address the preemption issue and he and i want animal damage control act is whether a state may regulate how the federal government implements a federal wildlife management program when the federal statute gives complete discretion to the secretary of agriculture to implement that program in any way the secretary deems appropriate standing do you have to raise that argument well the standing we have is that mr brennan is an employee of the wildlife services he is a member of these c t a and the m t a he's here in court today thirty eight million people in the state of california this person has been the person most directly affected by the enactment of this proposition he doesn't claim an economic injury well he doesn't claim any wreckage nomic injury in the sense of his salary didn't change as a result of the enactment of proposition for he still continues to get paid a  by the federal government i would point out that he traps on his own farm his own ranch he trap before he can understand he doesn't like the law just like a lot of people don't like the speed limits you know but he has to show more that he doesn't like the law and that he's complying with it doesn't he have to show that there's some kind of particular harm but i think that your harm is that he's not allowed to use that they call traps and in addition beyond that he's also suffered harm in that he's suffered increased on his own farm ok that's an economic loss isn't it well which he's displaying i think what we just kind of financial loss and the disclaimer is that we're not making a claim that his salary as a  government employee is somehow being overtly a fact at or anything of that nature i mean we have let me ask you a question though is he here on a representative capacity on behalf of the federal government or is he here in an individual capacity well he has a  recall on the side of the audubon society and stood with the audubon society and said yes we think this is preempted but that's not the case but i don't think that's any way requirement for mr brown and as an individual to have standing to try and challenge the statute the fact is he has been directly adversely immediately impact it by the enactment of this statute both in his performance of his duties as a federal government employee and also as a private  positions you're taken one is his own private individual quote economic injury and the other one is the preemption issue as to federal government and federal government officials and i thought in the prior case that section c had been found to be preempted at least by the endangered species act right because isn't it in fact controlled and restrained federal government action and the panel in that case said yes that is preempted at least as to the endangered species act right ye federal enclaves and say you can't use of a corps traps or protect those endangered species that's what the park is did say right so can't given that given that prior holding in so far and is this point of his concern if he is acting as a enclaves or worse seeking broader relief and that we're seeking for instance this job you know i'm joe rancher i own some five thousand acres i've got five thousand head of cattle on the ranch and i'm a loser  efforts to protect that cattle on that private ranch or of property now that is completely different situation from what was dealt with on the autobahns claims in the first appeal all right so you're saying that if he's acting on behalf of the secretary of agriculture outside the federal park or forest and cetera he's acting for purposes of reducing predation right he's acting as an agent of the secretary of agriculture that proposition for should be preempted as to him yes i don't i'm not sure i'd want to use the word agents in the sense of the federal government has not chosen at this point not to intervene with regard to our claims and they did in the first action so but what standing do you have i mean remember you posed to me to or to the court to positions he has standing because of his own economic injury and secondly he has standing because as a federal trapper he's prevented from doing what he generally does right that we believe the fact a proposition for are on him in both those capacities it's our position  think if you go back and you look at the standing analysis from the first appeal the court found standing for people who simply want to go out and look at birds and there be fewer birds a look at if the trackers can difficult his jobs more time consuming he's increased experience and increased predation on his own ranch which i mean i don't know if you have to characterize it as an economic cost as a financial loss i don't know what label you want to apply to it but the bottom line is that no no no no no that's stipulate first of all if you go back and read the first appeal the appeal sad that there was there were two a couple issues that were dealt with in terms of standing the first appeal one was was there a threat of prosecution and the sponsors of the initiative kept harping on the fact that you know there was no threat of prosecution therefore we had no standing while the fact  it and i at is that we're not making the allegation that he suffered economic losses associated with his job as a trapper in the sense of he has no roots reduced  ok financial injuring curd by any point have individual organization or member kind of organization so i mean as i read that we're talking that financial and well financial injury with reference financial injury in this paragraph means fight yeah finances money that he has lost such as catalogs well i don't really think that financial injury wired into th stipulation i mean the fact of the matter is he has caught on his own ranch and he's going to eat that cattle which he does as well as his own which she you know i would not call a financial awesome i call it economic loss which is different but i certainly even aside from the issue of whether he's experiencing financial loss i believe if you go back and read the first opinion the court found there was standing with regard to economic and financial losses because there were commerce  claims that were put in that case and the financial loss or economic injury was relevant to the standing issue with regard to the commerce clause preemption issue it did not the court's opinion least as i read did not anyway require any kind of financial injury or even economic injury with regard to the issue of standing to pursue the m kinds under the animal damage control act well that's fine so so now i believe he testifies even in his deposition testimony that he uses would use these traps that he could to protect animals that are not animals but even the pets that are on his  farm and put aside the financial injury the fact that matters i think the standing issue here comes down to the fact that he can't use the traps with the whole case has been about i object to the speeding laws because i can't go as fast as i want to case i think in this case if he's offered in change his behavior as a result of the law he's no on our audio use these traps i think that's enough to give him standing to make a challenge the constitutionality of the act but now whether that there's any merit to that that's a different issue yeah and i believe you had a question but this is not really about whether he's being prevented from doing his job trapping is really about whether he's being prevented from doing his job in a particular way put certain controls for predation purposes right right right and the secretary of agriculture is not here challenging the statute it's this gentleman in his own individual capacity challenging the statute that is cracked and what he's saying is i want to trap and i want to be able to trap in this way but the enema will damage control act i'm sorry proposition for prevents me from doing that so he's saying i don't really like the i believe the constitutional the constitutional claim is that the state may not regulate how the federal government implements a federal program and he happens to be one of the actors or one of the secretary has the authority to do it any way he deems appropriate now if the secretary makes the choice that they want to comply with state law and they lacked not to use of a home traps they're free to do that they're free to do that but the question is whether the have to do it and those are different issues that takes me to another question i want to ask you and that is this what if any is the effect of the fact that the a t c a was amended subsequent to t filing of a thirty minute complaint in this case not render the whole issue moot anyway no i don't believe fact i think if you look at the house conference report one of six ninety nine forty eight page six and it's quote in  implicitly recognizing that legal methods would still be use of necessary so i think no i don't believe the two thousand amendment made this issue moot at all i think if you go back and look at the legislation history it actually