Search

This Article fills a void in the legal scholarly literature by evaluating and proposing attainable legal strategies to address the current substantial declines in beneficial insect populations. Despite perceptions of insects as odious pests, the reality is that insects, the most abundant and diverse animals on earth, provide ecosystems services that are crucial to human welfare and the existence of life. Insects, including thousands of species of bees, wasps, butterflies, moths, beetles, and flies, are indispensable pollinators of agricultural crops. Beyond pollination, insects carry out natural pest control, decomposition, and nutrient cycling vital to both agricultural and natural ecosystems. In recent years, a number of scientific studies have raised the alarm over serious declines in populations of insects that provide these essential services. Drivers of insect population declines include loss of habitat, pesticide use, and climate change. Complex synergies among these drivers exacerbate the problem. In this Article, we analyze three federal statutes to determine what, if any, utility they may have in addressing the problem of declines of beneficial insect populations: the federal Endangered Species Act, the Farm Bill, and the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act. An in-depth evaluation of these statutes reveals that the Endangered Species Act and Farm Bill have a limited role to play in protecting beneficial insect populations. The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, on the other hand, has the potential to dramatically reduce insect population declines resulting from habitat loss and pesticide use. After taking a deep dive into this federal law, we propose solutions that can be implemented by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency without the need for additional congressional action. Specifically, we offer five distinct recommendations that the Environmental Protection Agency could implement with its existing regulatory authority that would substantially reduce the decline in beneficial insect populations and the ecosystem services they provide, which are essential to protect life on earth. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article explains the need for the government of Colorado to evaluate Clean Water Act Section 404 program. It discusses barriers to State Section 404 program assumption including assumable waters, the Endangered Species Act, program administration funding and political will. Initiatives for the management of critical natural resources are highlighted such as integration of water quality and quantity, increased regulatory program stability and influence of cooperative federalism.

The article focuses on importance of land conservation overall, outlining the reasons for focusing conservation efforts on rural lands and what environmental (and other) benefits can be gained in these areas. It mentions federal government mandates conservation through laws like the Endangered Species Act and the Clean Water Act. It also mentions ideas of how federal conservation programs could work in conjunction with subnational and private programs to further land conservation goals.

The article focuses on the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for Sixth Circuit in the case National Wildlife Federation v. Secretary of the U.S. Department of Transportation which held that agencies are not bound by either the Endangered Species Act (ESA) or the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) when evaluating and approving these response plans. It also mentions need to prepare an environmental impact statement as per NEPA.

The article focuses on administration of U.S. President Joe Biden should prioritize renewable energy development on public lands contend with the regulatory burdens of longstanding environmental laws such as National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the U.S. Endangered Species Act (ESA). It also mentions framework amply supports renewable energy development on federal public lands. It also mentions successful adaptation to climate change will require public land.

Over the coming decades, experts estimate that twenty-five percent of all plant and animal species may go extinct. Climate change directly contributes to species extinction through ecosystem shift, and accelerates other drivers of extinction such as destruction of habitat and pollution. The Endangered Species Act is the only legal tool in the United States to directly protect against the threat of species extinction, and critical habitat designations under the Endangered Species Act provide a way for the government to protect a species' habitat and preserve biodiversity. Unfortunately, the Trump Administration's recently promulgated regulations hinder, rather than bolster, federal agencies' efforts to save endangered species. By severely restricting the designation of critical habitat, the government has suppressed its own ability to respond to the effects of climate change on endangered and threatened species. This Note proposes a definition of the term "habitat" in the Endangered Species Act that comports with current scientific understandings of the term and would allow federal agencies to account for climate change when designating critical habitat. The definition reflects the dynamic and temporally variable nature of species' habitats, allowing for the designation of currently unoccupied areas that will support species' existence in the future. This definition would clarify the government's role in protecting species' habitats while also complying with the text and purpose of the Endangered Species Act. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Endangered Species Act ("ESA") has been a powerful tool for conserving both national and global biodiversity. As human society continues to evolve, however, so too does its impact on endangered species. Most troublesome is mankind's contribution to climate change since the Industrial Revolution. As extreme weather events, rising sea levels, and increased spread of disease indiscriminately harm living creatures, the fight against species extinction has become an uphill battle. Thankfully, there is still hope. Past legal scholarship has proposed using the ESA to protect species from the effects of climate change, for example, by preserving habitats that they will likely need in the future. Using the ESA in this fashion, however, only addresses climate change retrospectively. This Note proposes using section 7(a)(1) of the ESA to address climate change prospectively. Section 7(a)(1) commands federal agencies to pursue the conservation of endangered species--a mandate that can be used to mitigate climate change. Because section 7(a)(1) has only been interpreted by courts and not by the agencies that administer the ESA, this Note fills in the logical gaps and extrapolates a rule that can properly carry out the policy asserted in Tennessee Valley Authority v. Hill--that endangered and threatened species be afforded the "highest priority." Specifically, this Note proposes that federal agencies must consult with the Fish & Wildlife Service ("FWS") or National Marine Fisheries Service ("NMFS") under section 7(a)(1) if there is a conservation-friendly alternative to either (1) a proposed agency action or (2) the administration of a statute within the agency's authority. The agency must implement a conservation-friendly alternative if one exists. If more than one exists, the agency retains discretion to choose among the alternatives. Finally, this Note applies the affirmative conservation framework to the Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA"), concluding that section 7(a)(1) requires the EPA to regulate greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act's ("CAA") national air quality standards to mitigate climate change and thus protect endangered species. This Note demonstrates that regulating methane emissions by focusing on Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations would allow the EPA to satisfy its affirmative conservation duty while avoiding costly economic and political alternatives. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses the Endangered Species Act (ESA) passed by Congress in 1973 to preserve ecosystems and protect endangered species from extinction. Topics covered include the U.S. Supreme Court's holding in Weyerhaeuser v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the application of ESA in this case, and the Court's failure to define what constitutes habitat.

The article discusses the court ruling in Friends of Animals v. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, upholding the Service's proposed action to remove Barred Owls, an invasive species protected under the Migratory Birds Treaty Act (MBTA), for the benefit of Spotted Owl, a threatened species protected under MBTA and the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Topics covered include the history of Northern Spotted Owl and Barred Owl studies, and the implications of this ruling for scientists and policy makers.

In 2019, the Supreme Court decided Kisor v. Wilkie, a case that asked the Court to revisit Auer deference, the doctrine which instructs courts to defer to an agency's reasonable interpretation of its own ambiguous regulation. Auer deference, along with other judicial deference doctrines, has received vehement criticism jfom legal scholars and political scientists. Among these criticisms is the assertion that Auer deference allows too much opportunityforjudges' own '" views of reasonableness" to infiltrate their legal analysis. increasing the likelihood that judicial deference to agency interpretations will be significantly influenced by ideology. The majority decision in ¥Asor purported to articulate clearer standards tor the application of Auer deference and require judges to more clearly articulate their analysis in cases where Auer deference may be appropriate. This Note considers whether the Kisor framework could mitigate the impact of.judicial ideology on deference decisions. Jtfocuses in particular on the use of Auer deference in cases involving the Endangered Species Act, a statute which has been highly polarizing along party lines. The Note examines several cases, decided before and alter Kisor, in which Jideral courts were asked to rule on the meaning of Endangered Species Act regulations. This analysis suggests that while Kisor is unlikely to completely remove the influence of.judicial ideology on deference decisions, its requirement that judges "show their work" has the potential to significantly reduce the role that judicial ideology plays in determining what constitutes a "reasonable" interpretation of an ambiguous regulation. While it is too soon to defulitively evaluate Kisor's impact on deference decisions, this Note suggests that the Kisorframework encourages a more principled and ideologically neutral approach to difficult agency deference decisions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Beginning in the 19803, conservation groups began campaigning for the federal government to list the fluvial Arctic grayling-a relative Of the salmon that lives only in the cold waters of North America-as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act. In 2014, the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service declined to list the grayling under the Act, citing, among other things, the uncertainty associated with how the grayling would respond to climate change. The Endangered Species Act has long been heralded as one of the United States' most protective environmental statutes. dice in part to its precautionary mandate that the government take action to help species before they face extinction. But agency implementation and judicial interpretation of the Endangered Species Act has only recently begun to grapple with the crisis of climate change, which threatens global biodiversity and promises to test the strength of the Endangered Species Act. One factor complicating traditional enforcement of the Endangered Species Act in the face of climate change is the uncertainty that can cloud species-specific climate science. This uncertainty makes it difficult jbr agencies to know how climate change will impact a particular species. In the face of this uncertainty, this Note argues that agencies should embrace the precautionary principle to help guide listing decisions and critical habitat designations under the Endangered Species Act. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The status of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) is in peril. Under the July 2018 proposed rules to the ESA, federal agencies will have the power to consider economic rather than biological factors and to put extractive industries before imperiled wildlife. In essence, the July 2018 proposed rules allow federal agencies to undermine the original intent of the ESA - to halt and reverse species extinction, whatever the cost may be. Under the proposed rules, the future of species that rely on the ESA as the last line of defense is unknown. To have an ESA that is both effective and true to Congress's original intent in passing the ESA in 1973, industry interests such as oil, gas, and logging must remain separate from the ESA. This paper will examine the ESA's history and the July 2018 proposed rules in detail before comparing those rules to the ESA's original intent. After concluding that the proposed rules allow federal agencies to act contrary to the original intent, this paper will discuss how citizen involvement and sufficient funding is critical to help species that depend on the ESA. The July 2018 proposed rules diminish the effectiveness of the ESA, contributing to the ESA's own extinction. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses the delisting process of species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), which protects biodiversity in the U.S. Also cited are the implementation of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) of ESA, the potential violations of private property rights in implementing ESA, and how contingent delisting can allow the FWS to accommodate both economic development and wildlife conservation.

Citizen suits are frequently cited as an essential legal innovation by virtue of their capacity to provide a backstop to lax or ideologically antagonistic administrations. Drawing on data from fifteen years of litigation under two prominent environmental statutes, we find little evidence that citizen suits effectively serve this role in practice. Instead, we find that limited resources and institutional barriers strictly limit the number of citizen suits filed annually against the federal government under two of the most litigated environmental statutes, the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the Endangered Species Act (ESA). While our findings do not negate the importance of citizen suits, they expose their limitations and the close alignment that exists between where suits are filed and local politics. Citizen suits mirror local values as they are overwhelmingly filed in jurisdictions in which concerns about the environment are the highest, and they are rare where public concern is lowest. Our empirical findings lead us to reject the conventional model for citizen suits in favor of three alternative models that range from discrete, localized action to continuous lines of litigation over high-profile natural resources that can span decades. We find that the citizen suits under NEPA and the ESA that are covered by our study rarely target state or federal programs that are lax by national standards; instead, they serve a range of goals, large and small, that differ depending on the form of the suit (private enforcement actions, suits to perform nondiscretionary duties, or challenges to legally deficient agency action) and the programs and resources affected. Specifically, we find that citizen suits provide important constraints on agency discretion when environmental statutory mandates and the ideological outlook of presidential administrations diverge. Our findings also negate prominent critiques of citizen suits, most notably claims that citizen suits usurp government authority without the safeguard of political accountability and therefore are in need of vigorous gatekeeping by either executive branch officials or federal judges. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses issues on the implementation of policies to conserve bee species and pollinators in the U.S. under its Endangered Species Act (ESA). Also cited are the listing by the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) of the rusty patched bumble bee as endangered specie under ESA, and the key areas of consideration in protecting the critical habitats of the bumble bees.

Ecological scientists and legal scholars think and talk in different ways. The "gulf of mutual incomprehension" that results can impede efforts to address shared problems. Dale Goble bridged this gulf by teaming with ecologists to interpret the Endangered Species Act and develop the concept of conservation-reliant species--species that require ongoing, long-term management to address the factors that threaten them. Most imperiled species are conservation reliant and conservation resources are limited. Meeting the long-term needs of conservation-reliant species will require the blending of ecological science, societal context, and law that Dale Goble has long promoted. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The author continues the thread of her study with Professor Dale D. Goble of the "significant portion of its range" (SPR) phrase contained in the definitions of threatened species and endangered species in the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Topics discussed include the state of the SPR case law and policy in the U.S., the evolution of the SPR phrase, and the apparently settled, definitely settled and seemingly avoidable SPR issues.

The article addresses the controversy surrounding whether or not the Endangered Species Act (ESA) has proven to be an effective mechanism promoting recovery. It provides a brief review of the basic structure of the ESA, and surveys the evolution of Professor Dale D. Goble and his colleagues' scholarship on conservation resilience. Also mentioned are climate resilience, endangered species delisting, and the need for ongoing conservation management and regulation.

The article discusses the effects that some of these rule changes will have on the Endangered Species Act (ESA) in the face of uncertain climate change and the science behind it. It mentions climate change's impact on the environment, and judicial deference to agency interpretations. It also mentions alternatives for how the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Endangered Species Act can accommodate climate change and such as a broader ecosystem-based approach.

The article discusses predator control in the U.S. It examines the alleged tension between wildlife management and ecological stability. The article explores predator control on the Channel Islands of Southern California in 1994. It also discusses the perception of how humans viewed wild animals during the 20th century and various predator control programs in the U.S. The article examines legislation such as the U.S. Endangered Species Act of 1973.

The article analyzes whether the U.S. National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) helps or harms critical habitats designations protected under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and assesses critical habitat federal rules. Topics discussed are requirements of ESA to designate critical habitat for threatened and endangered species, critical habitat rulemaking completion times by species classes and for Hawaiian and non-Hawaiian species, and rules designating habitat for multiple species.

The article focuses on general approach to the management of groundwater in the U.S. Topics discussed include limiting use to maintain minimum stream flows or other policies; local groundwater management of aquifers; and the enactment of Endangered Species Act for governing the conservation of endangered species.

The US federal government spent 6 billion dollars to protect endangered species in 2013. The previous studies have shown that federal funding allocated under the Endangered Species Act is not necessarily based on the priority a species has been assigned by the Fish and Wildlife Service. This paper asks whether this continues to be the case using more recent data from 2013. It analyzes what factors affect total species funding by various federal agencies under the Endangered Species Act, and particularly examines the role of animal charisma using the number of Google results per species as a proxy. Results show that, while federal priority ranking had no effect on funding, charisma had a significant effect, suggesting biased funding for some species of animals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article focuses on several U.S. Supreme Court decisions on proper judicial response to requests for permanent injunctions where necessary to abate violations of substantive environmental laws. Topics discussed include Tennessee Valley Authority v. Hill relied on separation of powers concerns in finding that the jeopardy prohibition of the Endangered Species Act, Weinberger v. Romero-Barcelo on legal remedies and injunctive relief in cases under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969.

Natural resource and wildlife managers must balance the disparate priorities of a diversity of stakeholders. To manage these priorities, a firm understanding of topics salient to the public is needed. The media often report on issues of importance to the public; therefore, these reports may be a useful measure of public interest. However, efficient methods for distinguishing diverse topics related to a wildlife management issue reported in the media and changes in the salience of those topics have been lacking. We used latent Dirichlet allocation, a Bayesian mixture model, to quantitatively assess the salience of topics surrounding the gray wolf (Canis lupus), which was reintroduced to Idaho (U.S.A.) in 1995. We analyzed articles published from 1960 to 2015 in an Idaho newspaper. We identified 6 distinct topics associated with gray wolves: policy, hunting, biological status, implementation of management, recovery, and human‐wolf conflict. The salience of topics pre‐ and postreintroduction of wolves (1995) and pre‐ and postdelisting of wolves from the U.S. Endangered Species Act (2009) differed significantly, underscoring that these events were turning points in how issues were being publicly discussed and framed. Articles written by the local reporters were more likely to report on topics regarding conflict between humans and wolves, whereas articles sourced from a national outlet reported more on topics pertaining to wolf policy and biological status. In the context of managing a contentious, far‐ranging, and long‐lived wildlife species, our methods can help guide the location and timing of a suite of management strategies (e.g., media relation plans and stakeholder engagement) that promote human‐wildlife coexistence across different landscapes. Article impact statement: News media coverage of gray wolves shifts following key management events. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses the possible effects of the proposal by the U.S. Department of the Interior's Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and the Department of Commerce's National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) to amend the implementing Endangered Species Act (ESA) regulations to the listing of species as endangered. Also cited are the number of plants and animals listed as threatened or endangered, as well as the role of economics in ESA implementation.

Abstract The Endangered Species Act creates perverse incentives for private landowners to destroy potential habitat in order to prevent endangered species from moving onto their properties. Federal agencies recognize these incentives and have tried to counter them with safe-harbor programs that allow landowners to voluntarily provide conservation in exchange for more regulatory certainty. Congress and agencies are both interested in shifting enforcement of the ESA toward this type of voluntary conservation, but there is little evidence of the effectiveness of these programs. This paper uses parcel-level data from federal agencies to provide the first empirical estimates of the effectiveness of a federal safe-harbor program. I find evidence that the program successfully decreases timber harvest behavior that appears to be targeting potential habitat. Based on estimates from both triple-difference and matching models, participation in the safe-harbor program is associated with a 7 to 13 percentage point decrease in harvest activity. The safe-harbor program holds promise to conserve imperiled wildlife while allowing landowners' greater flexibility to maintain traditional land uses. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article, or artist's inquiry, was written in concert with the exhibition Instinct Extinct: The Great Pacific Flyway. Beginning with introductions to bird migration, the concept of global flyways and the history of conservation, the text considers the poetics of art-making relative to academic research. Areas of artistic exploration include a map depicting California's changing waterscape, video portraits of people of the flyway and assemblages of invented and found avian artifacts. The article concludes with a review of current environmental conditions affecting migratory birds and some reflective passages. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Rapid environmental change makes adaptive potential—the capacity of populations to evolve genetically based changes in response to selection—more important than ever for long-term persistence of at-risk species. At the same time, advances in genomics provide unprecedented power to test for and quantify adaptive potential, enabling consideration of adaptive potential in estimates of extinction risk and laws protecting endangered species. The U.S. Endangered Species Act (ESA) is one of the most powerful environmental laws in the world, but so far, the full potential of genomics in ESA listing and recovery decisions has not been realized by the federal agencies responsible for implementing the ESA or by conservation geneticists. The goal of our paper is to chart a path forward for integrating genomics into ESA decision making to facilitate full consideration of adaptive potential in evaluating long-term risk of extinction. For policy makers, managers, and other conservation practitioners, we outline why adaptive potential is important for population persistence and what genomic tools are available for quantifying it. For conservation geneticists, we discuss how federal agencies can integrate information on the effect of adaptive potential on extinction risk—and the related uncertainty—into decisions, and suggest next steps for advancing understanding of the effect of adaptive potential on extinction risk. The mechanisms and consequences of adaptation are incredibly complex, and we may never have a complete understanding of adaptive potential for any organism. Nevertheless, we argue that the best available evidence regarding adaptive potential can now be incorporated by federal agencies into modeling and decision making processes, while at the same time conserving genome-wide variation and striving for a deeper understanding of adaptive potential and its effects on population persistence to improve decision making into the future. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The U.S. Endangered Species Act (ESA) is a powerful environmental law protecting imperiled plants and animals, and a growing number of marine species have been protected under this law as extinction risk in the oceans has increased. Marine mammals and sea turtles comprise 38% of the 163 ESA-listed marine “species”, which includes subspecies and distinct population segments, yet analyses of recovery trends after listing are lacking. Here we gathered the best available annual abundance estimates for geographically delimited populations of all 62 marine mammal and sea turtle species listed under the ESA. Of these, we chose representative populations of species that were listed before 2012, occur and reproduce in U.S. waters, and have data of sufficient quality and timespan for trend analyses. Thus, we quantitatively analyzed population trends, magnitude of population change, and recovery status for 23 and 8 representative populations of 14 marine mammal and 5 sea turtle species, respectively. Using generalized linear and non-linear models, we found that 18 marine mammal (78%) and 6 sea turtle (75%) populations significantly increased after listing; 3 marine mammal (13%) and 2 sea turtle (25%) populations showed non-significant changes; while 2 marine mammal (9%), but no sea turtle populations declined after ESA protection. Overall, the 24 populations that increased in abundance were from species listed for 20 years or more (e.g., large whales, manatees, and sea turtles). Conservation measures triggered by ESA listing such as ending exploitation, tailored species management, and fishery regulations, and other national and international measures, appear to have been largely successful in promoting species recovery, leading to the delisting of some species and to increases in most populations. These findings underscore the capacity of marine mammal and sea turtle species to recover from substantial geographical population declines when conservation actions are implemented in a timely and effective manner. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract In the management of natural resources, regulation often induces behavioral responses by resource users that ultimately undermine stated policy objectives. Examples of these unintended consequences have been associated with regulations ranging from the Endangered Species Act to laws governing clean air. In this paper we investigate an unintended behavioral response that can be triggered by conservation measures in multispecies fishery management, which leads to increased targeting of the species the conservation measures are meant to protect. Harvest is subject to stochastic variation, with output partially determined by the probability of encountering species of interest, either due to targeting or avoidance. Given the right conditions, an intertemporal arbitrage opportunity arises due to the fact that by targeting a stock in the current period, the probability of encountering that stock in the next period, when announced conservation measures are implemented, decreases. We present an empirical case study that supports the findings of the theoretical model. The results indicate that, by targeting so called weak stocks, some New England fishermen are willing to trade off increased costs today for increased expected profits in the future. To prevent the potentially harmful effects of this behavioral response, a manager may adopt precautionary provisions at the time a quota reduction is announced, or alternatively allow the industry to bank part of its current season's quota in order to alleviate the consequences of the reduction in the ensuing period. These results highlight the challenge of developing effective conservation strategies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Law evolves to accommodate change--this is axiomatic in most academic legal traditions. But in the era of the administrative state, with congressional gridlock and a judiciary hesitant to address policy questions, evolution of statutory law has become much more difficult. This leads to pent up demand for change in legal regimes. If the legislature and the courts cannot provide an outlet for this pressure, where does it go? How does the law continue to change? Although other scholars have looked to agencies as engines of legal change, we lack a theoretical framework to understand how that change happens. I argue that an evolutionary framework provides an informative model for understanding administrative legal change. I provide three case studies that demonstrate the administrative evolution of the Endangered Species Act. In spite of tremendous advances in conservation, fundamental changes in scientists' understanding of human impacts on the natural world, and increasingly strident clashes over private property rights and endangered species, the Act has remained largely unchanged for the last thirty-five years. In a functioning legislative system, the Act would have been amended to accommodate many of these changes. Instead, the case studies show a mechanism of legal change through agency action analogous to the mechanisms underlying biological evolution. Other commentators have argued the administrative state stymies evolution of the law, but this research contradicts that view. The evolution of the law through administrative action may even reduce statutory or judicial evolution of the law. Applying an evolutionary framework to administrative actions creates a theory of administrative evolution of the law, placing administrative analysis within the long tradition of evolutionary approaches to legal change. In contrast to traditional normative theories of administrative law, an evolutionary approach focuses not on why administrative law changes, but rather on how that change progresses over time. This theory of administrative evolution of the law also casts new light on a host of normative questions, from the role of judicial review to improvements in agency decision-making. Considering administrative actions within the broader context of the legal evolution promises a fruitful approach to analyzing administrative law. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Ani B. Satz discusses the interaction of the Animal Welfare Act (AWA) with state laws, specifically focusing on perceived preemptive effects of the AWA on state anti-cruelty laws. Delcianna Winders discusses how these perceived preemptive effects play out on a federal level, focusing on how the AWA interacts with the Endangered Species Act (ESA). She expands upon how both laws apply to captive animals, who have been identified as threatened or endangered under the ESA. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Legal classification of species requires scientific and values‐based components, and how those components interact depends on how people frame the decision. Is classification a negotiation of trade‐offs, a decision on how to allocate conservation efforts, or simply a comparison of the biological status of a species to a legal standard? The answers to problem‐framing questions such as these influence decision making in species classifications. In our experience, however, decision makers, staff biologists, and stakeholders often have differing perspectives of the decision problem and assume different framings. In addition to differences between individuals, in some cases it appears individuals themselves are unclear about the decision process, which contributes to regulatory paralysis, litigation, and a loss of trust by agency staff and the public. We present 5 framings: putting species in the right bin, doing right by the species over time, saving the most species on a limited budget, weighing extinction risk against other objectives, and strategic classification to advance conservation. These framings are inspired by elements observed in current classification practices. Putting species in the right bin entails comparing a scientific status assessment with policy thresholds and accounting for potential misclassification costs. Doing right by the species adds a time dimension to the classification decision, and saving the most species on a limited budget classifies a suite of species simultaneously. Weighing extinction risk against other objectives would weigh ecological or socioeconomic concerns in classification decisions, and strategic classification to advance conservation would make negotiation a component of classification. We view these framings as a means to generate thought, discussion, and movement toward selection and application of explicit classification framings. Being explicit about the decision framing could lead decision makers toward more efficient and defensible decisions, reduce internal confusion and external conflict, and support better collaboration between scientists and policy makers. Article impact statement: Explicit decision framing in legal classification of species can reduce conflict and yield more efficient and defensible conservation decisions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]