Premium
Legal Viability, Societal Values, and SPOIR: Response to D'Elia et al.
Author(s) -
WAPLES ROBIN S.,
ADAMS PETER B.,
BOHNSACK JAMES,
TAYLOR BARBARA L.
Publication year - 2008
Publication title -
conservation biology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 2.2
H-Index - 222
eISSN - 1523-1739
pISSN - 0888-8892
DOI - 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2008.00980.x
Subject(s) - boulevard , miami , geography , center (category theory) , fishery , library science , archaeology , geology , biology , computer science , chemistry , soil science , crystallography
), we ignored this step and consequently theframeworkweproposedislegallyflawed,and(3)societalvalues should be considered along with biological crite-ria in evaluating the SPOIR language. On the first point,we believe we are in agreement. Regarding the secondpoint, although it is true we did not attempt a detailedevaluation of case law on SPOIR, it is not true that weignored the decisions of record. Rather, we consideredthese cases and concluded they provide little conclusiveguidanceabouthowtointerprettheSPOIRlanguage.Wehave discussed the SPOIR language and related court de-cisions with a number of government and private-sectorlawyers, and we found no strong consensus on their im-port. As a consequence, and in response to a requestfrom policy makers within our agency, we sought to de-velop a biological framework for interpreting the SPOIRlanguage on the basis of biological principles consistentwith existing case law.We strongly disagree with the statements by D’Elia etal. (2008) about the relationship between our proposedframework and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals’ deci-sion regarding the case of the flat-tailed horned lizard(