My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
7749
CWCB
>
UCREFRP
>
Copyright
>
7749
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/14/2009 5:01:46 PM
Creation date
5/22/2009 7:19:00 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
UCREFRP
UCREFRP Catalog Number
7749
Author
Kohm, K. A., ed.
Title
Editor
USFW Year
Series
USFW - Doc Type
1991
Copyright Material
YES
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
320
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
The Act's History and Framework 13 <br />destruction, drastic modification, or severe curtailment, or be- <br />cause of overexploitation, disease, predation, or because of other <br />factors." In making such a determination, the secretary was <br />required only to seek the advice and recommendations of inter- <br />estedpersons and to consult with states in which the species was <br />found. No other procedures were specified. <br />Interestingly, the 1966 act did reflect recognition of the need <br />for interagency cooperation in the implementation of a federal <br />endangered species program. The act's language in this respect <br />was vague, however, and unenforceable. The interior secretary <br />was required to use programs within his jurisdiction to further <br />the purposes of the act, and to encourage other agencies to do the <br />same, but only "to the extent practicable." Similarly, the act <br />called upon all agency heads to protect. endangered species of <br />native fish and wildlife and, "insofar as practicable and consis- <br />tent with the primary purposes of such bureaus, agencies, and <br />services, [to] preserve the habitats of such threatened species on <br />lands under their jurisdiction." <br />Perhaps more telling were the provisions omitted from the <br />1966 act. With the limited exception of a prohibition on the <br />taking of wildlife on reserves designated specifically for the con- <br />servation of an endangered species, no taking restrictions .(that <br />is, restrictions on killing, trapping, collecting, and harming <br />individuals of an endangered species) were included for en- <br />dangered species. No restrictions were placed on interstate <br />commerce. Moreover, the act implied coverage only of native <br />species, excluding even subspecies. Nevertheless, the act was <br />hailed as a great achievement. Perceived largely as a "no-lose" <br />-bill (having no significant effect on commercial activity), it won <br />an easy victory in Congress. As such it put species protection <br />on the congressional agenda and set the stage for subsequent <br />statutes. <br />THE 1969 ACT <br />The 1969 Endangered Species Protection Act incrementally be- <br />gan to resolve same of the ambiguities of the earlier statute. On <br />the domestic front, the 1969 act extended the Lacey Act's ban on <br />interstate commerce to include reptiles, amphibians, mollusks, <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.