Results

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).

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.

This chart provides a link to each state agency responsible for enforcement of state endangered species laws. It also lists a summary of the criteria under the state statutes, the statutory citation, and a link to the US Fish & Wildlife Service's Threatened & Endangered Species System (TESS) database of listed species.

This article provides necessary background information on the ESA listing process. It discusses the numerous problems with the listing status quo, which combine to prevent us from meaningfully realizing the expectations Congress had for the listing process. It also provides the support for the primary thesis--that we can and should devise quantitative listing criteria--and suggests a superior model from which to work.

This article argues that the courts should have invoked Alaska’s public trust doctrine, which prevents the granting of preferences over state natural resources. The courts should have also rigorously examined the BOG’s wolf killing policies and protected the wolf as a valuable public trust resource. The BOG’s wolf killing policies have not been supported by the public, leading to ballot initiatives to protect the wolf. Congress is currently considering the Protect America’s Wildlife Act, which will prevent the same day airborne hunting of Alaska’s wolves.

The Delhi Sands Flower Loving Fly obtained endangered species status on the day a county planned to construct a hospital on the fly's dwindling habitat. Since the Endangered Species Act (ESA) prohibits the taking of any endangered species and courts have interpreted "taking" to include “significant habitat modification or degradation where it actually kills or injures” a member of the species, the county made concessions to comply with the ESA. However, when the county learned that the fly stood in the way of its plans to redesign an intersection, the county filed suit challenging the application of the ESA to the fly's habitat; many others who also wished to build on the fly's habitat joined in the suit as well. Using United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995), these groups hoped the district court would find that the ESA, under the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution, could not constitutionally protect the fly's habitat. The district court, however, upheld the act's application. In the appeal of the district case, known as the National Ass'n of Home Builders v. Babbitt, 130 F.3d 1041 (D.C. Cir. 1997), the appellate court upheld the lower court's decision, but offered three different explanations why the ESA could or could not constitutionally require protection of the fly. In this article, John Copeland Nagle investigates these three strikingly diverse explanations. In doing so, Nagle also investigates whether Congress has the power to protect something that is very rare, very valuable, and seemingly entirely uninvolved with commerce between the states.