Results
| Title |
Author |
Citation | Summary |
|---|---|---|---|
| Detailed Discussion of Polar Bears and the Laws Governing Them in the Five Arctic States | Sarah R. Morgan | Animal Legal and Historical Web Center |
This discussion provides a description of the current threats to polar bears and how the current legislative regimes in Canada, Greenland, Norway, Russia and the the United States respond to these threats. |
| Biological Overview of the Polar Bear | Sarah R. Morgan | Animal Legal & Historical Center |
This article provides a brief biological summary of the polar bear. |
| Brief Overview of Polar Bears | Sarah R Morgan | Animal Legal and Historical Center |
This article provides a brief overview of the threats facing polar bears. |
| Overview of Polar Bears | Sarah R. Morgan | Animal Legal and Historical Center |
This overview explores the laws, both domestic and non-U.S., in place to protect polar bears. It also discusses the current threats to polar bear populations, including climate change, oil and other development, pollution, hunting and self-defense killing, intraspecific predation, tourism in the Arctic, and capture for public display. |
| A Show of Humanity to Slow Hugh, the Manatee: A Property Rights Proposal for the Sea Cow (with a Brief Consideration for his Friend, the Brown Pelican) | Mark A. Mullins | Animal Legal & Historical Center |
This paper explores the background of the manatee and the issues the species faces. It then sets forth some of the applicable laws that are currently in place, followed by a consideration of the benefits and shortcomings of those laws. Finally, it reflects on some changes that have been suggested, and, ultimately, introduces a new approach—providing property rights to the West Indian Manatee—with a response to potential criticism in mind. |
| Federal Wildlife Law of the 20th Century | Ruth Musgrave |
This Chapter provides a review of the political, legislative and judicial trends which have shaped the formation of the "tangle" of federal wildlife and related environmental laws, from the early 1900s to the present. |
|
| Playing Noah | John Compeland Nagle | 82 Minn. L. Rev. 1171 (1998) |
In “Playing Noah,” John Copeland Nagle investigates the difficulty of protecting all endangered species through the implementation of the Endangered Species Act. In doing so, Nagle looks at utilitarian arguments and concludes that these arguments do not justify treating all species equally. Instead, Nagle concludes that religious, moral, or ethical arguments provide a better justification. Specifically, Nagle contends that the book of Genesis provides a compelling case for protecting all endangered species. |
| The Commerce Clause Meets the Delhi Sands Flower-Loving Fly | John Copeland Nagle | 97 Mich. L. Rev. 174 (1998) |
The Delhi Sands Flower Loving Fly obtained endangered species status on the day a county planned to construct a hospital on the fly's dwindling habitat. Since the Endangered Species Act (ESA) prohibits the taking of any endangered species and courts have interpreted "taking" to include “significant habitat modification or degradation where it actually kills or injures” a member of the species, the county made concessions to comply with the ESA. However, when the county learned that the fly stood in the way of its plans to redesign an intersection, the county filed suit challenging the application of the ESA to the fly's habitat; many others who also wished to build on the fly's habitat joined in the suit as well. Using United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995), these groups hoped the district court would find that the ESA, under the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution, could not constitutionally protect the fly's habitat. The district court, however, upheld the act's application. In the appeal of the district case, known as the National Ass'n of Home Builders v. Babbitt, 130 F.3d 1041 (D.C. Cir. 1997), the appellate court upheld the lower court's decision, but offered three different explanations why the ESA could or could not constitutionally require protection of the fly. In this article, John Copeland Nagle investigates these three strikingly diverse explanations. In doing so, Nagle also investigates whether Congress has the power to protect something that is very rare, very valuable, and seemingly entirely uninvolved with commerce between the states. |
| What About The Polar Bears? The Future of The Polar Bears as Predicted by a Survey of Success Under The Endangered Species Act | Laura Navarro | 19 Vill. Envtl. L.J. 169 (2008) |
The proposed listing of polar bears raises questions about what that listing might mean for the polar bears as a species, and how successful conservation efforts will or can be. This Comment explores these and other questions implicated by the proposed listing of polar bears as an endangered species under the Act. |
| THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT V. THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE: HOW THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE DERAILED CRIMINAL PROSECUTIONS UNDER THE ENDANGERED SPECIES | Ed Newcomer, Marie Palladini & Leah Jones | 17 Animal L. 171 (2011) |
Historically, in prosecutions under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), to prove the element “knowingly” the government only had to prove that a defendant intentionally killed an animal that turned out to be endangered or threatened, not that the defendant knew the identity of the species or the endangered or threatened status of the animal when it was killed. Jury instructions to this effect were repeatedly upheld. Then, in a brief filed with the U.S. Supreme Court for McKittrick v. U.S., the federal government, unprompted, unnecessarily, and without explanation, said that it would not use this jury instruction in the future because the instruction did not properly explain “knowingly.” The U.S. Department of Justice subsequently issued a directive to its attorneys to that same effect. Now, there is a self-imposed rule in ESA prosecutions requiring prosecutors to prove that a defendant knew the animal was endangered or threatened at the time it was “taken” or killed. This Article discusses ways in which this change conflicts with the established law and its impact on ESA prosecutions. |