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. § 17.82

Prohibitions

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

Any population determined by the Secretary to be an experimental population will be treated as if it were listed as a threatened species for purposes of establishing protective regulations under section 4(d) of the Act with respect to such population. The species-specific rules (protective regulations) adopted for an experimental population under § 17.81 will contain applicable prohibitions, as appropriate, and exceptions for that population.

[88 FR 42652, July 3, 2023]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5 cases, 2000–2018 · leading case: Gibbs v. Babbitt, 214 F.3d 483 (4th Cir. 2000).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Gibbs v. Babbitt, 214 F.3d 483 (4th Cir. 2000). · cites it 2× “See 50 C.F.R.§ 17.82 (1998). A population may be designated as "experimental" only after the Service determines that it is not "essential" to the continuation of the species.”
WildEarth Guardians v. U.S. Dep't of Just., 283 F. Supp. 3d 783 (D. Ariz. 2017). “50 C.F.R. § 17.82 . FWS has issued a blanket regulation that applies all prohibitions applicable to endangered species to threatened species, unless the agency has issued a special rule for a specific species.”
Defenders of Wildlife v. Tuggle, 607 F. Supp. 2d 1095 (D. Ariz. 2009). “” 50 C.F.R. 17.82. In this way ESA sections 10(j) and 4(d) operate together to provide the flexibility of less restrictive taking prohibitions under the authority of section 4(d) for “threatened” species to be set out in the Special Rule issued for the experimental species under…”
Defenders of Wildlife v. Hall, 807 F. Supp. 2d 972 (D. Mont. 2011). “§ 1533 (d); 50 C.F.R. § 17.82 (2008). The regulations governing the management of the nonessential experimental wolves of the northern Rocky Mountains are the subject of this lawsuit.”
Humane Soc'y of the United States v. Kienzle, 333 F. Supp. 3d 1236 (D.N.M. 2018). “" 50 C.F.R. § 17.82 ; see also 16 U.S.C. § 1539 (j).”
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.