联邦土地上的野生动物

Eric T. Freyfogle, D. Goble, Todd A. Wildermuth
{"title":"联邦土地上的野生动物","authors":"Eric T. Freyfogle, D. Goble, Todd A. Wildermuth","doi":"10.5822/978-1-61091-915-9_11","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Wildlife on federal lands has long drawn considerable attention, and with good reason. The landholdings of the federal government are massive— some 30 percent of the nation’s surface—including vast expanses of vital wildlife habitat. What is the legal status of the wildlife on these lands? Who has the legal authority to manage it? And what are the rules currently in place? These are the questions taken up in this chapter in the context of the four largest categories of federal lands: the wildlife refuges run by the US Fish and Wildlife Service, the variously named holdings of the National Park Service, the national forests, and the diverse lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). Together these four categories comprise more than 96 percent of all federal landholdings. The wildlife laws applicable to these lands differ among the four categories and thus call for separate consideration. Before exploring them, however, it is useful to understand the basic legal framework that applies on nearly all federal lands.","PeriodicalId":52446,"journal":{"name":"Journal of International Wildlife Law and Policy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Wildlife on Federal Lands\",\"authors\":\"Eric T. Freyfogle, D. Goble, Todd A. Wildermuth\",\"doi\":\"10.5822/978-1-61091-915-9_11\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Wildlife on federal lands has long drawn considerable attention, and with good reason. The landholdings of the federal government are massive— some 30 percent of the nation’s surface—including vast expanses of vital wildlife habitat. What is the legal status of the wildlife on these lands? Who has the legal authority to manage it? And what are the rules currently in place? These are the questions taken up in this chapter in the context of the four largest categories of federal lands: the wildlife refuges run by the US Fish and Wildlife Service, the variously named holdings of the National Park Service, the national forests, and the diverse lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). Together these four categories comprise more than 96 percent of all federal landholdings. The wildlife laws applicable to these lands differ among the four categories and thus call for separate consideration. Before exploring them, however, it is useful to understand the basic legal framework that applies on nearly all federal lands.\",\"PeriodicalId\":52446,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of International Wildlife Law and Policy\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of International Wildlife Law and Policy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5822/978-1-61091-915-9_11\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"Social Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of International Wildlife Law and Policy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5822/978-1-61091-915-9_11","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

长期以来,联邦土地上的野生动物一直备受关注,这是有充分理由的。联邦政府拥有的土地面积很大,约占国土面积的30%,其中包括大片重要的野生动物栖息地。这些土地上的野生动物的法律地位是什么?谁有法律权力管理它?目前的规定是什么?这些都是本章在四大类联邦土地的背景下讨论的问题:由美国鱼类和野生动物管理局管理的野生动物保护区,国家公园管理局拥有的各种名称,国家森林,以及由土地管理局管理的各种土地。这四类土地合计占联邦所有土地的96%以上。适用于这些土地的野生动物法在四类中有所不同,因此需要单独考虑。然而,在探索它们之前,了解适用于几乎所有联邦土地的基本法律框架是有用的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Wildlife on Federal Lands
Wildlife on federal lands has long drawn considerable attention, and with good reason. The landholdings of the federal government are massive— some 30 percent of the nation’s surface—including vast expanses of vital wildlife habitat. What is the legal status of the wildlife on these lands? Who has the legal authority to manage it? And what are the rules currently in place? These are the questions taken up in this chapter in the context of the four largest categories of federal lands: the wildlife refuges run by the US Fish and Wildlife Service, the variously named holdings of the National Park Service, the national forests, and the diverse lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). Together these four categories comprise more than 96 percent of all federal landholdings. The wildlife laws applicable to these lands differ among the four categories and thus call for separate consideration. Before exploring them, however, it is useful to understand the basic legal framework that applies on nearly all federal lands.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
14
期刊介绍: Drawing upon the findings from island biogeography studies, Norman Myers estimates that we are losing between 50-200 species per day, a rate 120,000 times greater than the background rate during prehistoric times. Worse still, the rate is accelerating rapidly. By the year 2000, we may have lost over one million species, counting back from three centuries ago when this trend began. By the middle of the next century, as many as one half of all species may face extinction. Moreover, our rapid destruction of critical ecosystems, such as tropical coral reefs, wetlands, estuaries, and rainforests may seriously impair species" regeneration, a process that has taken several million years after mass extinctions in the past.
期刊最新文献
Lost in Translation? Why Outdated Notions of Normativity in International Law Explain Germany’s Failure to Give Effect to the Ramsar Convention of 1971 Wild Things: Animal Rights in EU Conservation Law Addressing Illegal Transnational Trade of Totoaba and Its Role in the Possible Extinction of the Vaquita Justice for Animals: Our Collective Responsibility Carceral Logics: Human Incarceration and Animal Captivity
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1