Abstract

http://ssrn.com/abstract=959468
 
 

Citations (1)



 


 



The Taking Prohibition in Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act: Contradictions, Ugly Ducklings, and Conservation of Species


Federico Cheever


University of Denver Sturm College of Law

Michael Balster


affiliation not provided to SSRN


Environmental Law, Vol. 34, p. 363, 2004

Abstract:     
The "take" prohibition in Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act should be one of the most important provisions in the Act. Section 9 prohibits most injury to protected species. Unlike most provisions of the Act, section 9 applies to private actions on private land. This article evaluates case law over the past 15 years and discusses the tensions within the Act that have prevented section 9 from assuming a more prominent role in Endangered Species Act jurisprudence. The Article suggests that two sources, embedded in the language and history of the Act, are principle causes of the current confusion over the application of section 9. First, section 9's focus on individual species members appears to conflict with the Endangered Species Act's general focus on the conservation of species. Second, the direct, judicially enforceable, prohibitions in section 9 are fundamentally different from other significant provisions of the Act, which focus on agency decision making and judicial review of agency decision in the administrative law tradition. The Authors argue that for section 9 to assume its rightful place, courts must consider injury to both individual species members and the population in which they are a part. The Authors conclude that the solution to the current arrested development of section 9 is a coherent application of the provision in accordance with the purpose of the Endangered Species Act, conservation of species.

Number of Pages in PDF File: 34

Accepted Paper Series


Download This Paper

Date posted: January 29, 2007  

Suggested Citation

Cheever, Federico and Balster, Michael, The Taking Prohibition in Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act: Contradictions, Ugly Ducklings, and Conservation of Species. Environmental Law, Vol. 34, p. 363, 2004. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=959468

Contact Information

Federico Cheever (Contact Author)
University of Denver Sturm College of Law ( email )
2255 E. Evans Avenue
Denver, CO 80208
United States
Michael Balster
affiliation not provided to SSRN ( email )
No Address Available
Feedback to SSRN


Paper statistics
Abstract Views: 1,158
Downloads: 100
Download Rank: 155,580
Citations:  1

© 2014 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.  FAQ   Terms of Use   Privacy Policy   Copyright   Contact Us
This page was processed by apollo7 in 0.218 seconds