Reference no: EM131470783
Question: The Endangered Species Act of 1973 makes it unlawful for any person to "take" endangered or threatened species. The act defines take to mean "harass, harm, pursue, "wound," or "kill." The secretary of the interior (Bruce Babbitt) issued a regulation that further defined harm to include "significant habitat modification or degradation where it actually kills or injures wildlife." A group of businesses and individuals involved in the timber industry brought an action against the secretary of the interior and others. The group complained that the application of the "harm" regulation to the red-cockaded woodpecker and the northern spotted owl had injured the group economically by preventing logging operations (habitat modification) in Pacific Northwest forests containing these species.
The group challenged the regulation's validity, contending that Congress had not intended the word take to include habitat modification. The case ultimately reached the United States Supreme Court, which held that the secretary had reasonably construed Congress's intent when he defined harm to include habitat modification. [Babbitt v. Sweet Home Chapter of Communities for a Great Oregon, 515 U.S. 687, 115 S.Ct. 2407, 132 L.Ed.2d 597 (1995)]
1. Traditionally, the term take has been used to refer to the capture or killing of wildlife, usually for private gain. Is the secretary's regulation prohibiting habitat modification consistent with this definition?
2. One of the issues in this case was whether Congress intended to protect existing generations of species or future generations. How do the terms take and habitat modification relate to this issue?
3. Three dissenting Supreme Court justices contended that construing the act as prohibiting habitat modification "imposes unfairness to the point of financial ruin-not just upon the rich, but upon the simplest farmer who finds his land conscripted to national zoological use." Should private parties be required to bear the burden of preserving habitats for wildlife?
4. Generally, should the economic welfare of private parties be taken into consideration in the creation and application of environmental statutes and regulations?
What is foes best argument in this dispute
: Clean Water Act. The Anacostia River, which flows through Washington, D.C., is one of the ten most polluted rivers in the country. For bodies of water.
|
Find the equation of motion
: Using the Newton's second law model for a vibrating spring with damping and no forcing, my''+by'+ky=0, find the equation of motion
|
Explain the key components of three sources of law
: Analyze key components of three sources of law related to the effects that each source could potentially have on your healthcare organization's new initiative.
|
Linear model project
: For at least 8 brands, look up the fat content and the associated calorie total per serving. Make a quick plot for yourself to "eyeball".
|
Discuss creation and application of environmental statutes
: The Endangered Species Act of 1973 makes it unlawful for any person to "take" endangered or threatened species. The act defines take to mean "harass, harm.
|
Explain the need to grow the companys workforce
: Explain the need to grow the company's workforce based on organizational and personal values.Analyze current environment to include workforce diversity .
|
Prepare the adjusting entries at december
: Prepare the adjusting entries at December 31, 2017. (Credit account titles are automatically indented when the amount is entered. Do not indent manually.)
|
What is a current or hot topic in the given news
: What is a current or "hot" topic in news that related to environmental science that interests you? Include these areas in your discussion in sufficient detail.
|
Remove water from a ooded basement
: In order to remove water from a ooded basement, two pumps, each rated at 40 gallons per minute, are used.
|