Results

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.

Abstract: Although settlers hunted gray wolves to near extinction more than a century ago, the animal remains one of the most enduring symbols of the West. In 1994, the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service authorized reintroduction of gray wolves into Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming under recovery provisions of the Endangered Species Act. Fourteen years later, the Service delisted wolves in these states, contending that the reintroduced population met the numeric and distributional criteria established for recovery in 1994. Months after a district judge enjoined the Service's 2008 delisting rule, the Service again delisted gray wolves. This Note asserts that both the 2008 and 2009 delisting rules violate provisions of the Endangered Species Act guaranteeing adequacy of state regulatory mechanisms prior to delisting, and fidelity to the best available scientific data. The Note also contends that the Service unlawfully deployed conservation tools as delisting instruments contrary to congressional intent. Lastly, the Note illuminates administrative defects in the delisting rules, namely the Service's decision to disregard its own requirement of genetic linkage among the entire gray wolf population without providing a reasoned explanation.

This article summarizes the international and American laws affecting chimpanzees. Each law is described, and the ways in which each law works well and works poorly are discussed. Generally, all laws affecting chimpanzees as they are currently written, do not adequately protect the species from the most salient threats to its survival.

Controversy has arisen over how best to deal with populations of feral cats. While cat advocates fight against killing cats, bird advocates and others see them as destructive to protected species. Legal issues of property ownership, causation, and classification of cats are central to the question of human liability for feral cats.

The international trade in wild-caught reptiles has been cause for increasing concern, especially over the last few years. Federal, state and foreign laws are seemingly broken everyday as hundreds of thousands of reptiles are imported and exported each, mostly for the pet trade. In addition to depleting our natural resources and threatening many species with extinction, the reptiles are treated inhumanely and can even pose a health risk to people and the environment.

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.

This paper focuses on the changes that have occurred from 2005 to the present in each DPS, including three non-essential experimental populations located in Yellowstone, Central Idaho, and the southwestern U.S.; the Northern Rocky Mountain DPS; and the Western Great Lakes DPS.

This paper examines the laws pertaining to zoo animals on the international, federal, and state level, along with voluntary standards, not mandated by law. On the international level there are only regulations which apply to the trade of the species between international countries, limiting how many can be imported and exported and how they are transported. On the federal level, those laws most important to zoo animals are the Animal Welfare Act and the Endangered Species Act. The AWA sets minimum standards for the care, handling, housing, and transport of animals exhibited in zoos. The ESA applies to those animals listed as threatened or endangered, but even then exhibition alone will never constitute a violation. State laws consist of anti-cruelty statutes that come into force only after a violation has occurred. Voluntary associations such as the American Zoo Association set higher standards of care for their members, in some instances, than the minimum standards set forth in the Animal Welfare Act. Using the elephant as a case study, this paper exposes the inadequacies of our existing laws, which have resulted in unfortunate incidents nationwide. It also exposes the underground trade of surplus zoo animals, which continues because of the lacking enforcement of current laws.