Endangered Species
Title![]() |
Summary |
---|---|
Brief Overview of Chimpanzee Laws |
|
Brief Overview of Polar Bears |
|
Brief Summary of Elephants and the Ivory Trade | This paper will examine the global ivory trade and its effect of elephant populations. It begins with a historical discussion of ivory demand as well as the relationship between elephants and ivory. The paper then looks at poaching rates over time and the poaching industry generally. Next, the paper considers two competing approaches to elephant conservation and catalogues how they have informed CITES decisions regarding elephants beginning in 1975. In addition, it discusses relevant laws in ivory-producing nations and consuming nations. Finally, the paper examines U.S. laws regarding elephants and ivory, as well as legal challenges to those policies. |
Brief Summary of Feral Cat Population Control |
|
Brief Summary of Gray Wolf Legal Challenges from 2005 to the Present |
|
Brief Summary of the Endangered Species Act |
|
Brief Summary of the Laws Pertaining to Zoos |
|
Brief Summary of the Recovery of the Gray Wolf Under the Endangered Species Act |
|
Buffalo Field Campaign v. Zinke | Plaintiffs Buffalo Field Campaign and other environmental groups petitioned the Fish and Wildlife Service ("Service") to add the Yellowstone bison population to the federal endangered species list. After the Service made a threshold “90–day” determination that Buffalo Field's petition failed to present sufficient scientific evidence that listing the bison may be warranted, Buffalo Field brought suit under the Administrative Procedure Act, alleging that the Service's determination was arbitrary and capricious. The United States District Court for the District of Columbia ruled that the Service applied an improper standard when evaluating Buffalo Field's petition, granted Buffalo Field's motion for summary judgment, denied the Service's cross-motion, and remanded the case for the agency to conduct a new 90–day finding using the proper standard. In particular, the court observed that the Service "simply picked a side in an ongoing debate in the scientific community," thereby in inappropriately heightening the standard of evaluation for a 90-day petition. Because of that, the court agreed with the Service that remand is the appropriate remedy as opposed to to directing the Service to begin a 12-month review. |
BULLHOOKS AND THE LAW: IS PAIN AND SUFFERING THE ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM? |