Local and national protection of endangered species: an assessment |
| |
| Institution: | 1. College of Law, University of Idaho, Moscow, ID 83844, USA;2. Defenders of Wildlife, P.O. Box 40709, Albuquerque, NM 87196, USA;3. 5 Peters Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94110, USA;4. Department of Fish and Wildlife, University of Idaho, Moscow, ID 83844, USA;5. College of Forestry, Wildlife and Range Sciences, University of Idaho, Moscow, ID 83844, USA;1. Department of Swine and Small Animal Breeding, Institute of Animal Sciences, University of Agriculture in Krakow, Krakow, Poland;2. Department of Animal Sciences, Robert H. Smith Faculty of Agriculture, Food and Environment, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Rehovot, Israel;1. Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche, Istituto di Metodologie per l’Analisi Ambientale, C.da S.Loja, 85050 Tito (PZ), Italy;2. Instituto de Geofísica, UNAM, Mexico;3. Departamento de Ciencias Básicas, Universidad Autónoma Metropolitana-Azcapotzalco, Av. San Pablo 180, Mexico City, Mexico;1. Shanghai Key Laboratory of Multidimensional Information Processing, Sch Infor Sci & Tech, East China Normal University, 500 Dongchuan Rd., Shanghai 200241, PR China;2. Shanghai Scientific & Technical Publishers, 71 Qinzhou Nan Road, Shanghai 200235, PR China;1. School of Life Sciences, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ 85287, USA;2. The Roslin Institute & Royal (Dick) School of Veterinary Studies, University of Edinburgh, Roslin, Midlothian EH25 9PS, UK;3. Laboratory of Integrative Brain Sciences, Department of Biology and Center for Medical Life Science, Waseda University, Tokyo 162-8480, Japan;1. Programa de Pós-graduação em Ecologia e Conservação, Universidade Federal do Paraná, CP 19031, Curitiba, PR 81531-980, Brazil;2. Departamento de Oceanografia e Ecologia, Universidade Federal do Espírito Santo, Av. Fernando Ferrari, Vitória, ES 29075-910, Brazil;3. Centro de Estudos do Mar, Universidade Federal do Paraná, Av. Beira-Mar, Pontal do Paraná, PR 83255-976, Brazil |
| |
| Abstract: | We searched the statutory codes of all 50 states to locate provisions applicable to endangered and threatened species. The state statutes were compared to 6 components of the US Endangered Species Act: (1) coverage; (2) listing procedures and requirements under section 4; (3) habitat designation and protection procedures and criteria under sections 4 and 7; (4) prohibitions on commerce and taking under section 9; (5) exceptions to the prohibitions on commerce and taking and (6) conservation planning under section 4. State endangered and threatened species legislation is far less comprehensive than the federal act. Only 15 states have statutes that cover all plants and animals. Similarly, only 11 states offer any protection for taxa below the subspecific level. 45 states have provisions for listing species independently of the federal act but only 8 authorize emergency listings. 43 states have no provisions authorizing the designation of critical habitat; 39 states offer no protection against habitat destruction on either private or publicly owned lands. Most states prohibit commercial transactions and taking of listed animal species; plant species receive less protection. Only 3 states include any requirements that the wildlife management agency engage in recovery planning processes. In the absence of a federal statute to protect endangered and threatened species, we question whether current state protection is either adequate or would be maintained. We briefly examined legislation on endangered species in two other countries with federal systems of government, Australia and Canada. Canada lacked a federal statute. Assessment of national, state and territorial legislation in Australia revealed several similarities and differences with the United States endangered species legislation. Differences suggested an alternative to the top down approach embodied in the United States Endangered Species Act. |
| |
| Keywords: | |
| 本文献已被 ScienceDirect 等数据库收录！ |
|
