7749 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

The Act's History and Framework 21 forfeiture provision that allows not only the illegally taken spe- cies or products to be seized but also the guns, vessels, vehicles, aircraft, or other equipment used in the taking. And, finally, the Endangered Species Act contains a broad citizen suit provision. Implementing the provisions of the Endangered Species Act has been a mix of science, politics, and art. And, not sur- prisingly, there have been considerable discrepancies between theory and practice as the following essays demonstrate. Nev- ertheless, the basic provisions of the act have proved to be re- markably resilient over the first decade and a half of their existence. The challenge for the future will be to resist attempts to compromise the act's high standards-and, more important, to learn to creatively implement the vision set forth by its au- thors. Notes 1. For a detailed discussion of the provisions of the Lacey Act as well as an excellent history of federal wildlife law, see Bean (1983). 2. Missouri v. Holland, 252 U.S. 416 (1920). 3. For a detailed discussion of the development of a strong constitu- ency for endangered species protection and the politics behind pas- sage of the Endangered Species Act, see Yaffee (1982). 4. Letter from Secretary of the Interior Steward Udall to Speaker of the House John McCormack, June 5, 1965, reprinted in U.S. House Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, Protection of En- dangered Species of Fish and Wildlife, Report No. 1168, 89th Cong., 1st Sess. (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1965), pp. 12-14, cited in Yaffee (1982). 5. For further discussion of CITES see the essay by Mark Trexler and Laura Kosloff in Part II of this volume. 6. Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents 8 (Feb. 8, 1972), pp. 218-224, cited in Yaffee (1982). 7. TVA v. Hill, 437 U.S. 187. 8. For further discussion of the listing process for threatened and endangered species see William Reffalt's essay in Part II of this volume. 9. For further discussion of the Section 7 consultation process see Steven Yaffee's essay in Part II of this volume. 10. 471 F. Supp. 985 (D. Hawaii 1979), aff'd, 639 F. 2nd 495 (1981).