Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- 16 U.S.C. (1)
- 50 C.F.R. (1)
- 9th Circuit (1)
- Agency action (1)
- Alexander Blewett III School of Law (1)
-
- Animal law (1)
- Animals (1)
- Barred owl (1)
- Bradley E. Tinker (1)
- Bradley Tinker (1)
- CERCLA (1)
- Case summary (1)
- Code of Federal Regulations (1)
- Collecting (1)
- Colville Reservation (1)
- Colville Tribes (1)
- Conservation (1)
- Convention (1)
- District of Oregon (1)
- Donated (1)
- ESA (1)
- Endangered (1)
- Endangered Species Act (1)
- Environmental law (1)
- Environmentalism (1)
- Experiment (1)
- Exterminated (1)
- Extermination (1)
- Extinct (1)
- Extinction (1)
Articles 1 - 2 of 2
Full-Text Articles in Oil, Gas, and Mineral Law
Pakootas V. Teck Cominco Metals, Ltd., Connlan W. Whyte
Pakootas V. Teck Cominco Metals, Ltd., Connlan W. Whyte
Public Land & Resources Law Review
Throughout the twentieth century, Teck Cominco Metals leaked metal pollutants into the Upper Columbia River that ultimately entered the United States and the Colville Indian Reservation. In 2004, after almost a decade of working with the United States Environmental Protection Agency, the Colville Tribes initiated a citizen suit under CERCLA against Teck for damaging the ecosystem of the Upper Columbia River. In 2018, the Ninth Circuit affirmed judgment against Teck for recovery costs and attorney’s fees.
Friends Of Animals V. United States Fish & Wildlife Service, Bradley E. Tinker
Friends Of Animals V. United States Fish & Wildlife Service, Bradley E. Tinker
Public Land & Resources Law Review
In Friends of Animals v. United States Fish & Wildlife Service, the Ninth Circuit held that the plain language of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act allows for the removal of one species of bird to benefit another species. Friends of Animals argued that the Service’s experiment permitting the taking of one species––the barred owl––to advance the conservation of a different species––the northern spotted owl––violated the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. The court, however, found that the Act delegates broad implementing discretion to the Secretary of the Interior, and neither the Act nor the underlying international conventions limit the taking of …