Suchergebnisse

Not Available ; Since 28th May 2001, Whale shark Rhincodon typus Smith, 1828 have received the highest protected status for an animal in India through the Indian Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 Schedule-1. However, landings have still been recorded off the Indian coast since 2001, mostly as incidental bycatch in commercial fishing operations, and other sightings have also been reported. In the 1990's, a targeted whale shark fishery existed off the Gujarat coast following increased demand for the flesh in some other Asian countries. Since the ban, landings of whale sharks have decreased substantially with only 79 recorded between 2001 and 2011. Landings were recorded in each year and in each month of the year with the highest landings in January and February. Between 2001 and 2011, the smallest specimen reported from Indian waters was a 94 cm TL individual and the largest was a 13.7 m TL individual, with most individuals recorded in the 4–6 m TL size class. Small juveniles of less than 3 m TL are rarely recorded in the literature and appear to be rarely observed globally. Between 2006 and 2011, seven juveniles of less than 3 m TL were recorded from two landing sites. Despite the continued landing of whale sharks along the Indian coasts since 2001, the protection of this species appears to have substantially reduced the catches with only incidental landings and strandings now evident. The protection status of whale sharks in India is generally well understood by fishers, but still there is need for further education regarding the current national legislation and vulnerability of the species. ; Not Available

Not Available ; Since 28 th May 2001, Whale shark Rhincodon typus Smith, 1828 have received the highest protected status for an animal in India through the Indian Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 Schedule-1. However, landings have still been recorded off the Indian coast since 2001, mostly as incidental bycatch in commercial fishing operations, and other sightings have also been reported. In the 1990's, a targeted whale shark fishery existed off the Gujarat coast following increased demand for the flesh in some other Asian countries. Since the ban, landings of whale sharks have decreased substantially with only 79 recorded between 2001 and 2011. Landings were recorded in each year and in each month of the year with the highest landings in January and February. Between 2001 and 2011, the smallest specimen reported from Indian waters was a 94 cm TL individual and the largest was a 13.7 m TL individual, with most individuals recorded in the 4–6 m TL size class. Small juveniles of less than 3 m TL are rarely recorded in the literature and appear to be rarely observed globally. Between 2006 and 2011, seven juveniles of less than 3 m TL were recorded from two landing sites. Despite the continued landing of whale sharks along the Indian coasts since 2001, the protection of this species appears to have substantially reduced the catches with only incidental landings and strandings now evident. The protection status of whale sharks in India is generally well understood by fishers, but still there is need for further education regarding the current national legislation and vulnerability of the species. ; Not Available

Will critical areas and resource lands, as implemented under the GMA, effectively contribute to the conservation of wildlife and wildlife habitat in Washington? The remainder of this Article will address that question. First, this Article briefly describes some aspects of biological diversity that must be understood before proceeding further. Second, it sets forth several central principles from modern conservation biology that are essential for maintaining habitat integrity and species viability and considers their applicability to critical areas and resource lands, as defined by the GMA. Third, it explains how these principles could be used to identify and protect habitat remnants in western Washington. Finally, this Article concludes by arguing that such an approach is absolutely necessary if we are to protect the biological diversity and ecological integrity of the Pacific Northwest.

There seems to be, and I'm sure it is true with all of you, a feeling that the time has come when we must expand our area of concern to include wild birds and animals, as well as the domestic animals and pets which are part of our interest today. On the basis of this assumption, I'd like to cover the following points in my discussion. First, all those sound and logical reasons to include a broad interest in wildlife in the program of the humane society. Second, some specific areas and problems that might engage our interest and action. Third, how can the humane society-an organization which is created primarily for action at the local level-and its members function in the field of wildlife conservation?

Since China enacted the Wildlife Protection Law in 1988, its wildlife has been threatened with the most serious survival crisis. In the prereform era, wildlife was a neglected policy area. Serving the objective of reform, the Wildlife Protection Law upholds the "protection, domestication, and utilization" norm inherited from past policies. It establishes rules for wildlife management and protection. This law provides for penalties against violations. Yet, its ambiguous objectives, limited protection scope, and decentralized responsibilities have made its enforcement difficult. Political factors such as institutional constraints, national obsession with economic growth, shortage of funding, and local protectionism have made the Wildlife Protection Law enforcement an uphill struggle. This study calls for a revision in the Wildlife Protection Law to drop the "protection for human use" objective, expand protection scope, introduce anticruelty provisions, and nationalize protection responsibilities. Understanding that the current one-party state will continue in the foreseeable future, this article calls for moves to open up China's policymaking to advocacy groups. China's wildlife crisis requires both short-term legislative and long-term political solutions.

A small number of Chinese eat wild animals mindlessly to satisfy their special dietary addictions, which led to the SARS outbreak in 2003 and the recent outbreak of the coronavirus pneumonia. The loss is huge, and the current Chinese law is unable to cope with it. It is strongly advised that the "Wildlife Protection Act" be amended as soon as possible to expand its scope of protection and include wildlife that may cause public health incidents. We need to establish a directory system that prohibits hunting, breeding, transferring and eating of wildlife, and force the whole population to adopt an environmentally friendly diet that is responsible to the state and society. It is suggested that the design of the directory system should be based on comprehensive and scientific provisions on hunting, breeding, transporting, storing, and eating, etc. It is also suggested to establish a system that includes law enforcement assessment, a bonus reporting mechanism, and administrative public interest litigation to strengthen administrative, social, and judicial supervision. For offenders, it is suggested to add legal liability of fines and administrative detention in the "Legal liability" section of the "Wildlife Protection Act". In addition, the Chinese Criminal Law should be amended to include crimes of illegal hunting, breeding, transporting, storing, transferring, purchasing and eating of wild animals. ; Un pequeño número de chinos come animales silvestres inconscientemente para satisfacer sus adicciones dietéticas especiales, lo que llevó al brote de SARS en 2003 y al reciente brote de la neumonía por coronavirus. La pérdida es enorme, y la legislación china actual no puede hacerle frente. Se recomienda encarecidamente que se modifique el "Wildlife Protection Act" (en castellano, Ley de Protección de Vida Silvestre) lo antes posible para ampliar su alcance de protección e incluir la vida silvestre que pueda causar incidentes de salud pública. Necesitamos establecer un ordenamiento sistemático que prohíba la caza, la reproducción, la transferencia y el consumo de vida silvestre, y obligar a toda la población a adoptar una dieta ecológica que sea responsable con el estado y la sociedad. Se sugiere que el diseño de este ordenamiento debería basarse en disposiciones comprensivas y científicas sobre caza, cría, transporte, almacenamiento y alimentación, etc. También se sugiere establecer un ordenamiento que incluya evaluación de cumplimiento de la ley, mecanismo de informes de bonificación, y litigios administrativos de interés público para fortalecer la supervisión administrativa, social y judicial. Para los delincuentes, se sugiere agregar las sanciones de las multas y la detención administrativa en la sección "Responsabilidad jurídica" del "Wildlife Protection Act". Además, la Ley penal china también debería modificarse para incluir los delitos de caza ilegal, cría, transporte, almacenamiento, compra y consumo de animales silvestres.

Granting legal protection to an endangered species has long been considered a major milestone for its conservation and recovery. A multitude of examples such as wolves in the contiguous USA (Boitani 2003) or many large carnivore populations in Europe (Chapron et al. 2014) have revealed how instrumental wildlife protection laws can be for species recovery. However, legal obligations to conserve endangered species may be useless if the rule of law is not properly enforced. Such situation is not exclusive to countries with political instability or weak institutional capacities but can also be relevant, for instance, to member states of the European Union and therefore bound to European legislation on nature conservation. ; Peer reviewed

National, European, and international legislation regulates wildlife protection in Germany. Germany has comprehensively codified into national legislation numerous international and regional treaties. Furthermore, European Union regulations are directly binding in its Member States. Yet Germany's implementation of wildlife protection laws remains wanting. The gap between the country's comprehensive legal framework and related enforcement is glaring. Germany's decentralized administrative structure embedded in its federal system is the main impediment to better implementation of wildlife protection laws. While the country's federal structure might stand in the way of more centralized enforcement, a more coordinated approach still offers a realistic remedy to narrow the gap between Germany's legislation and enforcement. This article discusses Germany's wildlife protection laws, analyzes its enforcement approach, and recommends ways to improve.

"Serial no. 101-33." ; Item 1023-A, 1023-B (MF). ; Distributed to some depository libraries in microfiche. ; Includes bibliographical references. ; Mode of access: Internet.