The Court denies the Plaintiffs’ request for permanent injunction against the state of Maine’s current trapping regulations because it finds that the Plaintiffs have failed to prove the Canada lynx as a species will suffer irreparable harm if the injunction is not granted.

A victory, perhaps only temporary, for trappers in Maine and all across the United States, actually. For simplicity, may I refer to this case simply as the Maine Lynx Lawsuit? Thanks. The entire 32-page ruling by Judge John A. Woodcock, Jr. can be viewed by clicking this link.

I have read through the entire ruling at least a couple of times and have a few conclusions I have come up with that I would like to share. Please bear in mind I am not a lawyer nor do I wish to pretend to be one. It is however important that we learn as much as we can from such cases, which can mean listening to the conclusions drawn by other people. I welcome yours.

When the Animal Welfare Institute and the Wildlife Alliance of Maine decided to sue the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife seeking a “permanent injunction” against Maine’s trapping laws, its claims where to protect the Canada lynx, a federally protected species, living in Maine. The court spelled out for us quite clearly that the onus or the burden of proving to the court the need for the injunction fell in the lap of AWI and WAM. They failed in that category.

Before I get into what specifically the Plaintiffs failed to persuade the court of, let’s first address what could prove to be a very important, if not the most important part of this ruling. Judge John A. Woodcock, Jr. wrote the ruling and in that he determined an interesting finding.

The Court reiterates its view that the proper test for determining irreparable harm is effect on the species as a whole, not on individual members of the species, unless the take of an individual member has been demonstrated to affect the species as a whole.

This has not always been the view of some courts. It has been contended for some time that the intent of the Endangered Species Act was to preserve a species as a whole and not in my back yard, when the species may be thriving in many other widespread areas. Personally, I find this ruling encouraging.

We should however take to heart everything that Judge Woodcock served to us in his ruling. He contends and I concur, that the Plaintiffs failed to persuade him that the events taking place in Maine and concerning its trapping laws are putting the lynx species as a whole in any harm. While I agree with him, it doesn’t mean a better prepared group of plaintiffs couldn’t persuade him to change his mind.

Woodcock lays the ground rules as to what would force him into issuing a permanent injunction.

To issue a permanent injunction, the Court must find that:
(1) plaintiffs prevail on the merits; (2) plaintiffs would suffer irreparable injury in the absence of injunctive relief; (3) the harm to plaintiffs would outweigh the harm the defendant would suffer from the imposition of an injunction; and, (4) the public interest would not be adversely affected by an injunction.

But the biggest burden of proof that sunk the Plaintiffs was their attempt at convincing the court that “irreparable” harm, the result of the current scheme of trapping regulations, would result in the destruction of the lynx; that incidental “taking” of the lynx was putting the species as a whole in danger. The court examined the major aspects of these trapping regulations, the equipment being used and expert testimony to make his determination as to whether “irreparable harm” was being put on the lynx species as a whole.

The Court found that the Plaintiffs’ arguments focused on criticism of the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife’s statistics and findings, while offering no expert testimony to refute such findings. The Court was also unimpressed with the Plaintiffs’ reference to studies that would require a stretch of the imagination to consider them relevant to this case. (My words not those of the Court.)

In an earlier post, I shared with readers about the Plaintiffs’ attempt at convincing Judge Woodcock that the stress placed on a lynx by merely being captured in a trap could easily result in death. The Plaintiffs referred to this stress as “capture myopathy”.

Something that came out in the ruling I found very interesting; that is if I am understanding the Court properly. Many have argued that the MDIFW has been at fault for not applying for an “Incidental Take Permit” from the federal government. Such a permit, if granted, would release some of the legal responsibilities should Canada lynx, a protected species, be incidentally trapped in traps not intended for lynx capture.

In the Court’s ruling, it appears to me that MDIFW opted not to apply for that permit because they believed that the Endangered Species Act is designed to protect the species as a whole and not the incidental taking of an individual member of that species. They further believed that under the latest rules governing trapping, any incidental takings of lynx caused no harm to the individual animal and certainly posed no threat to the lynx species as a whole. From this perspective, MDIFW felt they were not in violation of the Endangered Species Act and therefore did not need an Incidental Take Permit. It appears that Judge Woodcock agreed.

IF&W argues that “proving a violation of the ESA, whether procedural or substantive, does not obviate the need to prove irreparable harm.” Id. at 15. For support of this argument IF&W cites a number of cases involving “ongoing procedural violations of the ESA” which still required evidence of harm……………………………
IF&W suggests that “only a procedural violation is at issue here. IF&W is permitting trapping without having obtained an Incidental Take Permit but without any evidence that a listed species is being harmed.”

If the MDIFW foresaw that applying for an Incidental Take Permit, was an act of admission that the Maine trapping regulations were harming the lynx species, then this is an act of brilliance and appears to have played an important role in the Court’s ruling. If they stumbled into it, we’ll take it.

We all should go away from this case happy that Judge Woodcock possesses common sense in reaching decisions while at the same time adhering to the laws. As I said before, we also must learn from this experience, walking away knowing full well that a better funded, better prepared group of plaintiffs could just as easily convince the court that Maine’s trapping regulations are putting the Canada lynx in jeopardy.

On a bit of a side note, I thought it worth a laugh when Judge Woodcock described the testimonies of Dr. Paul Paquet and Camilla Fox as mostly educated opinions and went as far as to refer to Ms. Fox’s testimony as “an educated advocate”.

Tom Remington