Citizen involvement in the U.S. endangered species act

Science

Volumn 337, Issue 6096, 2012, Pages 802-803

  Brosi, Berry J ^a   Biber, Eric G N ^b  

^a EMORY UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CITIZENSHIP; ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT; PARTICIPATORY APPROACH; REFUGE;

ACT; DATA BASE; ENDANGERED SPECIES; ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING; ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION; FUNDING; GOPHERUS AGASSIZII; LAW; LAW SUIT; NONHUMAN; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REVIEW; SOCIAL PARTICIPATION; SPECIES EXTINCTION; TURTLE; UNITED STATES; ANIMAL; ARTICLE; FACTUAL DATABASE; LEGAL ASPECT; POPULATION; REGRESSION ANALYSIS; STATISTICS;

UNITED STATES;

ANIMALS; DATABASES, FACTUAL; ENDANGERED SPECIES; POPULATION; REGRESSION ANALYSIS; TURTLES; UNITED STATES;

EID: 84865101791     PISSN: 00368075     EISSN: 10959203     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1126/science.1220660     Document Type: Review

References (19)

1. ESA 16 USC §§ 1533.
2. ESA 16 USC §§ 1539.
3. J. Patlis, Tulane Environ. Law J. 16, 257 (2003).
4. M. Restani, J. M. Marzluff, Bioscience 52, 169 (2002).
5. I. C. Sugg, Cumberland Law Rev. 24, 1 (1993).
6. The listing of subspecies and populations as endangered or threatened is allowed under the ESA ( 19).
7. There are biologically important reasons for protecting subspecies and populations; see, e.g., ( 8).
8. G. Ceballos, P. R. Ehrlich, Science 296, 904 (2002).
9. L. Hurley, E&E Publishing, 23 March 2011; http://www.eenews.net/ public/Greenwire/2011/03/23/2.
10. D. Holthouse, Denver Westword News, 20 January 2005; www.westword.com/ 2005-01-20/news/building-abetter-mousetrap.
11. M. A. Cronin, Range Magazine 2006, 14 (2006).
12. Supplementary Materials are available on Science Online.
13. FWS, Fed. Regist. 48, 43098 (1983).
14. We did not include species managed by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) because of data limitations and sample size. Including NMFS species and reanalyzing our data does not change any basic results ( 12).
15. Because petitions and litigations are legally independent actions, we also separately analyzed the effect of each, comparing petitioned species (P+) to unpetitioned (P-) species, and litigated (L+) to unlitigated (L-) species. The unpetitioned category includes both (P-, L+) and (P-, L-) species; the unlitigated category contains both (L-, P+) and (L-, P-) species.
16. E. Biber, B. Brosi, UCLA Law Rev. 58, 321 (2010).
17. O. E. Sala et al., Science 287, 1770 (2000).
18. Natureserve (NatureServe Web Service, Arlington, VA, 2012); http://services.natureserve.org.
19. ESA 16 USC §§ 1532.