16 U.S.C. § 742a

Declaration of policy

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 16 CasesGoogle Scholar

The Congress declares that the fish, shellfish, and wildlife resources of the Nation make a material contribution to our national economy and food supply, as well as a material contribution to the health, recreation, and well-being of our citizens; that such resources are a living, renewable form of national wealth that is capable of being maintained and greatly increased with proper management, but equally capable of destruction if neglected or unwisely exploited; that such resources afford outdoor recreation throughout the Nation and provide employment, directly or indirectly, to a substantial number of citizens; that the fishing industries strengthen the defense of the United States through the provision of a trained seafaring citizenry and action-ready fleets of seaworthy vessels; that the training and sport afforded by fish and wildlife resources strengthen the national defense by contributing to the general health and physical fitness of millions of citizens; and that properly developed, such fish and wildlife resources are capable of steadily increasing these valuable contributions to the life of the Nation.

The Congress further declares that the fishing industry, in its several branches, can prosper and thus fulfill its proper function in national life only if certain fundamental needs are satisfied by means that are consistent with the public interest and in accord with constitutional functions of governments. Among these needs are:

(1) Freedom of enterprise—freedom to develop new areas, methods, products, and markets in accordance with sound economic principles, as well as freedom from unnecessary administrative or legal restrictions that unreasonably conflict with or ignore economic needs;

(2) Protection of opportunity—maintenance of an economic atmosphere in which domestic production and processing can prosper; protection from subsidized competing products; protection of opportunity to fish on the high seas in accordance with international law;

(3) Assistance—assistance consistent with that provided by the Government for industry generally, such as is involved in promoting good industrial relations, fair trade standards, harmonious labor relations, better health standards and sanitation; and including, but not limited to—

(a) services to provide current information on production and trade, market promotion and development, and an extension service,

(b) research services for economic and technologic development and resource conservation, and

The Congress further declares that the provisions of this Act are necessary in order to accomplish the objective of proper resource development, and that this Act shall be administered with due regard to the inherent right of every citizen and resident of the United States to engage in fishing for his own pleasure, enjoyment, and betterment, and with the intent of maintaining and increasing the public opportunities for recreational use of our fish and wildlife resources, and stimulating the development of a strong, prosperous, and thriving fishery and fish processing industry.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 18 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1970–2023 · leading case: Hymas v. United States, 810 F.3d 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2016).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Hymas v. United States, 810 F.3d 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2016). · cites it 2× “1574 (1998) (codified as amended at 16 U.S.C. §§ 742a, 742f) (“the 1998 Act”) authorize the Service to enter into cooperative agreements like the CFAs or ex- empt the Service from complying with the CICA.”

Illinois v. City of Milwaukee, 406 U.S. 91 (1972). “1119 , 16 U. S. C. § 742a; the Act of Sept. 22, 1959, 73 Stat.”

Sabine River Auth. v. United States Dep't of Interior, 745 F. Supp. 388 (E.D. Tex. 1990). · cites it 2× “Finally, SRA alleges that the acquisition of the easement violated the Fish and Wildlife Act, 16 U.S.C. § 742a et seq. and the Refuge Recreation Act, 16 U.”

Koniag, Inc. v. Andrus, 580 F.2d 601 (D.C. Cir. 1978). “§§ 551 , 553; 16 U.S.C. § 742a et seq. The Court is particularly reluctant to deny standing to those most likely in fact to have a legitimate concern about these lands and to come forward to protect the public interest, especially where the effect of finding standing is simply…”

Energy Action Educ. Found. v. Cecil D. Andrus, Sec'y of the Interior, 654 F.2d 735 (D.C. Cir. 1980). “1119 as amended, 16 U.S.C. §§ 742a et seq.) — Establishes the U.”

United States v. Joseph G. Moretti, Inc., & Joseph G. Moretti, Jr., 478 F.2d 418 (5th Cir. 1973). “, Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956, 16 U.S.C.A. § 742a et seq. Perhaps the largest raptor to be added to the statutory ecological protection aviary is the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, §§ 101-207, 42 U.”

Hymas v. United States, 117 Fed. Cl. 466 (Fed. Cl. 2014). “1574 (1998), codified, as amended, at 16 U.S.C. §§ 742a, 742f; National Wildlife Refuge Volunteer Act, Pub.”

Glus v. G. C. Murphy Co., 629 F.2d 248 (3rd Cir. 1980). “1119 , 16 U.S.C. § 742a. Undaunted by the absence of an express cause of action in any of these acts covering Illinois’ claim, the Court held that one existed in the federal common law.”

Koniag, Inc. v. Kleppe, 405 F. Supp. 1360 (D.D.C. 1975). “§§ 551 , 553; 16 U.S.C. § 742a et seq. The Court is particularly reluctant to deny standing to those most likely in fact to have a legitimate concern about these lands and to come forward to protect the public interest, especially where the effect of finding standing is simply…”

Delaware v. Pennsylvania New York Cent. Transp. Co., 323 F. Supp. 487 (D. Del. 1971). “§ 662 (a), and the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 as amended, 16 U.S.C. § 742a et seq., insofar as it alleges infringement of the federally protected interests and the federal policies stated in those statutes.”

Armuchee All. v. King, 922 F. Supp. 1541 (N.D. Ga. 1996). “Plaintiff claims its members’ property interest is created by language from three federal statutes: (1) the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956, which recognizes an “inherent right of every citizen and resident of the United States to engage in fishing for his own pleasure, enjoyment,…”

Kingman Reef Atoll Investments, LLC v. United States Dep't of Interior, 195 F. Supp. 2d 1178 (D. Haw. 2002). “While the Fish and Wildlife Act, 16 U.S.C. § 742a, et seq., recognizes the importance of the reasoned use of fisheries, the proper inquiry is into NEPA’s “zone of interests,” not the Fish and Wildlife Act’s “zone of interests.”

Show all 18 citing cases →

— 16 U.S.C. § 742a(3) — 2 cases

Sierra Club v. Hickel, 467 F.2d 1048 (6th Cir. 1972).

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.