Wildlife
Displaying 11 - 20 of 354
Title |
Summary |
|---|---|
| Whaling in the Antarctic | |
| Western Watersheds Project v. USDA APHIS Wildlife Services | This action considers motions for summary judgment by both parties. At issue here is a plan by a branch of the USDA called Wildlife Services (WS), which is responsible for killing or removing predators and other animals that prey on wild game animals, threaten agricultural interests, or pose a danger to humans. The decision to kill the animals comes from requests from individuals or other state and federal agencies rather than a decision by WS. For this case, the facts center on an expanded operation to kill game animals and protected species in Idaho (mainly coyotes and ravens) known as PDM. As part of this process, WS prepared and circulated a draft Environmental Assessment (EA) to other federal agencies, stakeholders, and the public seeking comment to the expanded plan. However, instead of taking the criticisms and suggestions from the EA and then undertaking a more comprehensive Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), WS instead rejected most responses and labeled them as unconvincing or invalid. This led plaintiff to file suit against WS, arguing that the agency acted in an arbitrary and capricious manner by not preparing the EIS after comments to the EA. For example, the BLM, the Forest Service, and the Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG), found that the EA was not an "objective analysis" and instead sounded "like a pre-decisional defense of lethal methods." These agencies warned WS that the predator control methods were "likely to be futile over the long-term" and did not consider cascading effects on both cyclic and non-cyclic prey populations. In analyzing the factors, this court found that WS failed to consider "several federal agencies with long experience and expertise in managing game animals and protected species" when proposing to expand the expanded PDM program. There was a lack of crucial data to support WS' assumptions in its modeling that was exacerbated by use of unreliable data, according to the court. In addition, the court found that WS failed to "explain away scientific challenges to the effectiveness of predator removal." Not only was the court troubled by the lack of reliable data used by WS, but the WS’ “unconvincing responses” to agencies that had substantial experience managing wildlife and land-use concerns demonstrated to the court that the PDM is controversial and the environmental impacts were uncertain. This in and of itself necessitated an EIS under NEPA. The court held that the lack of reliable data, the unconvincing responses from WS, combine to trigger three intensity factors that combine to require WS to prepare an EIS. The plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment was granted and the defendant's motion for summary judgment was denied (the motion by plaintiff to supplement the administrative record was deemed moot). |
| WA - Wolf - Chapter 16.001. Wolf-Livestock Management | These statutes create the northeast Washington wolf-livestock management grant within the department of agriculture. Further, a four-member advisory board is established to advise the department on the expenditure of the northeast Washington wolf-livestock management grant funds. The board must help direct funding for the deployment of nonlethal deterrence resources, including human presence, and locally owned and deliberately located equipment and tools. In addition, the northeast Washington wolf-livestock management account is created as a nonappropriated account in the custody of the state treasurer. |
| WA - Wildlife - 77.15.790. Negligently feeding, attempting to feed, or attracting large wild carnivores to land or a building--I | These two Washington laws deal with the unauthorized feeding of large wild carnivores. A person may not negligently feed or attempt to feed large wild carnivores or negligently attract large wild carnivores to land or a building. If a person who is issued a written warning fails to contain, move, or remove the food, food waste, or other substance as directed, the person commits an infraction under chapter 7.84 RCW. |
| WA - Trade - 77.15.260. Unlawful trafficking in fish, shellfish, or wildlife--Penalty | This Washington statute pertains to unlawful trafficking in fish, shellfish, and wildlife. A person is guilty of unlawful trafficking in the second degree if s/he traffics in such animals with a wholesale value of less than $250 and the animals are unclassified or classified as game, food fish, shellfish, game fish, or protected wildlife. Unlawful trafficking in the first degree occurs when the animals have a value of $250 or more or the animals are classified as endangered or deleterious exotic wildlife. |
| WA - Shark - 77.15.770. Unlawful trade in shark fins--Penalty | Under this Washington statute, it is unlawful to trade in shark fins, with exceptions. A person is guilty in the second degree (gross misdemeanor) if s/he sells, purchases, or processes a shark fin for commercial purposes. A person is guilty of unlawful trade in shark fins in the first degree (class C felony) if the act involves shark fins with a total market value of $250 or more, or acted with knowledge that the shark fin originated from a shark that was illegally caught. |
| WA - Orca - 77.15.740. Protection of southern resident orca whales--Penalty | Under this Washington statute, it is unlawful to feed, intercept, or approach within three hundred feet of a southern resident orca whale, with exceptions. A violation is a natural resource infraction and carries a fine of five hundred dollars, not including statutory assessments added pursuant to RCW 3.62.090. |
| WA - Endangered Species - Chapter 77.15. Fish and Wildlife Enforcement Code | Under Washington endangered species provisions, a person is guilty of unlawful taking of endangered fish or wildlife in the second degree if person hunts for, fishes for, possesses, maliciously harasses, or kills fish or wildlife, or possesses or intentionally destroys the nests or eggs of fish or wildlife; the fish or wildlife is designated by the commission as endangered; and the taking of the fish or wildlife or the destruction of the nests or eggs has not been authorized. Additionally, a person is guilty of unlawful taking of endangered fish or wildlife in the first degree if the person has been previously convicted under the above provision within a five-year time period. Once convicted of unlawful taking of endangered fish or wildlife in the first degree (a class C felony), any licenses or tags used in connection with the crime are revoked and the person's privileges to hunt, fish, trap, or obtain licenses under this title are suspended for two years. |
| WA - Coyotes - 9.41.185. Coyote getters |
This Washington law provides that the use of "coyote getters" is not a violation of law when their use is authorized by the state department of agriculture and/or the state department of fish and wildlife in cooperative programs with the United States Fish and Wildlife Service. The purpose must be to control or eliminate coyotes that are harmful to livestock or game animals. |
| WA - Beavers - 77.32.585. Release of wild beavers | This Washington law states that the department shall permit the release of wild beavers on public and private lands with agreement from the property owner under specified conditions. |