|
Proceso No. 15111-2014-0152 matanza de un jaguar, 2015 - Ecuador |
Este caso se refiere a un acusado que disparó y mató a un jaguar, que era una especie en peligro de extinción, supuestamente en defensa propia y por necesidad. El demandante alegó que el demandado no requería defensa propia o verdadera necesidad, que tenía que probar que no había matado al jaguar y que, en circunstancias de incertidumbre, el tribunal debía fallar a favor de la naturaleza (in dubio pro natura). El acusado no era cazador y no estaba cazando activamente al jaguar. La legislación medioambiental ecuatoriana establece que cualquier persona que "cace" una especie legalmente protegida será castigada con penas de prisión. El tribunal debatió conceptos del derecho constitucional ecuatoriano, los derechos de la naturaleza y la yuxtaposición de seres humanos que trabajan en el hábitat de animales salvajes y potencialmente depredadores. Tras un debate detallado, el tribunal aceptó el recurso y acordó por unanimidad castigar al acusado con seis meses de prisión. |
|
Protecting the Wildlife Trust: A Reinterpretation of Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act |
This Article attributes the failure of the ESA after thirty years to a basic flaw in interpreting one of the ESA's core provisions, section 7. Section 7 imposes a dual mandate on federal agencies to develop programs for the conservation of listed species, and to insure that federal actions are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any listed species. The United States Fish and Wildlife Service and NOAA Fisheries Service have failed to develop any regulation implementing the affirmative conservation program requirement, and they have interpreted the no jeopardy prohibition in a manner that allows imperiled species to drift closer and closer to extinction. This Article suggests a reinterpretation of section 7 in accordance with wildlife trust principles.
|
|
Pulaski v. Chrisman |
Residents of a mobile home park attempted to get injunction preventing the conversion of their mobile home park into a community campground. Plaintiffs claimed violation of the Endangered Species Act due to the possible removal of endangered species during the renovation. The court held it did not have jurisdiction to entertain part of plaintiffs Endangered Species claim because of a procedural violation and that plaintiffs failed to show violation of the Endangered Species Act was likely on the remainder of their claims.
|
|
Purpose of the ESA Chart |
The purpose of the chart is to provide Attorneys and lay persons a quick guide for use and research of state endangered species acts. The chart is broken down into nine columns providing information to what agency, listing criteria, prohibited acts, penalties, habitat protection, unique provisions, number of endangered species, links to agencies websites and the legal citation.
|
|
RECONCILING POLAR BEAR PROTECTION UNDER UNITED STATES LAWS AND THE INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENT FOR THE CONSERVATION OF POLAR BEARS |
|
|
Recovery of the Gray Wolf under the ESA |
|
|
Red Wolf Coalition v. United States Fish and Wildlife Service |
The plaintiffs, Red Wolf Coalition, filed suit against the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) alleging that USFWS had violated Sections 4, 7, and 9 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and also failed to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) when it allowed for the lethal or non-lethal taking of red wolves on private land. In response to the plaintiffs’ claim, USFWS asked the court to limits its review to the administrative record arguing that any discovery outside the administrative record would violate the Administrative Procedure Act’s scope and standard or review. The court decided not to limit the scope of review, stating that the plaintiffs’ claims fell under the citizen suit provision of the ESA and those types of law suits allow for discovery. Also, plaintiffs made a motion for a preliminary injunction to stop USFWS from conducting or authorizing the take of wild red wolves on private land whether or not the wolf has been a threat to humans, pets, or livestock. In order for the plaintiffs’ to succeed on this motion, the plaintiffs needed to make a clear showing of four elements: (1) plaintiffs’ are likely to succeed on the merits of the claim, (2) plaintiffs are likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, (3) the balance of equities tips in plaintiffs’ favor, and (4) an injunction is in the public interest. The court found that the plaintiffs’ were able to establish the first element because plaintiffs demonstrated that USFWS failed to adequately provide for the protection of red wolves by allowing for the taking of red wolves on private land, which may jeopardize the population’s survival in the wild. Next, the court held that plaintiffs’ were able to establish the irreparable harm requirement based on the fact that the threat to the red wolf population would clearly decrease their ability to enjoy red wolves in the wild and the possibility of the “decline or extinction of the species would cause them to suffer irreparable harm.” Lastly, the court found that granting the preliminary injunction would be in the public interest because “the equitable scales are always tipped in favor of the endangered or threatened species.” For those reasons, the court granted plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction. |
|
Regulation for Nonessential Experimental Populations of the Western Distinct Population Segment (DPS) of the Gray Wo |
This overview compares the proposed regulation (68 FR 15879) and the changes made in the recent final rule (70 F.R. 1286) that concerns the Western Distinct Population Segment for the Gray Wolf (Canis lupus).
|
|
RI - Endangered Species - Chapter 37. Endangered Species of Animals and Plants. |
These Rhode Island statutes set out the legislative policy and definitions related to state endangered species law, including the definition of "animal" and what constitutes an "endangered species." By statute commerce is strictly prohibited, as it it illegal to "buy, sell, offer for sale, store, transport, import, export, or otherwise traffic in any animal or plant or any part of any animal or plant whether living, dead, processed, manufactured, preserved, or raw if the animal or plant has been declared to be an endangered species by either the United States secretaries of the interior or commerce or the director of the Rhode Island department of environmental management." Violation of the Act results in fines from $500-5,000 or up to one year imprisonment, or both. |
|
Ringling Brothers On Trial: Circus Elephants And The Endangered Species Act |
In February 2009, the case of American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, et al. v. Feld Entertainment, Inc. was heard in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. This Article, written as the case went to trial, analyzes the standing, ESA, and take issues presented in this case and ultimately concludes that the district court should find that the plaintiffs do have standing, the ESA does apply to the captive Asian elephants, and FEI’s actions do constitute takings and should be enjoined.
|
