LOS ANGELES (CN) — A federal judge upheld the feds' right to shutter a sea-otter-relocation program that almost everybody agreed was doing more harm than good to the endangered species.
U.S. District Judge John Walter dismissed a case brought by groups of Southern California fisherman who claimed the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the U.S. Department of Interior did not have the authority to cease the long-controversial Southern Sea Otter Recovery Plan in 2012.
A group of environmental organizations including Defenders of Wildlife, Friends of the Sea Otter and the Center for Biological Diversity intervened on behalf of the federal agencies, asserting they acted appropriately and well within their authority.
"The decision helps the sea otters and coastal habitat by allowing otters to expand their population southward without human interference," said Earthjustice attorney Andrea Treece in a prepared statement.
The California Sea Urchin Commission, the California Abalone Association and the Commercial Fisherman of Santa Barbara sued Fish and Wildlife after the agency elected to end the sea otter recovery plan, saying while the agency had the authority to commence recovery plans it did not have the power to end them.
It was actually the second lawsuit the fisherman trade groups filed in the Central District of California, after U.S. District Judge Dolly Gee dismissed the first case as untimely.
In both cases, the fisherman argued the cessation of the program, which mandated the relocation of otters from fishing zones along the coast of Southern California to the Channel Islands, harmed their livelihood by abetting growth of the otter population, which feeds on shellfish, sea urchins and abalone they are attempting to catch and sell.
But in the case before Walter, the fisherman shifted their legal argument by claiming that their true concern was prosecution if they accidentally killed an otter while conducting their commercial operations.
In his Sept. 18 decision, Walter said fear of potential and theoretical prosecution is insufficient when considering whether the trade groups have standing to sue.
"Standing based on a fear of prosecution requires a 'genuine threat of imminent prosecution' and not merely an 'imaginary or speculative fear of prosecution,'" Walter wrote in the 12-page decision.
But Walter added that the fishermen would have lost on the merits as well, because the service did have the authority to end a discretionary species-recovery program.
"It is undisputed that it was within the service's discretion to determine whether such a program would ever be developed," Walter wrote. "Because implementing the program is discretionary, the service had the discretion to both commence and cease implementation of the program."
The southern sea otter, also known as the California Sea Otter, was hunted to near extinction in the 18th and 19th centuries, when its fur proved a valuable commodity.
Despite hunting bans passed in the early 1900s, the otter was at just 10 percent of historic levels when the Fish and Wildlife Service placed it on the Endangered Species List in 1977.
The fishing industry opposed the expansion of the otter population, saying the creature preyed on abalone, lobster and sea urchin which fisherman harvest and rely upon for their livelihoods.