Gibbs v. Babbitt

214 F.3d 483 (2000)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

Congress enacted the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Congress found that many of the species threatened with extinction are of 'esthetic, ecological, educational, historical, recreational, and scientific value to the Nation and its people.' The ESA sets forth a comprehensive regulatory scheme to conserve these species and the ecosystems upon which they depend. Section 9(a)(1), which prohibits the taking of any endangered species without a permit or other authorization. The term 'take' is defined as 'to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct.' The ESA also authorizes the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) to issue any necessary regulations for the conservation of threatened species. The ESA allows that a state law may be more restrictive than the provisions of the Act, but not less. Congress extensively amended the ESA in 1982 and added section 10(j), which allows the FWS to designate as 'experimental' some reintroduced populations of endangered or threatened species. An experimental population are generally to be treated as threatened rather than endangered. A population may be designated as 'experimental' only after the Service determines that it is not 'essential' to the continuation of the species. The FWS can develop 'special regulations for each experimental population that will address the particular needs of that population.' Activities such as wetlands drainage, dam construction, and hunting reduced the red wolf to such meager numbers that it was listed as endangered in 1976. The FWS decided to trap the remaining red wolves in the mid-1970s and place them in a captive breeding program. The breeding program anticipated the eventual reintroduction of some red wolves into the wild. A reintroduction program was initiated, and since reintroduction, some red wolves have wandered from federal refuges onto private property. From available data, as of February 1998, it was estimated that about 41 of the approximately 75 wolves in the wild may now reside on private land. Section 17.84(c) allows a person to take red wolves on private land 'provided that such taking is not intentional or willful, or is in defense of that person's own life or the lives of others.' Private landowners may also take red wolves on their property 'when the wolves are in the act of killing livestock or pets, provided that freshly wounded or killed livestock or pets are evident.' A landowner may also 'harass red wolves found on his or her property . . . Provided that all such harassment is by methods that are not lethal or injurious to the red wolf.' Gibbs (Ps) filed the instant action challenging the federal government's authority to protect red wolves on private land in that it exceeds Congress’ power under the Commerce Clause. Ps claim that the red wolves have proven to be a 'menace to citizens and animals in the Counties.' They further allege that because of the federal regulatory protections surrounding the wolves, North Carolinians cannot effectively defend their property. The district court found that the red wolves are 'things in interstate commerce' because they have moved across state lines and their movement is followed by 'tourists, academics, and scientists.' It found the tourism they generate substantially affects interstate commerce. Ps appealed.