C.F.R. » Title 50 » CHAPTER I—UNITED STATES FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR › SUBCHAPTER B—TAKING, POSSESSION, TRANSPORTATION, SALE, PURCHASE, BARTER, EXPORTATION, AND IMPORTATION OF WILDLIFE AND PLANTS › PART 17—ENDANGERED AND THREATENED WILDLIFE AND PLANTS › Subpart H—Experimental Populations

50 C.F.R. § 17.80

Definitions

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) The term experimental population means an introduced and/or designated population (including any offspring arising solely therefrom) that has been so designated in accordance with the procedures of this subpart but only when, and at such times as, the population is wholly separate geographically from nonexperimental populations of the same species. Where part of an experimental population overlaps with nonexperimental populations of the same species on a particular occasion, but is wholly separate at other times, specimens of the experimental population will not be recognized as such while in the area of overlap. That is, experimental status will be recognized only outside the areas of overlap. Thus, such a population will be treated as experimental only when the times of geographic separation are reasonably predictable, e.g., fixed migration patterns, natural or manmade barriers. A population is not treated as experimental if total separation will occur solely as a result of random and unpredictable events.

(b) The term essential experimental population means an experimental population whose loss would be likely to appreciably reduce the likelihood of the survival of the species in the wild. All other experimental populations are to be classified as nonessential.

[49 FR 33893, Aug. 27, 1984, as amended at 88 FR 42651, July 3, 2023]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1997–2024 · leading case: New Mexico Dep't of Game & Fish v. United States Dep't of the Interior, 854 F.3d 1236 (10th Cir. 2017).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
New Mexico Dep't of Game & Fish v. United States Dep't of the Interior, 854 F.3d 1236 (10th Cir. 2017). · cites it 4× “” 50 C.F.R. § 17.80 (b). When an experimental population is deemed nonessential, it is treated as a species proposed to be listed under the Act and is not afforded designated critical habitat.”
Forest Guardians v. United States Fish & Wildlife Serv., 611 F.3d 692 (10th Cir. 2010). · cites it 2× “50 C.F.R. § 17.80 (a). The FWS's conclusion under those definitions, that there is no wild population of Falcons in New Mexico or Arizona, is explained in detail in the 10(j) rule.”
New Mexico Ex Rel. Richardson v. Bureau of Land Mgmt., 565 F.3d 683 (10th Cir. 2009). “§ 1539 (j); 50 C.F.R. § 17.80 (a) (defining the term “experimental population” to include an introduced population “only when, and at such times as the [introduced] population is wholly separate geographically from nonexperimental populations of the same species”).”
United States v. Chad Kirch McKittrick, 142 F.3d 1170 (9th Cir. 1998). · cites it 2× “97-567, at 33 (1982), reprinted in 1982 U.S.C.C.A.N. 2807, 2833.”
Wyoming Farm Bureau Fed'n v. Babbitt, 987 F. Supp. 1349 (D. Wyo. 1997). · cites it 2× “§ 5; 50 C.F.R. § 17.80 (a). This interpretation is consistent with the expressed concerns regarding law enforcement problems created by mixing naturally occurring and introduced specimens of the same species.”
Wildearth Guardians v. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Serv. (D.D.C. 2024). · cites it 3× “” 50 C.F.R. § 17.80 (b). “All other experimental populations are to be classified as nonessential.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.