Fish and Wildlife Dept: Related Articles

Authorsort descending Article Name Summary
TRACKING THE ADC: RANCHERS' BOON, TAXPAYERS' BURDEN, WILDLIFE'S BANE Approximately thirty-five million dollars are spent each year by the Animal Damage Control division of the U.S. Department of Agriculture to destroy predator animals that supposedly kill livestock. The methods by which the ADC kills these “predators” are appalling. Mr. Hoch argues that funding for this program is excessive, irresponsible, and raises serious ethical questions. He concludes that ADC activities should be terminated immediately.
James D. Crammond SCREENING WATER DIVERSIONS FOR FISH PROTECTION: A SURVEY OF POLICY, PRACTICES AND COMPLIANCE IN THE PACIFIC NORTHWEST Unscreened surface water diversions damage and kill young fish. The decline of anadromous fish stocks in the Columbia Basin puts a premium on protection of juvenile salmon. State laws require screens on surface water diversions, but compliance has been poor. The Endangered Species Act and the Northwest Power Act have motivated and funded a massive remedial screening effort since 1991. Effective screens, installed with ratepayer and taxpayer funds, have dramatically improved fish protection at diversions. However, many harmful diversions remain. This paper concludes that, although progress has been swift full compliance in 1996 is problematic. Greater incentives and enforcement are essential to complete screening in the Columbia Basin. After full compliance, maintenance and eventual replacement of screens are essential to the screening program's continued success. To avoid another Endangered Species Act "train wreck " states must transfer their screening experience to other watersheds in order to improve conditions for their native and resident fish.
Paul J. Cucuzzella The Mute Swan Case, the Fund for Animals, et al. v. Norton, et al: National, Regional, and Local Environmental Policy Rendered I

This article suggests that an obstruction of sound environmental policy occurred in 2003 when The Fund for Animals used the National Environmental Policy Act to prevent the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Maryland Department of Natural Resources from implementing a plan to cull the population of mute swans in the Chesapeake Bay. The author suggests that there is no question that feral mute swans (cyngus olor) are harmful to the native habitats of the Chesapeake Bay. The research and scientific record into the effects of non-native mute swans on native environs is both extensive and comprehensive.

David Favre American Wildlife Law - An Introduction

This article provides a short introduction to the matrix of government interests in controlling wildlife in the United States. The powers of state and federal government are considered along with limitations on the exercise of the authority.

David Hoch and Will Carrington Heath TRACKING THE ADC: RANCHERS' BOON, TAXPAYERS' BURDEN, WILDLIFE'S BANE Approximately thirty-five million dollars are spent each year by the Animal Damage Control division of the U.S. Department of Agriculture to destroy predator animals that supposedly kill livestock. The methods by which the ADC kills these “predators” are appalling. Mr. Hoch argues that funding for this program is excessive, irresponsible, and raises serious ethical questions. The authors conclude that ADC activities should be terminated immediately.
Dan Holwerda Finding the Balance: The Environmental Policies of a State's Department of Natural Resources or Department of Game and Fish

This discussion explores the apparent conflict of interests between pro-hunting and anti-hunting advocates in the management of state natural resources by state agencies. Section one describes the history of the Pittman-Robertson Act and its effects on how States implement their environmental policies. Section two describes how it appears that each State’s Department of Natural Resources or Department of Game and Fish caters only to the hunter in designating and implementing its environmental policies. Section three discusses the “intelligible principle” and its application in all the above-mentioned states. Specifically, the section will discuss how some anti-hunting organizations and other environmental organizations, which may or may not be anti-hunting, attempt to show that a state legislature has unconstitutionally delegated its authority to its Department of Natural Resources or Department of Game and Fish in order to show that the current system of determining and implementing state environmental policies is null and void. Finally, section four describes how the environmental policy interest of hunters is really the same as other (non-hunting) pro-environment/natural resource groups.

Nathan LaFramboise The Cormorant Conflict

This paper analyzes the conflicting management goals for the double-crested cormorant in Canada and the United States. In doing so, the paper answers the question whether one can predict how the migratory, double-crested cormorant population will be managed through international law, when the United States perceives the rise of the cormorant population an economic and biological threat, but where Canada views the cormorant’s comeback a biodiversity success story.

Rob Roy Smith At a Complex Crossroads: Animal Law in Indian Country

This article begins with a discussion of criminal and civil jurisdiction within Indian Country. The article provides a brief survey of the legal issues found at the intersection between Indian law and animal law, including both domestic animal issues and fish and wildlife issues. The article presents a working understanding of animal advocacy in Indian Country today and concludes that Indian Country may provide a valuable opportunity to craft model animal protection schemes.