Local and national protection of endangered species: An assessment

Environmental Science and Policy

Volumn 2, Issue 1, 1999, Pages 43-59

  Goble, Dale D ^a   George, Susan M ^b   Mazaika, Kathryn ^c   Scott, J Michael ^a   Karl, Jason ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF IDAHO   (United States)

^b PO Box 40709   (United States)

^c 5 Peters Avenue ^*  (United States)

Author keywords

Australia; Canada; Endangered species; Law; Recovery; Threatened species; United States

Indexed keywords

ANIMALIA;

EID: 0002473079     PISSN: 14629011     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S1462-9011(98)00041-0     Document Type: Article

References (27)

1. Alberta, 1998. Revised Statutes of Alberta, ch. W-9.1.
2. Bean, M.J., Rowland, M.J., 1997. The Evolution of National Wildlife Law, 3rd ed. Praeger, Westport, CT.
3. Beatley, T., 1994. Habitat Conservation Planning: Endangered Species and Urban Growth. University of Texas Press, Austin, TX.
4. Bender R.A. The right to kill wild animals in defense of person or property. Montana Law Review. 31:1970;235-240.
5. British Columbia, 1997. Revised Statutes of British Columbia, ch. 488.
6. Canada, 1992. Act of Dec. 17, 1992, ch. 52. 1992 Statutes of Canada 1563-1577.
7. Male, B., 1996. Recovery of Australian threatened species: a national perspective. In: Stephens, S., Maxwell, S. (Eds.), Back from the Brink: Refining the Threatened Species Recovery Process. Surrey Beatty & Sons, pp. 23-27.
8. Mann, C.C., Plummer, M.L., 1995. Noah's Choice: the Future of Endangered Species. Alfred A. Knopf, New York, NY.
9. Mann C., Plummer M. Qualified thumbs up for habitat plan science. Science. 278:1997;2052-2053.
10. Northwest Territories, 1998. Revised Statutes of the Northwest Territories, ch. W-4.
11. Montana Supreme Court, 1940. State versus Rathbone, 100 P.2d, pp. 86-96.
12. Papps, D., 1996. Commonwealth and state government frameworks for recovery planning for threatened species and communities. In: Stephens, S., Maxwell, S. (Eds.), Back from the Brink: Refining the Threatened Species Recovery Process. Surrey Beatty & Sons, pp. 28-36.
13. Privy Council, 1937. Attorney-General for Canada versus Attorney-General for Ontario, 1937 A.C. 326.
14. Swimmer J.Y., Manor L., Gooch R.L. Endangered species programs in the 50 states and Puerto Rico. Endangered Species Update. 10(2):1992;6-10.
15. The Council of State Governments, 1974. Nongame and Endangered Species Conservation Act. In: Suggested State Legislation, vol. 33. Lexington, KY, pp. 67-70.
16. US, 1966. Endangered Species Preservation Act. Public Law No. 89-669, section 1(b), 80 Statutes at Large 926, 926. Washington, DC.
17. US, 1969. Endangered Species Conservation Act. Public Law No. 91-135. 83 Statutes at Large 275. Washington, DC.
18. US, 1973. Endangered Species Act. Public Law No. 93-205. 87 Statutes at Large 884. Washington, DC.
19. US, 1977. 1977 Amendments to the Endangered Species Act. Public Law No. 95-212. 97 Statutes at Large 1493. Washington, DC.
20. US Circuit Court of Appeals, 1988. Christy versus Hodel, 857 F.2d 1324 (9th Cir. 1988), certiorari denied sub nomine, Christy versus Lujan, 490 US 1114 (1989).
21. US Congress, 1977. Authorization of section 6 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973. House of Representatives Report No. 95-333. Washington, DC.
22. US Congress, 1982. Endangered Species Act Amendments of 1982. Senate Report No. 97-418. Washington, DC.
23. US Fish and Wildlife Service, 1995. Code of Federal Regulations. Title 50. Washington, DC.
24. US Supreme Court, 1819. M'Culloch versus Maryland, 17 US (4 Wheat.) 316.
25. US Supreme Court, 1920. Missouri versus Holland, 252 US 416.
26. US Supreme Court, 1995. Babbitt versus Sweet Home Chapter, 515 US 687.
27. Versteeg H. The protection of endangered species: a Canadian perspective. Ecology Law Quarterly. 11:1984;267-304.