save
Speaker 1: this endangered species. And so I think it's a you know,
Speaker 1: it's and it's an interesting case. I think in the end,
Speaker 1: I think that the government has the better argument, because, um,
Speaker 1: the overall intent of the Endangered Species Act is to
Speaker 1: try and save endangers and threatened species, whether that's habitat
Speaker 1: protection or reintroduction of these species into areas where they
Speaker 1: once roamed. And I think that the you know, just
Speaker 1: because the state doesn't like it. If if they're trying
Speaker 1: to throw up roadblocks to prevent it, and the Secretary
Speaker 1: of Interior thinks that that doesn't allow them to carry
Speaker 1: out the program, I think in the end, uh, the
Speaker 1: Court's going to side with the Secretary of Interior chucked.
Speaker 1: The Endangered Species Act was passed nearly unanimously in three
Speaker 1: to stop extinction of the symbol of our nation, the
Speaker 1: bald Eagle. Republicans are targeting it. How how important is
Speaker 1: it and how likely is it that it will survive? Well,
Speaker 1: it's been a very important law, and it's been very
Speaker 1: important to protect habitat and to protect species. And it
Speaker 1: has been under attack for a lot of years since
Speaker 1: it passed in nineteen seventy three because often projects like
Speaker 1: big developments have been impacted and not not necessarily stopped,
Speaker 1: but maybe moved or truncated or things like that um
Speaker 1: by the Endangered Species Act. And so it's been something
Speaker 1: that's that people have been against for a long time.
Speaker 1: I think there will be clearly an effort to do
Speaker 1: something about it. I think though that the since it
Speaker 1: takes uh sixty votes in the United States Senate to
Speaker 1: break a filipbuster and you can still filipbuster legislation like this,
Speaker 1: I think that's it's likely that it won't get through
Speaker 1: the Senate because I think there are enough senators who
Speaker 1: support the Endangered Species Act that will end up blocking it.
Speaker 1: So I mean, you never know, but I think that
Speaker 1: in the end, I don't think they'll be successful, and
Speaker 1: I think there'll be a lot of environmental and conservation
Speaker 1: people who are pushing very strongly. It's a very volatile
Speaker 1: type of thing and people really supported a lot and
Speaker 1: a lot of people oppose it, so I think it's
Speaker 1: it's going to be a big battle here. Again, we
Speaker 1: have another visual with with animals as opposed to two people.
Speaker 1: It's like we had to have the Sioux tribe out
Speaker 1: in Denver. So it's it's really it's really going to
Speaker 1: be interesting. And uh, we appreciate your taking us through
Speaker 1: all these different environmental issues. Thanks so much. That's Chuck
Speaker 1: war and he's head of the environmental practice at Kramer Levin. Well,
Speaker 1: I want to that's it for this edition of Bloomberg Law.
Speaker 1: Thanks to our technical director Chris Trike Comey and our
Speaker 1: producer David Suckerman. Bloomberg Markets with Carol Master and Corey
Speaker 1: Johnson is starting. Now, what do you have for us today? Carol?
Speaker 1: We have some great stuff coming up. We're gonna talk
Speaker 1: with the CEO of So Knows. It's a sound home
Speaker 1: sound system. Corey and I have it in our home,
Speaker 1: so we're talking about the direction for that company. Also
Speaker 1: giving a digital degree what that's all about. That's interesting.
Speaker 1: I have Stillness and I haven't hooked it up yet,
Speaker 1: So come on you. That's Bloomberg Markets, Carol Mazarin, Corey
Speaker 1: Johnson up next right here on Bloomberg Radio