Wilderness groups sue U.S. Forest Service over plan to use helicopter

Ravalli Republic ^ | June 28, 2012 | PERRY BACKUS

[george76]

Two wilderness groups have sued the U.S. Forest Service over its decision to allow an irrigation company to use a helicopter to fly in materials needed to repair a dam in the Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness.

Wilderness Watch and Friends of the Clearwater filed suit in U.S. District Judge Donald Molloy’s court in Missoula last week.

The groups say the agency’s decision to allow the irrigation company up to two helicopter flights to the Fred Burr Dam site violates the Wilderness Act and other environmental laws.

The irrigation company wants to replace a deteriorating catwalk and log boom on the nearly century-old dam... The project has been officially in the works since September 2010

...

The groups asked Molloy ... to be awarded their costs and reasonable attorney fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act.

[Old Forester]

“Smokey says, “Don’t throw your smoldering roaches on the ground unless they are dead out!””

:) Many years ago when I was on a fire crew, they gave us a class on finding the origin of a fire. A couple of days later we were called to a fire in a campground. It was just kind of creeping around so I used my newly acquired skills to trace the fire back to it’s start - a discarded roach in the duff...

[Cvengr]

There are ulterior occultic reasons for the “Wilderness Area” designations.

[newzjunkey]

it's the Acts that allow for suing and getting awarded attorney's fees that creates the problem. If they had to spend their own money to sue, there would be far fewer lawsuits.

Only those who could afford justice deserve justice?

[samtheman]

This isn’t justice. Explain how this has anything to do with justice.

[PapaBear3625]

Only those who could afford justice deserve justice?

What we have instead is a legal industry that goes around looking for excuses to sue.

[pierrem15]

No, I'm not one of them-- I simply mean that pursuing these matters using elections when the media, the judiciary and much of the government all have their left thumbs weighing heavily on the scale of pubic opinion is becoming a fool's errand.

You seem to think these problems can be fixed using the normal political process, while I don't. That's all.

[pallis]

My comment that you are one of the ones supporting these environmental groups that are suing us wasn’t meant as a criticism. We, as tax payers, are the people who support these nonprofit groups. We are the people funding them. At any rate, my argument isn’t with you, and I’m glad you know what I think will work, because I still haven’t figured it out.

[pierrem15]

Sorry, I misunderstood your reply. You are quite right about the taxpayer funding-- the EPA is deliberately suggesting areas where the US government can be sued so that environmental groups cash in on the lawsuit. Of course, some of that cash will also be kicked back to the Democratic party by the lawyers involved.

There's also a separation of powers issue where something like 40% of the interior department's budget is court supervised: the Constitution grants administrative power to the Executive, not the Courts. If a law is so vaguely worded that it cannot be administered without the constant intervention of the courts, then it is unconstitutional.

Even if the Republicans win big in November, I doubt any of the unprincipled bastards will do one whit to address these problems.

[Harmless Teddy Bear]

Only those who could afford justice deserve justice?

Two points:
1) An Attorney will take a case with little upfront when they know they will receive part of the settlement.
2) They will only take cases where they have a good chance of winning.

So if you have a case they will take your case, but since they know there is little chance of collecting if they don't win they will not take cases that are moonshine.