IV. Conservation Comes of Age

This HISTORY is an ongoing personal project that has evolved from a number of volunteer presentations. It is a draft and not for attribution. All comments and corrections welcome.

 13. THE ENVIRONMENTAL ERA

The 1960s and 1970s marked a volatile time in the United States as society struggled with the Vietnam War, civil rights, assassinations, and growing concern over the health of the environment. Amid the upheaval, the administrations of presidents Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon oversaw a foundational body of federal environmental laws and programs.

A list of the principal legislation and other authorities governing fish and wildlife conservation numbers is presented in Table 1. Then one must consider the many state laws, compacts, and judicial judgments. Table 2 lists examples of regionally specific authorities directed at fisheries that addressed a broad range of issues from tribal fishing rights to water storage.[75]

Table 1. Examples of Federal Fish and Wildlife Legislation

Table 2.  Examples of Regionally Specific Authorities for Fisheries

Some Case Studies

A detailed summary of all the events and legislation in the period 1960-2000 is beyond the scope of this history, but the following are illustrative:

1. River of Grass (1947) and Silent Spring (1962)

2. Outdoor Recreation & Land and Water Conservation Fund (1965)

3. Wilderness Act (1964)

4. Endangered Species Act (1966, 1969, 1973)

5. Carlsbad Caverns & the Federal “Invasion” of State Rights (1968)

6. National Environmental Protection Act (1970)

7. Clean Water Act (1972)

8. Marine Mammal Protection Act (1972)

9. National Forest Management Act (1976)

The following nine examples are representative of events, legislation, and programs that have influenced and directed fish and wildlife conservation as we know it today. There are many more pieces of legislation that warrant coverage, for example, the Taylor Grazing Act (1934), Wilderness Act (1964), and Federal Land Policy and Management Act (1976), while federal program such as the Farm Bill and its various conservation titles remains one of the most vital ongoing programs for land conservation.

1. River of Grass (1947) & Silent Spring (1962)

After moving to Miami in 1915, Marjory Stoneman Douglas worked for her father, the publisher of the Miami Herald. As a journalist she embraced activism and battled for feminism, racial justice and the conservation of nature. Beginning in 1917 she became a passionate and vocal advocate for preservation of the Everglades. What others derided as a worthless swamp, she dubbed a “river of grass,” and in her lifetime she fought fiercely to protect and revive the Everglades.

Douglas pulled few punches. Known for her candor, in one interview she observed, “I’ll tell you, the whole thing is an enormous battle between man’s intelligence and his stupidity,” adding, “I’m not at all sure that stupidity isn’t going to win out in the long run.”[76]

In 1947, her iconic book The Everglades: River of Grass in 1947 was published and later that same year Douglas was the honored guest of President Harry Truman at the dedication of Everglades National Park. Douglas’ determined advocacy helped change the perception of the Everglades from that of a fetid swamp to biological treasure and invaluable source of water. Marjorie Stoneman Douglas was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom in 1993 and died five years later at the age of 108. Asked why as a woman she fought so hard to preserve the Everglades, Douglas replied, "It is a woman's business to be interested in the environment. It's an extended form of housekeeping."

"Here is land, tranquil in its quiet beauty, s77rving not as the source of water, but as the last receiver of it. To its natural abundance we owe the spectacular plant and animal life that distinguishes this place from all others in our country." President Truman, dedicating Everglades National Park, December 6, 1947

Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring created a sensation when it appeared in 1962, becoming a powerful influencer of social change in American life. Carson’s previous books, The Sea Around Us (New York Times best-seller list for 86 weeks), and The Edge of the Sea eloquently described natural systems and their interconnectedness. Silent Spring exposed the hazards of the pesticide DDT and indiscriminate use of other chemicals. Carson starkly questioned humankind’s faith in technological progress and chemical companies pushed back hard attempting to discredit her as a Communist and “hysterical woman.” But the media focus and validation of her research by President Kennedy’s Science Advisory Committee Report made pesticides a major public issue. Rachel Carson’s book was “one of several moral calls to arms” published in the 1960s that captured a growing disillusionment with the status quo and a system they believed disenfranchised people.[77] To many, Silent Spring is seen as the prologue for the environmental movement.

“No one had ever thought that humans could create something that could create harm all over the globe and come back and get in our bodies.” Carl Safina, oceanographer and MacArthur Fellow, on Rachel Carson[78]      

2. Outdoor Recreation and LWCA (1965)

An increasing demand for outdoor recreation led Congress to establish the Outdoor Recreation Resources Review CoAn increasing demand for outdoor recreation led Congress to establish the Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission in 1958. Composed of members of Congress and leading conservationists, the Commission was charged with inventorying resources, documenting trends, and recommending recreational policies and programs. The Commission’s findings, released in 1961, concluded that the federal government and individual states should act to preserve and develop outdoor recreation resources for all people, including the acquisition of additional public lands where necessary and it suggested a new program be established to fund those additions. Bipartisan support developed around the idea, and the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act was signed into law by President Lyndon Johnson at the same ceremony as the Wilderness Act on September 3, 1964.[79]

In the decades since its enactment (1964-2022), a total $21.6 billion has been appropriated through LWCF which in turn has conserved millions of acres in national parks, wildlife refuges, and national forests.[80] It has created historic and scenic trails, established wild and scenic river corridors, and preserved national battlefields and monuments before they are lost forever. At the state and local level, LWCF has funded close-to-home parks and recreation in every county in the nation. On private lands LWCF has supported partnerships with landowners, states, local governments, and non-profit partners to conserve working forests and enhance wildlife habitat.

Funding for LWCF is drawn from the fees and royalties paid by offshore oil and gas drilling in federal waters, not tax dollars. Revenues from the leasing of offshore energy resources are directed to conservation and recreation. Each year, some $900 million from offshore royalties is deposited to the LWCF account in the U.S. Treasury. However, as LWCF was subject to the annual Congressional appropriations process, only once in its history had Congress appropriated the available balance to conservation. Over the life of LWCF some $22 billion of the royalty money was directed to other purposes, often in the name of deficient deduction or fiscal responsibility.

Recognizing the vital importance of LCWF, a broad coalition of conservation and recreation interests began a full court press to achieve a permanent reauthorization and full and permanent funding for LWCF. The first half of the victory came in 2018 when LWCF was permanently reauthorized with broad bipartisan support, and in August 2020, permanent, full funding was secured through the Great American Outdoors Act – ensuring that each year the $900 million deposited into the LWCF account is directed to conservation and recreation priorities.[81]

3. Wilderness Act (1964)

Wrangling over Wildness

Bob Marshall, a forester, writer, and wilderness activist who spearheaded the 1935 founding of the Wilderness Society, longed for wilderness protected by law, giving them “as close an approximation to permanence as could be realized in a world of shifting desires." [83] He and others were driven to protect an enduring resource of wilderness before they were subsumed by human development and its attendant roads and mechanical devices.

Former Wilderness Society Executive Director Howard Zahniser drafted the first wilderness bill in 1956 but it would take eight years of deliberation, more than 60 drafts, and 18 public hearings before the Wilderness Act was signed into law in 1964.[84] Much of the debate centered around three issues: 1) what areas would be included in a wilderness preservation system; 2) who would be authorized to add and modify these lands, and 3) what uses would be allowed in these wilderness areas? Since its passage, the act and its administration have been one of the most controversial and most bitterly defended or criticized legislation passed in recent history.[85] Not until passage of the Endangered Species Act in 1973 would there be a rival.

Proponents of wilderness advocated for an expansive system with new areas added to the system by presidential authority, similar to the president’s powers under the Antiquities Act (to proclaim national monuments without the express approval of Congress). Opponents saw the effort as a locking up of important timber, mineral, and oil and gas resources. Senator Frank Church of Idaho and other Congressional supporters, seeking to forge a balance sufficient to secure passage, pledged that the lands slated for inclusion would be confined to areas of public land already set aside as primitive areas.

On its passage, the act established a National Wilderness Preservation System (NWWPS) for the “permanent good to the whole people and for other purposes” (16 U.S.C 1331-1340) and designated 54 areas in 13 states totaling 9.1 million areas including the Bob Marshall Wilderness in Montana, Bridger Wilderness in Wyoming, and the Boundary Waters Canoe Area in Minnesota. Congress, having reserved the right to designate wilderness and modify wilderness boundaries for itself, began expanding the Wilderness System in 1968.

Since 1964, the NWPS has grown to now encompass more than 803 areas in 44 states and Puerto Rico encompassing 111.9 million acres, with more than 56 million acres in Alaska. The four principal federal land management agencies, U.S. Forest Service, National Park Service, Bureau of Land Management, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, are directed to review the wilderness potential of their lands and make recommendations regarding the lands’ suitability for wilderness designation and nearly every U.S. Congress since 1964 has considered bills to designate additional areas to the system.[5] Over the years Congress has acted on many of the agencies’ recommendations by either designating lands as wilderness or by releasing lands from further wilderness consideration. But many recommendations remain in limbo as disagreement over the protection and management of these areas persists, which some believe should be designated as wilderness and others believe should be available for development. This debate has been particularly controversial for Forest Service inventoried roadless areas and BLM wilderness study areas.”[86]

Montana has 15 designated wilderness area, totaling 3.5 acres. In addition, there are 44 wilderness study areas (WSAs), such as the Hyalite-Porcupine-Buffalo Horn WSA comprising 155,000 acres in the Custer Gallatin National Forest and the Sapphire WSA south of the Anaconda-Pintler Wilderness in western Montana. WSAs are a special designation that applies to lands managed to protect wilderness characteristics until Congress designates the WSA as wilderness or directs the management agency to manage the area for other uses.

Untrammeled by Man

The Wilderness Act defines wilderness as areas of federal land “where the earth and its community of life are untrammeled by man, where man himself is a visitor who does not remain.” Such lands are areas of undeveloped federal land “retaining its primeval character and influence, without permanent improvements or human habitation, which is protected and managed so as to preserve its natural conditions.” Further, such areas are to have “outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive and unconfined type of recreation” and have sufficient size, at least 5,000 acres, as “to make practicable its preservation and use in an unimpaired condition.”[87]

Designated wilderness areas have the highest level of protection afforded any federal lands. It is the only legislative land designation that protects habitat from most forms of development including road development.

To preserve wilderness character, a set of strict selection criteria and management restrictions are imposed including prohibitions on commercial enterprises (including timber harvest), motorized and mechanized equipment or vehicles (including chain saws and bicycles), and structures, installations, and roads. Human activities are limited to non-motorized recreation such as hunting, fishing, hiking, horseback riding, and camping. The Act and subsequent statutes authorized some uses to continue, particularly if the uses were authorized at the time of designation including livestock grazing and certain mining and mineral leasing activities. Finally, the Act provides several general exceptions to some prohibited uses including measures necessary to control fire, insects, and diseases, health and safety emergencies, and other certain exceptions. Each agency has established procedures for permitting these exceptions.

The NWPS has been constructed by the public’s desire for recreation, solitude, scenery and presence or absence of political will. Interestingly, the act’s only mention of wildlife is one sentence stating that “nothing in the Act shall be construed as affecting the jurisdiction or responsibilities of the several States with respect to wildlife and fish in national forests.”[88] The importance of wilderness areas in conserving biological diversity and ecological integrity is a more recent consideration as society’s interest in conserving species like wolverine, lynx, and grizzly bears has driven research into certain species need for solitude and security from human intrusions. As Lois Brown Crisler, author and wilderness advocate, observed, “Wilderness without wildlife is mere scenery.”

4. Endangered Species Acts (1966, 1969, 1973)

The Endangered Species Preservation Act of 1966 was the first formal federal effort to protect species from extinction. The 1966 Act directed the Secretary of the Interior to "carry out a progrThe Endangered Species Preservation Act of 1966 was the first formal federal effort to protect species from extinction. The 1966 Act directed the Secretary of the Interior to "carry out a program in the United States of conserving, protecting, restoring and propagating selected species of native fish and wildlife that are threatened with extinction." A species’ existence could be endangered because of overexploitation, disease, predation, habitat destruction, or other factors. While the 1966 Act was a notable first step, it had a number of shortcomings, notably it: 1) placed no restrictions on the taking of any species, 2) did not restrict interstate commerce of listed species, 3) mandated very little in the way of habitat protection, and 4) applied only to native, not foreign, wildlife species.[89] 

The Endangered Species Conservation Act of 1969 built on the 1966 Act’s foundation. Its major innovation was authorizing the Secretary of the Interior to promulgate a list of wildlife "threatened with worldwide extinction" and to prohibit most importation of listed species. Interestingly, given the repeated limited and/or arbitrary definition of wildlife seen else in this history, the 1969 Act amended the 1966 Act by defining "fish or wildlife" as "any wild mammal, fish, wild bird, amphibian, reptile, mollusk, or crustacean." As Bean and Rowland point out, this definition was viewed as an expansion of the earlier Act's scope only because the Department of the Interior had limited the undefined term "fish and wildlife" in the 1966 Act to vertebrate animals. Similarly, the 1969 Act expanded the Lacey Act’s prohibition on interstate and foreign commerce beyond unlawfully taken wild birds and mammals to include reptiles, amphibians, mollusks, and crustaceans.[90]

The need for earlier and more deliberate action is reflected in the third and current law—the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA), whose purpose is to protect and recover imperiled species and the ecosystems upon which they depend. This landmark piece of legislation declares “that all Federal departments and agencies shall seek to conserve endangered species and threatened species and shall utilize their authorities in furtherance of the purposes of this [Act].”[91] The law prohibits importing, exporting, taking, possessing, selling, and transporting endangered and threatened species (with certain exceptions), and provides for the protection of distinct populations, designation of “critical habitat,” and vulnerability—classifying listed species as either endangered (at risk of extinction) or threatened (at risk of becoming endangered). Further, a species can be protected due to “similarity of appearance” (e.g., American alligator protected in some areas where it overlaps with the listed American crocodile; bobcat due to their similar appearance to other spotted cats).

The concept of critical habitat, and its designation, is another major provision of the 1973 legislation and it continues to be the focus of ongoing disagreement and conflict. As defined critical habitat could be all, or part, of a listed species’ range that is "essential to the conservation of the species." The Act’s definition of "conservation" goes beyond merely ensuring the survival of a species but mandates its recovery, so the species no longer needs protection under the ESA.[92] Table 3 provides both a look at the breadth of species warranting protection (from corals and crustaceans to ferns and lichens) and provides a sobering reminder of the task that ESA puts before society. What levels of energy and funding are needed to recover and delist 2,361 species? Commonly presented as a “scorecard,” it tracks society’s ability to identify and list imperiled species, not an accounting of recovery and success.

SIDEBAR: What if we tracked a species recovery not just its extinction risk?

5. Carlsbad Caverns & Federal “Invasion of State Rights (1968)

The ever-simmering pot of contention between state and federal governments over management of resident wildlife boiled over in the 1960s (Belanger 1988). States had grown increasingly uneasy over what they viewed as continued federal intrusions into state authority over wildlife. Further alarmed over the growing size of federally controlled lands, the states sought to reach a mutual understanding concerning the proper role of the federal government and that of the states. In 1964, the International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies framed the states’ position:

“The federal government, through existing international treaties and agreements bears direct responsibility and jurisdiction over specified migratory birds, endangered species, basic research, certain oceanic resources, and fauna of certain territorial lands beyond the continental United States. In similar manner, fish and resident species of wildlife are state resources, under the direct responsibility and jurisdiction of the individual states.”[93]

Negotiations volleyed back and forth with some agreement but little resolution. Enactment of the Endangered Species Act of 1966 added to the states’ unease over federal overreach. In 1968, Carlsbad Caverns National Park, concerned that deer were potentially over-browsing vegetation, removed dozens of deer from the park without consulting the New Mexico Department of Game & Fish. Park officials claimed that deer residing on federal lands belonged to the federal government so there was no need for permission from the state. Never having ceded exclusive jurisdiction over Carlsbad Caverns to the federal government in the first place, New Mexico sued the Department of the Interior. A federal district judge ruled for the state, issuing a restraining order against further deer killing without a state permit. On appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals reversed the lower court arguing that the property clause of the Constitution gave the Secretary of the Interior authority to take “reasonable steps” to protect national park lands without “state interference.”

Concerned that the very survival of state game and fish departments was at stake, the states prepared to appeal to the Supreme Court as they also scrambled for Congressional action. The case never reached the high court nor was specific Congressional action needed when Interior Secretary Walter Hickel issued an official policy in 1970 that “quieted the reasonable concern of the states for their right to manage fish and resident wildlife within their borders.”[94]

A state-federal skirmish was settled but uncertainty over what constitutes wildlife as a state responsibility and what properly lies within federal jurisdiction is an ongoing tension.

6. National Environmental Policy Act (1970)

On January 1, 1970, the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) was signed into law. Another landmark action, NEPA requires the federal government to use all practicable means to create and maintain conditions under which man and nature can exist in productive harmony. NEPA requires federal agencies, whether making decisions on permit applications or adopting federal land management policies, to assess the environmental effects of their proposed actions prior to making their decisions.

NEPA is often described as a daylighting statute with its presumption that "smart from the start" federal decision making will better protect people and the environment. NEPA is also built on the principle that informed public engagement infuses new ideas, information, and solutions into the federal decision-making process.[95] Specifically, the Act: [96]

• Requires federal agencies to incorporate environmental considerations in their planning and decision-making through a systematic interdisciplinary approach. Federal agencies are to prepare detailed statements assessing the environmental impact of and alternatives to major federal actions significantly affecting the environment. These statements are commonly referred to as Environmental Assessments (EAs)and Environmental Impact Statements (EISs).

• Requires agencies provide opportunities for public review and comment on those evaluations.

• Establishes the President's Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) to oversee NEPA implementation. The duties of CEQ include: 1) Ensuring that federal agencies meet their obligations under NEPA; 2) Overseeing federal agency implementation of the environmental impact assessment process, and 3) Issuing regulations and other guidance to federal agencies regarding NEPA compliance.

NEPA is a tool commonly invoked by conservation interests to pressure agencies to pay more attention to wildlife and habitat protection.[97] For example, a group of environmental organizations can sue the U.S. Forest Service for failing to evaluate the effects of its proposed actions on endangered species.

7. The Clean Water Protection Act (1972)

The Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899, among the first federal environmental laws in the United States, prohibited the unauthorized obstruction or alteration of any navigable water of the U.S., made it a misdemeanor to discharge refuse matter of any kind into the navigable waters, and authorized the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers regulatory permit program to protect navigable waters in the development of harbors and other construction and excavations.[98]

The Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1948 was the first major U.S. law to address water pollution.

Growing public awareness and concern about water pollution led to sweeping amendments in 1972 when the law became commonly known as the Clean Water Act (CWA). The 1972 amendments represented a major initiative to restore the quality of the Nation’s waters to a level capable of protecting and propagating fish, shellfish, and wildlife. The 1972 amendments:

• Established the basic structure for regulating pollutant discharges into the waters of the United States.

• Gave the Environmental Protection Agency the authority to implement pollution control programs such as setting wastewater standards for industry.

• Maintained existing requirements to set water quality standards for all contaminants in surface waters.

• Made it unlawful to discharge any pollutant from a point source into navigable waters, unless the proper permit was obtained.

• Funded the construction of sewage treatment plants under a construction grants program.

• Recognized the need for planning to address the critical problems posed by nonpoint source pollution.

 A visible part of the CWA in Montana and elsewhere is Section 404 which provides for the Corps of Engineers to issue permits for the discharge of dredged or fill materials into the navigable waters with oversight by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Permit applications may also be reviewed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for impacts on fish and wildlife.

SIDEBAR- How a Burning River Helped Create the Clean Water Act

8. Marine Mammal Protection Act (1972)

Until the late 1960s there was no attempt to establish comprehensive federal wildlife legislation to conserve any type of wildlife other than migratory birds (Bean & Rowland 1997). As overall environmental awareness grew, so did interest in protecting marine mammals. At the time whales were still being harvested commercially, seals were being hunted for their fur, and thousands of dolphins were dying each year as incidental bycatch in the tuna fishery. Little consensus existed, however, on how to achieve this protection. Some interests advocated for continued sustainable harvest while other parties wanted whales and other marine mammals protected from any harvest or take. Previous conservation efforts had proved all but useless, as illustrated by the International Whaling Commission (IWC). Charged with safeguarding the world's whale stocks for future generations, the IWC’s efforts to manage a sustainable harvest had no positive effect.[99]

Congress responded with passage of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 (MMPA). The law protects all marine mammals, including cetaceans (whales, dolphins, and porpoises), pinnipeds (seals and sea lions), sirenians (manatees and dugongs), walrus, sea otters, and polar bears within the waters of the United States. The Act makes it illegal to "take" marine mammals without a permit. This means people may not harass, feed, capture, hunt, or kill any marine mammal or collect any part of a marine mammal. MMPA also formalized the marine mammal health and stranding response program to improve the nation’s capacity to respond to stranding and unusual mortality events.

Under MMPA, federal responsibilities are split between the National Marine Fisheries Service (part of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration within the Department of Commerce) and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service is responsible for regulations managing the facilities that house marine mammals in captivity. Like the ESA, MMPA is a complex piece of legislation, but in summary, the act:

• Established a single, comprehensive federal program that preempts states from any authority over marine mammals.

• Placed a moratorium of indefinite length, during which no marine mammals could be imported into the United States or taken by any person subject to United States jurisdiction, with some exceptions carved out for scientific and public display purposes, subsistence, taking incidental to commercial fishing operations, or pursuant to international treaty. 

• Required NOAA to compile Stock Assessment Reports assessing marine mammal populations based on the best science-based research available, including annual estimations of deaths caused by human activities.

Since its enactment, MMPA is credited with improving the status of numerous marine mammal populations including the Pacific blue whale, Atlantic and Pacific humpback whales, Florida manatee, and several species of seals. Challenges do remain for species like the Atlantic right whale whose small population continues to suffer mortalities from ship collisions and net entanglements.[100]

9. National Forest Management Act (1976)

“The days have ended when the forest may be viewed only as trees and trees viewed only as timber. The soil and the water, the grasses and the shrubs, the fish and the wildlife, and the beauty of the forest must become integral parts of the resource manager's thinking and actions.”  Senator Hubert Humphrey, 1976

Following years of debate over clear-cutting, there was a growing consensus on the need for the U.S. Forest Service to develop regulations that restricted the annual rate of cutting, limited the size of clear cuts, protected streams from impacts of logging, and ensured prompt reforestation. In response Congress passed the National Forest Management Act of 1976 (NFMA). NFMA requires the Secretary of Agriculture to develop and implement resource management plans for each unit of the National Forest System. Along with the Wilderness Act of 1964, passage of NFMA marked a significant milestone on how, and with what discretion, the U.S. Forest Service manages national forests. The law also called for a fundamental reshaping of wildlife policy on national forests and elevated the role of science in national forest management.[101] It was the NFMA's provisions for protecting wildlife that led to the controversial efforts to conserve the Spotted Owl in the old-growth forests of the Pacific Northwest.

The observations of Charles Wilkinson (1997) on the National Forest Management Act offer a good summary for all our efforts to conserve fish and wildlife and the habitat on which they depend:

“In 1996, a generation after its passage, the National Forest Management Act ("NFMA") is controversial and has bred proposals for its change. Of course it has. Any law that attempts to be an organic act—to chart out a federal agency's mission as well as a procedural framework to achieve it—must inevitably breed controversy when the subject of the law is of such great societal importance as America's national forests. For these are sacred lands, 191 million acres, nearly ten percent of the country, one fifth of the American West—lands that have great capacities to produce money, create livelihoods, bind human communities, make homes for animal and plant communities, and give us sport, solace, and spirituality in a society that has become too complex, impersonal, and hurried. We should remain ever observant, therefore, of the landscape of NFMA reform. Our first task is not to understand the law to see if it is working and if it ought to be changed. Instead, we should first understand these lands themselves and, after having done that, see if and how the law ought to be revised. This is an inquiry of land as much as law.”[102]

SIDEBAR- The National Forest Management Act

_______________________

ENDNOTES

[75] Bean and Rowland’s The Evolution of National Wildlife Law references 120 federal statutes, 465 federal cases (e.g., Geer v. Connecticut, TVA v. Hill), and 25 state cases.

[76] Jenny Howard, “Meet Marjory Stoneman Douglas, campion and savior of the Everglades,” Massive Science, May 31, 2019, https://massivesci.com/articles/heroes-marjory-stoneman-douglas-everglades-national-park-florida/

[77] Eliza Griswold, “How ‘Silent Spring’ Ignited the Environmental Movement,” New York Times Magazine, September 21, 2012, https://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/23/magazine/how-silent-spring-ignited-the-environmental-movement.html.

[78] Griswold, “How ‘Silent Spring’ Ignited the Environmental Movement.”

[79] The Wilderness Society, “The history of the Land and Water Conservation Fund, a critical tool supporting parks and outdoor recreation” (2020). https://www.wilderness.org/articles/blog/history-land-and-water-conservation-fund-critical-tool-supporting-parks-and-outdoor-recreation

[80] Congressional Research Service, “Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF): Frequently Asked Questions (23 November 2022) https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF12256.

[81] Land and Water Conservation Fund Coalition, https://lwcfcoalition.org/toolkit

[82] “Keeping Montana the Last Best Place, a report on the economic and community benefits of the Land and Water Conservation Fund in Montana,” http://www.montanalandtrusts.org/catalogs/catalog147/section380/file2795.pdf

[83] Wilderness Connect, https://wilderness.net/learn-about-wilderness/fast-facts/default.php

[84] Wilderness Society, https://www.wilderness.org/articles/article/wilderness-act.

[85] Marion Clawson, The Federal Lands Revisited, 44.

[86] Congressional Research Service, Wilderness: Overview, Management, and Statistics (2022), 2,5-6, 10.

[87] U.S.C. § 1131 2(b).

[88] U.S.C. § 1131 4(d).

[89] Bean and Rowland, The Evolution of National Wildlife Law, 3rd Ed., 195-196.

[90] Bean and Rowland, The Evolution of National Wildlife Law, 3rd Ed., 196.

[91] Bean and Rowland, The Evolution of National Wildlife Law, 198-200.

[92] For more about species listing, consultation, habitat conservation plans Safe Harbor Agreements and other aspects of the ESA see the following: ESA Basics, 40 years of Conserving Endangered Species (https://www.fws.gov/endangered/esa-library/pdf/ESA_basics.pdf); Endangered Species, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service website, https://www.fws.gov/endangered/index.html.

[93] Dian Belander, Managing American Wildlife (Univ. of Massachusetts Press, Amherst, MA, 1998), 102.

[94] Dian Belander, Managing American Wildlife, 105-106.

[95] Natural Resources Defense Fund, “Never Eliminate Public Advice: NEPA Success Stories,” February 1, 2015, https://www.nrdc.org/resources/never-eliminate-public-advice-nepa-success-stories

[96] Environmental Protection Agency. Laws & Regulations. National Environmental Policy Act. https://www.epa.gov/nepa.

[97] Eric Freyfogle and Dale D. Goble, Wildlife Law, 208.

[98] 33 U.S.C. Sec. 401 et seq.

[99] For more on the IWC: Gare Smith, “The International Whaling Commission: an analysis of the past and reflections on the future,” 16 Nat. Resources Law 543 (1984): 543-567.

[100] Mark Spalding, Alex Aines, Sarah Ward, “MMPA: 45 Years of Defending Marine Mammals,” The Ocean Foundation, January 10, 2018, https://www.oceanfdn.org/blog/mmpa-45-years-defending-marine-mammals.

[101] Bean and Rowland, The Evolution of National Wildlife Law, 351.

[102] Charles Wilkinson, “The National Forest Management Act: The Twenty Years Behind, the Twenty Years Ahead,” University of Colorado Law Review (vol 68, 1997), 659.