UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN ... - Bizjournals

Case 1:13-cv-03241-AT Document 1 Filed 09/30/13 Page 57 of 64not in accordance with law. Defendants’ action is based on standards nowherefound in law or regulation, is based on the application of methods and standardsthat have not been applied to any other permit applicant, is not based on the bestscientific evidence, and has no foundation in law or fact.SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF(Violation of the MMPA and the APA Regarding Whether thePermit Will Result in Additional Removals from the Sea of Okhotsk)129. Plaintiff realleges, as if fully set forth herein, each and everyallegation contained in paragraphs 1 through 128.130. The regulations implementing the MMPA provide that the proposedaction (here the import of 18 previously collected beluga whales) cannot bepermitted if it is likely to result in the taking of additional beluga whales. 50C.F.R. §216.34(a)(7). Defendants claim the permit, if issued, would violate thisregulation. Thus, Defendants’ permit decision states: “There are ongoing, legalmarine mammal capture operations in Russia that are expected to continue….”131. Defendants’ legal position is that “we cannot obtain assurances that anadditional 18 whales would not be captured in the future....” In other words, unlessa foreign sovereign agrees to never collect another animal, no import permit forpublic display can ever be granted after the first such permit is approved. Theprovisions of the MMPA, however, do not support this interpretation. In fact, the57