Can the recent Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision help the miners?
But allege is no longer an acceptable reason to stop an activity. Under the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling this spring, there must be actual evidence that a species will be harmed before an injunction can be issued. In the Pacific Legal Foundations win for an Idaho rancher against enviro plaintiffs, real harm to a species must be shown before a court can issue an injunction that would result in serious economic harm. The Karuks lawsuit against the Forest Service left the miners out of the suit, but ultimately it will be the suction drudge miners that will be hurt. When a dredge miner receives a permit from the State of California Department of Fish and Game, the activities allowed have been environmentally analyzed and are accepted as not significant. According to the state codes, suction dredge mining is a low disturbance activity. The Forest Service then provides another permit, which allows the miner to place his equipment in the river for seasonal work. Suction dredging
Related Questions
- Why do you believe the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals is likely to rule in favor of the latest version of the Farmers Branch renters ordinance?
- Can KissMyTicket.com help me to avoid spending an awful lot on my Independence County Circuit Court Arkansas online driver improvement course?
- Didn’t the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision open up direct shipping of wine to all states?
