NRA MOTION FORCES CBD TO BACK OFF FROM LEAD AMMO BAN IN ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT LAWSUIT

ON JUNE 4, 2010. POSTED IN LATEST NEWS, LEGAL NEWS

Phoenix, AZ — On Friday June 4, 2010, the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) filed court papers to revise its lawsuit against the U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (FWS) regarding BLM and FWS’ management of federal lands in northern Arizona (Center for Biological Diversity v. U.S. Bureau of Land Mgmt, et al., 3:09-cv-08011-PCT-PGR). CBD took this action after the National Rifle Association (NRA) filed court papers in opposition to legal claims brought by the CBD under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). CBD’s revised lawsuit drops the ESA claims that CBD was using as part of its strategy to obtain a ban on the use of lead ammunition for hunting.

In the original lawsuit, CBD’s claims were based in part on an incorrect belief that “any take of [California] condors from the use of lead ammunition would be a per se violation of the ESA [Endangered Species Act].” It contends that California condors in Arizona and elsewhere are becoming ill or dying as a result of eating lead in scavenged game that was shot by hunters with lead shot or bullets. Thousands of documents collected by NRA through public records act requests over the last year dispute that claim and the faulty science it is based on, and plainly show that California condors were reintroduced to Arizona based, in large part, on express promises by FWS and other agencies that the “reintroduction” would not impact hunting.

CBD’s retreat is a result of NRA intervening in the case. On April 28, 2010, NRA filed court papers detailing how a 1996 federal law protects hunting with lead ammunition in Arizona despite the California condor being “reintroduced” to Arizona that year. On May 18, 2010, the federal court in Phoenix granted NRA “full intervention” to contest the claims in CBD’s lawsuit that implicated hunting and condors. Ten days later, CBD dropped its condor-related claims brought under ESA, although several legal theories under the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) remain to try to ban the use of lead ammunition for hunting.

Because CBD has stated it “doesn’t make any apologies about” its “goal to ban lead ammunition[,]” the lead ammunition component of CBD’s lawsuit is likely to resurface in a different form or a different lawsuit. For now, though, NRA has been successful in getting CBD to back away from its most commonly used ESA-based claims attacking hunters using lead ammunition.

This lawsuit is just one example of NRA’s efforts to tirelessly work on behalf of hunters throughout the country. NRA will remain vigilant in fighting against CBD’s lead ban initiatives in this and other lawsuits, as well as in legislatures throughout the country.