Wildlife

Displaying 261 - 270 of 370
Titlesort descending Summary
RECONCILING POLAR BEAR PROTECTION UNDER UNITED STATES LAWS AND THE INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENT FOR THE CONSERVATION OF POLAR BEARS
RECONCILING THE MIGRATORY BIRD TREATY ACT WITH EXPANDING WIND ENERGY TO KEEP BIG WHEELS TURNING AND ENDANGERED BIRDS FLYING
Recovery of the Gray Wolf under the ESA
Resolución Ministerial No. 0269-2017-MINAGRI , Peru (2017) Esta resolución es emitida por el Ministerio de Agricultura y Riego (MINAGRI) del Perú. En ella se ordena la creación de un grupo de trabajo temporal con el propósito de redactar el reglamento de la Ley de Protección y Bienestar Animal (Ley 30407) en relación con los animales de granja y la fauna silvestre en cautiverio.
Rethinking the Irreparable Harm Factor in Wildlife Mortality Cases


This article is divided into three parts. Part I explores how federal courts have defined and analyzed the issue of irreparable harm in cases similar to Humane Society, in which plaintiffs seek preliminary injunctions to prevent the killing of wildlife until their cases can be heard on the merits. In Part II, the author asserts that reform is needed in this area of the law for two primary reasons. In Part III, the author proposes a new model directing courts to define the scope and nature of the harm to be considered by looking to the “primary purpose” of the statute at issue.
RI - Fur - Chapter 16. Fur-Bearing Animals These laws mandate how fur-bearing mammals may be hunted and trapped, and the issuance of trapping licenses. In order to set traps for fur-bearers, a person must have a trapping license from the department of environmental management. Steel jawed leghold traps are not allowed with some exceptions, A violation may result in a fine and/or imprisonment, and the revocation of the trapping license.
RI - Shark - § 20-1-29. Trade in shark fins This Rhode Island law, effective in 2017, prohibits the possession, sale, offering for sale, trading, or distribution of shark fin. “Shark fin” means the raw, dried, or otherwise processed detached fin or the raw, dried, or otherwise processed detached tail of a shark. Even if a person holds a license to take sharks, he or she must immediately destroy any shark fin separated from the shark unless used by the person for the purposes of taxidermy and subsequent display. Violation incurs a fine or not less than $500 nor more than $1,000 imprisonment of up to 90 days, or both.
RULES FOR PLAYING GOD: THE NEED FOR ASSISTED MIGRATION & NEW REGULATION
Safari Club International v. Jewell Safari Club International and the National Rifle Association filed suit challenging the federal government’s suspension of imports of trophies from elephants sport-hunted in Zimbabwe. In April of 2014, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (“the Service”) suspended imports of trophies from elephants on the basis that the Service could no longer make the finding required under its regulations “that the killing of the animal whose trophy is intended for import would enhance survival of the species.” Safari Club asserted four main arguments against the Service’s suspension of imports: (1) the agency violated APA rulemaking requirements by not providing for notice and comment; (2) the agency applied prohibited guidelines and the wrong standard in making its findings; (3) the agency failed to overcome a statutory presumption in Section 9(c)(a) of the Endangered Species Act; and (4) the agency violated the APA by failing to explain why it maintained the enhancement finding requirement in the Special Rule after the requirement was eliminated from the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES). The court reviewed Safari International’s arguments and granted summary judgment only with respect to the argument that the Service had failed to publish notice of the changed Zimbabwe enhancement finding in the Federal Register until May 12, 2014. The court dismissed the remaining arguments put forth by Safari International and granted summary judgment in favor of the Service. The court found that the Service had violated its commitment to publish any notice of a change in the Federal Register before the change can take effect. The Service violated this commitment by publishing notice of the suspension of imports of trophies in the Federal Register on May 12, 2014 but making the effective date of the suspension April 4, 2014. For this reason, the court found that the effective date of the suspension must be changed to May 12, 2014. With respect to Safari International’s other arguments, the court found that Safari International was unable to meet its burden and held in favor of the Service.
Safari Club International v. Zinke This case dealt with an action brought by an organization of safari hunters and firearm advocacy association under the Administrative Procedures Act (APA) and the Endangered Species Act (ESA) against the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services (FWS), challenging the decision to suspend imports of sport-hunted African elephant trophies from Zimbabwe. The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia entered summary judgment in FWS's favor, and the organization and association appealed. Under the ESA, sport-hunted African elephant trophies may only be imported into the United States if, among other things, the FWS makes “[a] determination ... that the killing of the trophy animal will enhance the survival of the species”. The Court of Appeals held that 1) FWS's interpretation of Special Rule forbidding import of sport-hunted elephant trophies was permissible; 2) FWS could base finding that killing of African elephants did not enhance species' survival on absence of evidence that sport hunting enhanced survival of species; 3) FWS's conclusion that it lacked evidence to make finding that killing African elephants in Zimbabwe would enhance survival of species rebutted any presumption that importation did not violate any provision of ESA or regulation issued pursuant to ESA; 4) removal of enhancement requirement from Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora did not require FWS to reconsider Special Rule; 5) finding constituted rule rather than adjudication; and 6) FWS's failure to engage in notice-and-comment prior to finding was not harmless error. Affirmed in part and reversed in part, and remanded so the FWS can initiate rule making to address enhancement findings for the time periods at issue in this case.

Pages