Endangered Rights

Supreme Court makes correct decision in case of rare dusky gopher frog

Preserving the habitat of endangered species has long been contentious. On one side you have land owners, who naturally do not want to see their property rights infringed on and the value reduced simply to save a rare minnow or lizard.

On the other side are those who contend our duty to protect endangered species of all sorts transcends mere money and property rights.

We suppose the argument will always be with us. But what about protecting habitat where no endangered species abides?

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service designated about 1,500 acres of Louisiana timberland “critical habitat” in an effort to protect the endangered dusky gopher frog.

Now, the frog in question hasn’t been seen there there in 50 years. In fact, the few remaining dusky gopher frogs live in Mississippi.

But the government said frogs could one day be relocated there, hopefully to happily reproduce.

Weyerhaeuser, which leases the land in question, filed a lawsuit contending the designation and restriction of land use could devalue the property by about $34 million. After losing in the lower courts, the company took their case to the nation’s highest court and won.

Well, maybe. The court ruled unanimously that the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals must reconsider the case, saying that since no dusky gopher frogs are on the land at present, the Fish and Wildlife Service exceeded its authority.

“Only the ‘habitat’ of the endangered species is eligible for designation as critical habitat,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote.

Good call. While reasonable people can debate the balance of property rights and protecting endangered species, essentially taking land where no such species resides is, in our view, out of bounds. Now we’ll have to wait and see how the appeals court handles the case.