Lawsuits seek protection of American pika as endangered species due to climate change
Alleging a failure of regulators to declare the American pika an endangered species based on the impact of climate change, the Center for Biological Diversity on August 19 filed lawsuits in California state and federal court seeking injunctive relief. To combat the perceived deleterious effects of global warming on the pika, the Center is seeking protection of the animal under the California Endangered Species Act and the federal Endangered Species Act. However, regulators have not been so quick to adopt the Center’s position and this reluctance has resulted in two lawsuits.
The American pika (Ochotona princeps) is a small mammal living on the slopes of high mountains throughout the western contiguous United States. Pikas are related to rabbits and hares. Though the pika’s dense hair protects it from harsh alpine winters, it also makes it uniquely susceptible to hyperthermia – or heat stroke. The Center for Biological Diversity alleges that pikas who do not seek shelter in their burrows die when air temperatures reach just 77.9° to 84.9° F. “The pika is the American West’s canary in the coal mine,” says Shaye Wolf, a biologist with the Center. “As temperatures rise, pika populations at lower elevations are being driven to extinction, pushing pikas further upslope until they have nowhere left to go.”
The pika lawsuits are part of a larger “regulation by litigation” trend, as environmentalists seek to use litigation under the ESA and other existing statutes as a “back door” to address climate change issues.
The first lawsuit, filed in San Francisco Superior Court against the California Fish and Game Commission, challenges the Commission’s April 10, 2008 denial of a petition to place the pika on the California endangered species list. In its Notice of Findings explaining the rejection of the pika petition, the Commission stated that it was “speculative” that climate change threatened the pika and that the petition failed to “definitively establish that pika distribution in California has contracted (or is contracting) upslope.” In its lawsuit, the Center asks the Court to issue a writ of mandate “commanding the Commission to set aside its prejudicial actions…and issue a new decision accepting the Center’s petition….” Greg Loarie, an attorney with Earthjustice, accused the Commission of “bury[ing] its head in the sand” as to the effects of global warming on California wildlife.
The second lawsuit, filed in federal court in the Eastern District of California, does not challenge the failure to include the pika on the endangered species list, but the failure to make any determination of the pika’s status. Brought under the federal Endangered Species Act, the suit alleges that the Secretary of the Interior was required to make a determination on the October 1, 2007 petition within 90 days of its submission, pursuant to 16 U.S.C. § 1533(b)(3)(A) but that, to date, the government has not taken any action on the petition. The Center filed a motion for summary judgment in the case on October 2, 2008, requesting that the Court order the Secretary to make an initial finding regarding the Center’s petition within 30 days of any order granting summary judgment. The matter is set for hearing on December 5, 2008.
http://www.globalclimatelaw.com/admin/trackback/92346
