The Adequacy of Wildlife Management on an Endangered Species: A Design Template for Ecosystems Management in Alabama

The Alabama beach mouse (ABM) was listed an an endangered species in 1985. The ABM has been cited as being minimally managed since its listing. The Sierra Club points out the lack of Primary Consituent Elements (PCE) that are required by the Endangered Species Act of 1973. While traditional habitat status is mired in legal and bureaucratic delays, effective management remains less than optimal. Ecosystem management presents with it, new observable and technological tools that may present a panacea in the ABM's paradox. This Capstone looks at the possible implementation of an ecosystems management alternative in aiding the persistence of a small isolated and endangered species.

A Review of the Petition Process for the Endangered Species Act

The Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA) is an exceptionally powerful law which requires the involvement of many stake holders, including government and non-government professionals. This project reviewed the requirements of the ESA and the expectations of the USFWS and referenced them to the actions taken by the petitioner in the preparation of the petition for the black-tailed prairie dog. The study has shown the knowledge required by the petitioner to submit an effective petition and also the importance of communicating this knowledge so that the federal agencies may make sound decisions when deciding to protect a species and its habitat. This research can be used as a preliminary reference for beginning the process for future petitions.

Setting Congress Up to Fail

In Shelby County v. Holder the Supreme Court invalidated key provisions of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 based on Congress’s failure to justify the formula used to determine which jurisdictions would be subject to the Act’s pre-clearance requirement of submitting all changes to voting procedures to the Justice Department for prior approval. This short essay explores one problematic feature of the Court’s analysis: its refusal to consider the legislative record as adequate because it was created to justify the coverage formula after the fact, rather than to facilitate deliberation on the coverage formula before a decision had been made. This reasoning essentially imports from administrative law a rule called the Chenery principle, and as this essay explains, it does so without justification. The differences between administrative and legislative decision making processes compel different treatment by the courts, and treating legislative records like administrative ones, in essence, asks of Congress something it is institutionally ill-equipped to perform. It sets Congress up to fail.