An injunction was granted to the applicants pending final hearing of the substantive action against the aerial shooting.īaldwin v. The applicants claimed that the aerial shooting constituted cruelty as the goats, once wounded, would die a slow death. The applicants sought an interlocutory injunction to restrain the respondent from conducting an aerial shooting of goats as part of a 'cull'. There was no showing in the record of harm to any bald eagles during the deer hunt of 1991 and the record fully supported the trial judge's conclusion.Īnimal Liberation Ltd v National Parks & Wildlife Service On appeal of the denial for injunction, this Court held that plaintiff failed to meet the showing of actual harm under the ESA. The district court denied the preliminary injunction, ruling that appellants failed to show a reasonable likelihood of success on the merits. The essence of the plaintiff's argument was that some of the deer shot by hunters would not be recovered and then eagles would consume these deer thereby ingesting the harmful lead slugs from the ammunition. A group of animal preservationists filed suit to enjoin deer hunting on a Massachusetts reservation because it contended that the activity posed such a risk to bald eagles so as to constitute a prohibited “taking” under the ESA.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |