SALT LAKE CITY — The Utah Court of Appeals has sided with a journalist pursuing records about state contracts with an organization lobbying to remove the Gray Wolf from federal endangered species protections.
In a ruling made public late Friday, the Court sided with Eric Peterson and the Utah Investigative Journalism Project over expense reports from Big Game Forever related to its contract work with Utah’s Department of Natural Resources. The agency granted Peterson’s request for those reports, but redacted some portions of the records. Peterson challenged the redactions and the Utah State Records Committee reversed DNR’s decision.
That prompted Big Game Forever to go to court to challenge the records committee’s decision. A lower court ruled in Peterson and the Utah Investigative Journalism Project’s favor. Big Game Forever appealed.
The Utah Court of Appeals unanimously sided with Peterson and the Utah Investigative Journalism Project again.
Big Game Forever has received millions of dollars from the state of Utah over the years in efforts to lobby for wolf delisting.
“Big Game has subcontracted with numerous vendors, and it claims to have dealt with two consistent problems: (1) ‘frequent death threats and harassment regarding the work it (and its vendors) performs’ and (2) competitors’ efforts to poach its subcontractors in an attempt to compete for future contracts. Thus, Big Game has taken, in its judgment, ‘all reasonable measures’ to maintain and protect the confidentiality of its subcontractors’ identities,” Judge Gregory Orme wrote in the ruling, adding that an audit of the group’s first contract suggested there was a lack of sufficient safeguards around the money.
While a subsequent contract had expenditure disclosures, there was a provision that any information contained in them “would be protected,” Judge Orme wrote. That was the rationale for denying Peterson’s records request. When the case ultimately made it to court, a judge rejected the idea that the names of vendors was a “trade secret” and that releasing names or other information would be harmful.
The Utah Court of Appeals agreed and ruled the information could be released under Utah’s Government Records Access Management Act (GRAMA), the law that governs public records.
“In applying this balancing test, the court weighed Big Game’s interest in protecting against unfair competition and its interest in protecting the subcontractors’ safety against the public’s interest in knowing how public funds are spent. The court stated that Big Game made only conclusory statements that its subcontractors had ‘historically been targeted by extremist animal rights groups’ without providing ‘any specifics as to the conduct by animal rights groups,’” Judge Orme wrote.
“Conversely, the court determined that ‘the public’s interest in obtaining access to the information regarding who is receiving public funds, and what they are doing to perform the public contract, is high’ and that ‘[t]he public has a great interest in the accountability and transparency of the expenditure of millions of dollars under the public contracts with Big Game.’ After balancing these considerations, the court concluded that ‘even if the subcontractor list is properly classified as protected, the interest favoring access is greater than or equal to the interest favoring restriction of access.’”
The judges ruled that Big Game Forever did not raise a sufficient enough challenge to the lower court’s decision to balance interests.
“Big Game’s argument on balancing in the commercial-information context is limited to the assertions that it ‘derives economic value from keeping the names of its subcontractors confidential’ and that ‘[c]onsidering the consequences to Big Game if these names were disclosed, Big Game’s interest in preventing disclosure outweighs the public’s interest in learning them,’” Judge Orme wrote. “In the context of challenging the district court’s … balancing of interests, these conclusory statements do not meaningfully engage with the district court’s reasoning and are thus insufficient to carry Big Game’s burden of persuasion on appeal.”
Emails to the Utah Investigative Journalism Project and an attorney representing Big Game Forever requesting comment on the Court’s ruling were not immediately returned on Saturday.
Read the Utah Court of Appeals ruling here:
While Big Game Forever was advocating for wolf delisting, there are signs that lawmakers on Utah’s Capitol Hill have questions about what they are ultimately getting for it. During a budget hearing in February before the Utah State Legislature’s Natural Resources, Agriculture and Environmental Quality Appropriations Subcommittee, Assistant House Majority Whip Casey Snider, R-Paradise, said the state has contributed a lot of money to the effort.
“I actually am very supportive of delisting wolves and having wolves under state management. But I’m not necessarily, and haven’t been, supportive of this blank check that’s contributed itself through time with not much accountability,” he said, adding he had concerns about “just continuing to throw money down this hole.”
Don Peay, representing an organization called Hunter Nation, pushed back in the hearing and insisted that Big Game Forever’s efforts were successful in getting a wolf delisting in parts of Utah.
“We got the little teeny sliver that goes from I-15 Idaho border down to Ogden, up to Evanston,” Peay replied. “So that little portion of Utah is now, wolves on that side of the boundary are not endangered species.”
Hunter Nation sought $500,000 for its wolf delisting efforts this year. The legislature approved $250,000.
Utah’s Department of Agriculture & Food has been bracing for the possibility of wolves entering Utah after Colorado voters approved their reintroduction. Under current federal laws, they must be trapped and relocated.
