Suchergebnisse

This act establishes the Environmental Protection Agency and details the functions of this agency. Part X of this act mentions hydro-electric energy production.

Testimony issued by the Government Accountability Office with an abstract that begins "The Department of the Interior's (Interior) U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) is generally required to use the best available scientific information when making key decisions under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Controversy has surrounded whether former Deputy Assistant Secretary Julie MacDonald may have inappropriately influenced ESA decisions by basing decisions on political factors rather than scientific data. Interior directed the Service to review ESA decisions to determine which decisions may have been unduly influenced. ESA actions include, among others, 90-day petition findings, 12-month listing or delisting findings, and recovery planning. The Service distributed informal guidance in May 2005 on the processing of 90-day petitions. Recovery plans generally must include recovery criteria that, when met, would result in the species being delisted. GAO examined three separate issues: (1) what types of decisions, if any, were excluded from the Service's review of decisions that may have been inappropriately influenced; (2) to what extent the Service's May 2005 informal guidance affected 90-day petition findings; and (3) to what extent the Service has, before delisting species, met recovery criteria. GAO interviewed Service staff, surveyed Service biologists, and reviewed delisting rules and recovery plans. Interior did not provide comments in time for them to be included in this testimony."

Context. Livestock producers worldwide are negatively affected by livestock losses because of predators and wildlife-transmitted diseases. In the western Great Lakes Region of the United States, this conflict has increased as grey wolf (Canis lupus) populations have recovered and white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) have served as a wildlife reservoir for bovine tuberculosis (Myobacterium bovis).
Aims. We conducted field experiments on cattle farms to evaluate the effectiveness of livestock-protection dogs (LPDs) for excluding wolves, coyotes (C. latrans), white-tailed deer and mesopredators from livestock pastures.
Methods. We integrated LPDs on six cattle farms (treatment) and monitored wildlife use with tracking swaths on these farms, concurrent with three control cattle farms during 2005–2008. The amount of time deer spent in livestock pastures was recorded using direct observation.
Key results. Livestock pastures protected by LPDs had reduced use by these wildlife compared with control pastures not protected by LPDs. White-tailed deer spent less time in livestock pastures protected by LPDs compared with control pastures not protected by LPDs.
Conclusions. Our research supports the theory that LPDs can be an effective management tool for reducing predation and disease transmission. We also demonstrate that LPDs are not limited to being used only with sheep and goats; they can also be used to protect cattle.
Implications. On the basis of our findings, we support the use of LPDs as a proactive management tool that producers can implement to minimise the threat of livestock depredations and transmission of disease from wildlife to livestock. LPDs should be investigated further as a more general conservation tool for protecting valuable wildlife, such as ground-nesting birds, that use livestock pastures and are affected by predators that use these pastures.

The South Carolina Wildlife Magazine, published by the Department of Natural Resources, is dedicated to the conservation, protection and restoration of our state's wildlife and natural resources, and to the education of our people to the value of these resources. It includes conservation success stories, heartwarming reflections, humorous tales, intriguing field notes, delectable recipes and awe-inspiring outdoor adventures. In this issue: Commission Tackled Big Job ; An Open Letter On Dove Laws . P-R Program Help To Wildlife ; Francis Marion Turkey Refuge ; Wildlife Federation Meeting ; Fishing Tackle Tax Helps Fishing ; Lake Greenwood Fish Study ; History of Game Law Enforcement ; Re-stocking For Depleted Areas ; Legislative Recommendations ; Our Marine Resources ; Farm Game Program Pays Dividends.

Problems of the human&ndash ; animal relationship in China are associated with imperfect legal protection. Few recent studies in English have focused on the entire legislation framework for wildlife protection, or paid sufficient attention to revision of the Wildlife Protection Law of China. This study aims to provide a review of the legislation pertinent to the overall framework of wildlife protection in China, thus making the legislative framework understood by a broader audience. We present various legal documents of national, local, and international level&mdash ; including the Constitution, national laws, national administrative regulations and departmental rules, and local regulations and rules, all selected for their direct and close relation to wildlife protection. We then discuss the challenges of internal defects in the legislation for wildlife protection and problems of coordination between the laws&mdash ; including the lack of stipulation on the definition of wildlife, the narrow scope of the legal protection of wildlife, the incomplete stipulation on the property rights of wildlife, the imperfect stipulation on wildlife utilization, the relatively limited protection system of wildlife habitats, and the relatively vague damage compensation caused by wildlife protection, with an emphasis on revisions of the Wildlife Protection Law of China in 2016. In conclusion, we draw wider implications for the legal protection of wildlife in China, arguing for a more sustainable human&ndash ; animal relationship.

Data protection laws are there to protect the fundamental rights and freedoms of the individual. The EU directive on Data protection is not. ; N/A