Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
- Publication
- Publication Type
Articles 1 - 2 of 2
Full-Text Articles in Natural Law
Federal Funding Statutes And State-Federal Wildlife Authority: Did Congress Demonstrate A Preference For State Wildlife Management Authority With Pittman-Robertson And Dingell-Johnson?, James Vaughan Branch
Federal Funding Statutes And State-Federal Wildlife Authority: Did Congress Demonstrate A Preference For State Wildlife Management Authority With Pittman-Robertson And Dingell-Johnson?, James Vaughan Branch
Graduate Student Theses, Dissertations, & Professional Papers
The Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act of 1937 now known as Pittman-Robertson and Federal Aid in Sport Fish Restoration Act of 1950 now known as Dingell-Johnson are federal statutes which stand as the original and perhaps most significant federal funding statutes supporting state wildlife conservation and management. Congress’s decision to pass these statutes may be argued to be a prima facie endorsement of state wildlife agencies (SWA) as the primary managers of wildlife since each statute dedicated substantial federal excise revenue to SWAs. We hypothesized we would find consistent evidence in favor of primary state management authority over wildlife. …
Markle Interest, L.L.C. V. U. S. Fish & Wildlife Service, Peter B. Taylor
Markle Interest, L.L.C. V. U. S. Fish & Wildlife Service, Peter B. Taylor
Public Land & Resources Law Review
This action is an appeal of a grant of summary judgment to the United States Fish and Wildlife Service on the designation of critical-habitat for the dusky gopher frog under the ESA. Landowner appellants originally sought declaratory and injunctive relief against the Service, the Department of Interior, and agency officials challenging the designation of their private property as critical-habitat for the dusky gopher frog. The court’s holdings recognize loss of property value as a “particularized injury” for standing under the ESA in addition to addressing the landowners’ three principal arguments: 1) the critical habitat designation violated the ESA and the …