A federal judge who denied the injunction filed by the Gallatin Wildlife Association to halt the Helle family from grazing sheep in the Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest has issued a memorandum further explaining his decision.
According to the original court documents :
“Plaintiff has failed to persuade the Court at this point in the proceedings that a preliminary injunction should issue. Specifically, Plaintiff has failed to persuade the Court that it is likely to succeed on the merits and that it is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of injunctive relief. The question of the balance of the equities and whether an injunction would be in the public interest present questions that are to close to resolve at this stage of the proceedings. The Court will address all of Plaintiff’s claims on the merits in due course.”
The judge issued a 26 page memoradum on July 24, 2015 detailing why the court denied the injuction. The conclusion is listed below. Despite his verdict denying the injunction at this time, it is clear that the judge left the door open for this issue to be revisited in the future.
“The issues presented by Gallatin likely will remain beyond the 2015 grazing
season as the federal land managers seek the proper balance. The Court will have a
chance to address the merits of Gallatin’s claims without the impending deadlines
of a preliminary injunction looming. “
The conclusion to memorandum:
A preliminary injunction is warranted only when the plaintiff demonstrates a
likelihood of irreparable harm before a decision on the merits can be issued and
either a likelihood of success on the merits or serious questions going to the merits.
Gallatin has failed to demonstrate a likelihood of irreparable harm, a likelihood of
success on the merits, or the existence of serious questions going to the merits.
This Court therefore need not consider the balance of the equities or the public
interest.
As noted by this Court in its July 10, 2015, order, the balance of the equities
and the public interest raise difficult issues for the Court. Gallatin’s claims
highlight the challenges faced by the Federal Defendants in balancing the interests
of the grazing permittees who have used the Gravelly Landscape for their own
purposes for more than a century, with the interest of the public, and the threatened
or “sensitive” species whose presence they seek on the Gravelly Landscape. The
seeming incompatibility of grizzly bear and bighorn sheep with domestic sheep
raise problems for federal land managers tasked with the challenge to find room for
each. The issues presented by Gallatin likely will remain beyond the 2015 grazing
season as the federal land managers seek the proper balance. The Court will have a
chance to address the merits of Gallatin’s claims without the impending deadlines
of a preliminary injunction looming. Gallatin has failed at this juncture to persuade
© Northern Ag Network 2015
For additional information about Injunction Lawsuit against this Montana family see the following articles:
Animal Activist Group Takes Aim at Montana Sheep Family
Livestock Producers Travel Miles to Support Helle’s in Grazing Lawsuit
See the document below to read the full memorandum
