|
Something Stinks: The Need for Environmental Regulation of Puppy Mills |
This Comment defines the current federal and state regulations targeting the commercial breeding industry. It critically examines the successes and failures of current legislation regulating commercial breeders. The article considers the environmental impacts of large commercial breeding facilities and suggest that these operations should be regulated as animal feeding operations (AFOs). Finally, Section V evaluates the need for further federal and state governmental regulation of commercial breeding facilities through pollution control and waste management, thereby ensuring the well-being of commercially-bred dogs as well as the local environment.
|
|
State ex rel. Miller v. DeCoster |
State of Iowa sued the owner of a hog confinement operation for violations of manure disposal and animal control regulations.
|
|
Stout v. U.S. Forest Service |
Plaintiff ranch owners grazed cattle within the Murderer's Creek Wild Horse Territory (WHT), an area in which the threatened Middle Columbia River steelhead was present. The Forest Service approved a wild horse management plan in the area, but failed to prepare a Biological Assessment (BA) to determine whether the plan was likely to affect the threatened species, and whether formal consultation with the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) was necessary. The Forest Service’s failure to comply with section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) was arbitrary and capricious, and was ordered to consult with NMFS on its plan.
|
|
Test Drilling Service Co. v. Hanor Company |
Owner of oil and gas mineral rights sued the operators of commercial hog confinement facilities for negligence, claiming that the operator's allowed hog waste to escape the confines of the facility and flow into the mineral rights. The District Court held that plaintiff's alleged damages were not barred by a rule prohibiting recovery of economic loss in tort actions; that defendant's alleged violations were evidence of negligence, but not negligence per se; and that defendant's owed a duty of ordinary care to plaintiff.
|
|
THE CONFLICT BETWEEN SPECIES IN AN EVER MORE CROWDED WORLD |
|
|
The Ecology Center v. Russell |
The instant case is a Petition for Review of Agency Action, brought by The Ecology Center and The Aquarius Escalante Foundation (Plaintiffs). Plaintiffs seek review of a Record of Decision (ROD) issued by the Acting Forest Supervisor of the Dixie National Forest (the DNF), an agency of the United States Department of Agriculture. The decision in question is the final approval by the DNF of the Griffin Springs Resource Management Project, (the Project) in which the DNF approved a plan to allow logging in the Griffin Springs area of the DNF. Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief to stop the implementation of the plan, claiming that the ROD violates the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the National Forest Management Act (NFMA), and the Administrative Procedures Act (APA). Of particular concern, is the effect upon the
northern goshawk.
|
|
The Public and Wildlife Trust Doctrones and the Untold Story of the Lucas Remand |
This article seeks to address more thoroughly how the historical “old maxims” of the public and wildlife trust doctrines can be used as Lucas background principles of property law to overcome takings challenges brought against state and federal environmental regulations. First, the historical underpinnings of the public trust doctrine and the wildlife trust doctrine prior to the founding of the nation are described. The Illinois Central Railroad v. Illinois and Geer v. Connecticut, which are the key Supreme Court cases establishing the validity of these doctrines in the United States are summarized. The author asserts that the doctrines may be interchangeably applied as a means of protecting important environmental resources. The author illustrates how the use of these doctrines might have changed the ultimate outcome of the Lucas case.
|
|
Turtle Island Restoration Project v. U.S. Department of Commerce |
Environmental Groups sued the National Fisheries Service (NMFS) and the United States Department of Commerce for making regulations which allowed swordfish longline fishing along the Hawaii coast, alleging violations of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA), and the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The Court found that because the regulations were made under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976 (Magnuson Act), and because that Act had a 30-day time limit for when challenges to regulations could be made, the environmental groups has not brought their challenge to the regulations in time.
|
|
US - Critical Habitat - Critical Habitat Listing for Five Endangered Mussels in the Tennessee and Cumberland River Basins |
The FWS has designated designate 13 river and stream segments in the Tennessee Cumberland River Basins, for a total of approximately 885 river as
critical habitat
for five endangered mussels: Cumberland elktoe (
Alasmidonta atropurpurea
), oyster mussel (
Epioblasma capsaeformis
), Cumberlandian combshell (
Epioblasma brevidens
), purple bean (
Villosa perpurpurea
), and rough rabbitsfoot (
Quadrula cylindrica strigillata
).
All five mussels belong to the Unionidae family.
|
|
US - Critical Habitat - Critical Habitat Listing for the Topeka Shiner |
This rule is a correction to a previous final rule designating critical habitat for the Topeka Shiner (
Notropis Topeka
), published in the Federal Register on July, 24, 2004
(69 FR 44736).
In the previous final rule, the FWS
designated as
critical habitat
1,356 kilometers of stream in Iowa, Minnesota, and Nebraska.
They excluded from designation all previously proposed
critical habitat
in Kansas, Missouri, and South Dakota, and excluded the Fort Riley Military Installation in Kansas from
critical
habitat designation
.
|
