Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Law
Herring, Sardines, And Foreign Affairs: Determination Of Optimum Yield Under The Fishery Conservation And Management Act Of 1976—Maine V. Kreps, 563 F.2d 1043 (1st Cir.), Remanded, No. 77-45-Sd (S.D. Me. Aug. 26, 1977), Aff'd, 563 F.2d 1052 (1st Cir. 1977), William H. Beaver, Jr
Washington Law Review
This note will analyze the major issue of Maine v. Kreps, whether Secretary Kreps fulfilled the FCMA's requirements in her determination of optimum yield. This issue is discussed in two parts. First, the criteria expressed in the preliminary management plan are analyzed in light of the relevant provisions of the FCMA. Second, the inclusion of foreign policy considerations in the optimum yield calculations (a factor not discussed in the preliminary management plan) is analyzed by (1) inferring from the Maine opinion the proper use of foreign policy in management decisions, and (2) suggesting criteria which may affect the role of …
The Interaction Of Federal Equitable Remedies With State Sovereignty—Puget Sound Gillnetters Association V. Moos, 88 Wn. 2d 677, 565 P.2d 1151 (1977), Bennet A. Mcconaughy
The Interaction Of Federal Equitable Remedies With State Sovereignty—Puget Sound Gillnetters Association V. Moos, 88 Wn. 2d 677, 565 P.2d 1151 (1977), Bennet A. Mcconaughy
Washington Law Review
The Washington Supreme Court held in Puget Sound Gillnetters Association v. Moos that the State Director of Fisheries did not have authority to issue regulations required by a federal court order guaranteeing treaty Indians the opportunity to catch specific percentages of various salmon runs. After attempting to act in the face of conflicting interpretations of his powers, the Director eventually bowed to the state court's determination and refused to promulgate the regulations. To implement its order, the federal court assumed control of the Washington salmon fisheries. This conflict between the federal and state court decisions raises two general questions. The …
Protection Of Recreation And Scenic Beauty Under The Washington Forest Practices Act, Brian L. Hansen
Protection Of Recreation And Scenic Beauty Under The Washington Forest Practices Act, Brian L. Hansen
Washington Law Review
This comment examines Washington's failure to adequately protect recreation and scenic beauty from the adverse effects of forest practices. It first describes the Forest Practices Act, then discusses the absence of Forest Practices Board regulations protecting scenic beauty and recreation. It then analyzes the preemptive effect of the Forest Practices Act and its interrelationship with other laws and regulations such as the State Environmental Protection Act (SEPA) and SEPA guidelines, the Shoreline Management Act, and local regulations. The comment concludes that further administrative and legislative action is necessary to protect recreation and scenic beauty in Washington's forests.