|
NM - Endangered Species - Chapter 17. Game and Fish and Outdoor Recreation. |
These statutes comprise the New Mexico Wildlife Conservation Act. Included in the provisions are definitions related to the statute, legislative policies, and regulations for listing or delisting species. Violation of the Act constitutes a misdemeanor and can incur a penalty from $50 - 1,000 depending on the categorization of the species taken. |
|
Northwest Ecosystem Alliance v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service |
The Endangered Species Act protects not just species, but also "distinct population segments" of species. The Fish and Wildlife Service refused to list the Western Gray Squirrel as endangered in Washington State, even though its numbers are low there, because it determined that the squirrels in Washington are not significant to the species as a whole. The court upheld this decision.
|
|
NV - Endangered Species - Protection and Propagation of Native Fauna (Chapter 503) |
These statutes provide that the Legislature of Nevada has an interest in protecting native species from extinction and sets forth the authority to establish programs to protect designated species. However, if a native species is found to be destructive under the statute, the statute provides for removal if appropriate. Under statute, the ultimate responsibility for management rests with the governor for reviewing state programs and entering into interstate and federal agreements. |
|
NV- Rehabilitation, wildlife - Chapter 504. Wildlife Management and Propagation. |
These Nevada regulations are about permits to rehabilitate wildlife. These regulations reveal where an application for a wildlife rehabilitation permit can be obtained, what must be included on the application, where to return the application, the required documents that must also be submitted with the application, the expiration of the permit, and the roles and the responsibilities of the permit holder. Additionally, the following regulations also provide information about euthanizing wildlife that is not listed as endangered or threatened species, as well as how to euthanize a species that is listed as endangered or threatened. |
|
NY - Endangered Species - Chapter 43-B. Of the Consolidated Laws. |
The New York code for endangered species defines endangered species as any species which meets one of the following criteria: native species in imminent danger of extirpation or extinction in New York; or species listed as endangered by the United States Department of the Interior in the Code of Federal Regulations (50 CFR part 17). |
|
NY - Endangered Species - Part 182. Endangered and Threatened Species of Fish and Wildlife |
This set of New York regulations concerns endangered, threatened, and species of special concern. Section 182.5 provides a list of native species listed as endangered, threatened, or of special concern. Under Section 182.7, the department may issue a license to a person to transport, sell, import and/or possess a listed species for purposes it deems legitimate. |
|
NY - Enforcement, Conservation - Article 71. Enforcement. |
This set of statutes outlines the procedures and penalties for violations of New York's Environmental Conservation Law. |
|
NY - Exotic - Chapter 43-B. Of the Consolidated Laws. |
This set of New York statutes provides some of the state's fish and wildlife laws. Among the provisions include a prohibition against interference with wildlife, restriction on the possession and importation of certain wildlife such as wolves, wolfdogs, coyotes, coydogs, foxes, skunks, and venomous reptiles, and laws that allows individuals to take destructive wildlife. No person shall knowingly possess, harbor, sell, barter, transfer, exchange or import any wild animal for use as a pet in New York state, except that any person who possessed a wild animal for use as a pet at the time that this section went effect may retain possession of such animal for the remainder of its life. |
|
Ocean Mammal Inst. v. Gates |
Plaintiffs sued the Navy over the use of sonar; the Plaintiffs feared that the sonar would kill whales and other marine life. This case dealt with the required production of documents the Defendant claimed were privileged and or work product material. The Court found that the Defendant must hand over the material to the Plaintiffs because the documents were not in fact privileged.
|
|
Oceana, Inc. v. Gutierrez |
This federal appeal concerns regulations issued by the National Marine Fisheries Service in 2004 for leatherback sea turtles. The leatherbacks experience mortality due to long-line fishing in the pelagic ocean after they become entangled or hooked on the lines. In 2001, the Service issued an RFA - reasonable and prudent alternative - to long-line fishing operations in the pelagic ocean off the coast of New Jersey where operators could replace
the industry-wide standard J-hook with circle hooks which would reduce mortality. Oceana
claim is that the Fisheries Service acted arbitrarily when it predicted that the measures it was putting in place would result in a 13.1 percent mortality rate by 2007 for leatherbacks caught in longlines. The Court of Appeals agreed with the
district court that the Service's judgment was not arbitrary or capricious when it predicted that fishing operators could achieve a 13.1 post-release mortality rate.
|
