Subspecies and protection

[Ron Gatrelle]

To all.
I mentioned a couple of weeks ago that if there is one thing the law is, it
is that it is not vague. Litigation always involves how the I's are dotted
and the T's are crossed. It depends on what is, is, sounds stupid to the
average person, but as a lawyer, Mr. Clinton was correct. It does depend.
Is the chad hanging, dimpled, intent, etc. Now it has been pointed out to
us that "or" or "of" make all the difference in the world - legally. I
agree completely.

So now that "one side" has decided that technicalities matter greatly in
dealing with biological entities in defining both the need of, and
eligibility for, protection, lets apply this same technical rule all across
this playing field.

Chris, you and I may indeed see fish as wildlife, but by using the language
below _fish_ or _wildlife_ become separate legal entities. We also see that
_fish_ or _plants_ are separated. Further, _wildlife_ or _plants_ are
separated.
(Does anyone remember why your checking account says and/or so-n-so?)

 (I want to pause here and remind everyone that this line of reasoning was
first pointed out to me by a USF&W law enforcement officer in questioning
if "bugs" were covered by ESA.)

We also see that _vertebrates_ is used. These are legal definitions, of
legal jurisdiction. Jurisdiction that defines restrictions and limitations
as well as coverage. Invertebrates are specifically not mentioned, nor are
insects. Thus, they are not covered. (Do any of us have auto or home or
medical insurance? Anything that is not mentioned is not covered.)

Some people want to use technicalities when they work for them and throw
them out when they work against them (heads you loose, tails I win). A
basic foundation of law is the equal application and enforcement of it.
What the below says is that species and/or subspecies of fish are
_eligible_ for coverage, vertebrate wildlife (it may be assumable that this
covers animals and birds) are _eligible_, and the plants are _eligible_.
That's it.

Other sections and subsections can address or add to the section quoted
below - but what is quoted encompasses what it addresses and no more or no
less. Neil's point is thus not negated by the "or" / "of" wording of the
below quoted section - because the below is irrelevant to invertebrates,
and thus irrelevant to what Neil said. Neil's statement stands - without a
name invertebrates can not be listed. If this is not so, where is the legal
refutation?
Words like, invertebrate, insects, bugs etc must be used and then what
types of these defined to determine their eligibility for ceverage.

I personally work for the protecting of invertebrates. The ESA is "popular"
with most people. I have other personal opinions but there is no need to
express them here.

Ron

----- Original Message -----
From: "Chris J. Durden" <drdn at mail.utexas.edu>
To: <leps-l at lists.yale.edu>
Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2001 9:42 PM
Subject: Re: Subspecies and protection


 Hey are fish not wildlife? Is this because there is a strong lobby that
 wants to catch them off Fishing Bridge in Yellowstone National Park on the
 Fourth of July?
 ..........Chris Durden
>
> At 12:07 PM 2/8/2001 -0900, you wrote:
>Ah ha! I found the definition problem with help from Ken Philip:
>
>The old (1984) version says this:
>(15) The term "species" includes any subspecies of fish or wildlife or
>plants, and any distinct population segment of any species or
>vertebrate fish or wildlife which interbreeds when mature.
>
> The new (1993) version says this:
> 15) The term "species" includes any subspecies of fish or wildlife or
>plants, and any distinct population segment of any species of
>vertebrate fish or wildlife which interbreeds when mature.
>
> Notice the 'of' in the second definition in place of the 'or' in the
> earlier version which totally changes the meaning. This was apparently a
> strategic type-o.
>
> So, the moral of the story is that all of this is driven by politics.
>
> James J. Kruse, Ph.D.
>
> On Thu, 8 Feb 2001, James J Kruse wrote:
>
> On Thu, 8 Feb 2001, Neil Jones wrote:
>
> Under the US Endangered Species Act, "distinct population segments" of
> ERTEBRATES may be listed, but NOT populations of invertebrates or
> plants.  Plants and invertebrates must have a scientific name to be
> protected under the Endangered Species Act.
> >
> >That distinction is not made in the 'definitions' section of the Act.
> >Where is this information located?
> >Thanks,
> >James J. Kruse, Ph.D.
> >Curator of Entomology
> >University of Alaska Museum
> >907 Yukon Drive, PO Box 756960
> >Fairbanks, AK  99775-6960
> >Phone: 907.474.5579
> >Fax: 907.474.1987/5469
> >http://www.uaf.edu/museum/
>
>
>
>  ------------------------------------------------------------
>
>    For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:
>
>    http://www.peabody.yale.edu/other/lepsl
>
>


 
 ------------------------------------------------------------ 

   For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:

   http://www.peabody.yale.edu/other/lepsl