Running head:IGNORING NATURE NO MORE 1

Ignoring Nature No More: Detrimental Impacts of the Endangered Species Trade

Zoe M. Mollner

Legal Studies Academy First Colonial High School

IGNORING NATURE NO MORE 2

Abstract

The endangered species trade is detrimental to the environment and attributes extensive harms to

the species impacted. Therefore, the author will analyze the various factors driving the

endangered species trade, the various harms, and the impacts. In addition to addressing the

causes of the endangered species trade, the inherent mindsets of society will also be evaluated,

along with proposals of solutions for combatting the endangered species trade.
IGNORING NATURE NO MORE 3

Ignoring nature no more : Detrimental impacts of the endangered species trade

Species are constantly being pushed to the brink of extinction as a result of human

activity. These impacts are exacerbated by the destruction of the habitats which species depend

upon, elevated levels of pollution, and the increased activity in poaching. The origins of

poaching began as a means to provide food. However, the concept underwent the transition that

resulted in the modern definition of poaching when the hunting of animals was done not for

necessity, but for profit. Each species that becomes endangered is a continuous reflection of the

deteriorating state of the environment, reflecting how humans continue to utilize the environment

without concern to the external impact. Continuance of this harmful societal attitude cannot be

tolerated. This is because if humanity were to continue with the current rate of consumption, the

environment and all the species dependent upon it, inclusive of humans, would perish as a result

of the irreversible destruction dealt. Destruction is inevitable due to the fact that each loss of a

species makes other species increasingly vulnerable, as species are intertwined and dependent

upon each other. Likewise, the statuses of ecosystems are dependent upon the wellbeing of

species (Merry, 2016). Clearly, a drastic cause for change is needed. People are increasing the

impacts of the devastating cycle of environmental deterioration through poaching endangered

species in mass quantities as a means of gaining a profit. The reformation must be done. As a

result of inherent anthropocentric mindsets, endangered species are threatened due to elevated

levels of poaching caused by the increase in demand for luxury items and failure to enforce

preventative regulations.
IGNORING NATURE NO MORE 4

Conservation v. Preservation

In regards to an issue that concerns the wellbeing of a species, the continued argument

that arises is the discussion of conservation and preservation. Though seemingly similar in

intention, the two aforementioned methods vary greatly in means of ideology, approach, and

actions. Conservation entails the efficient and sustainable usage of resources in order to maintain

the natural environment. Whereas preservation attempts to maintain the current natural state,

which includes leaving areas untouched by humanity, with the goal of returning nature to a state

prior to human activities. The difference in these mentalities is heavily controversial in regards to

the issue of the endangered species trade. Countries engaged in poaching of endangered species

prefer a conservationist approach, as this would allow a continuation of poaching under

regulations; albeit, the regulations are extremely loose and allow much liberty in the action that

can be taken by these nations. Additionally, many may find a preservationist approach to be

extremely optimistic and absolute in nature. Arguably, the continuance of a conservationist

approach is what allows governments and other organizations of authority to overlook the

continuance of the issue. This is due to the fact that a conservationist approach lessens the

accountability that must be adhered to, and presents a gauntlet of loopholes which poachers have

grown dependent upon. Preservationist ideals are extreme in nature. Many advocates for this

method campaign for the complete dissociation from any dependence on a species, in means of

allowing nature to recover from the extensive damages dealt by human societies. While all

aspects may remain in question in regards to whether or not countries would realistically follow

through, preservationist ideals develop a manner for promoting a gradual shift towards change

(Fontenay, 2012). Given the aforementioned information regarding the individual natures of

conservatism and preservationism, the framework which this research paper will adopt is that of
IGNORING NATURE NO MORE 5

a preservationist. Preservation is preferred due to the fact that the adoption of an extreme

position results in increased likelihood for change on the matter (even if to a minor extent),

additionally because it would reap the most benefit for the species impacted by poaching.

Information on Endangered Species

Determining the Level of Threat Faced by a Species

Humans are responsible for the exploitation of species. The responsibility is subsequently

furthered to establishing guidelines for determining the extent of threat which a species faces. In

evaluating species, those which are truly threatened are broken into two categories: endangered

and threatened. Elaborating upon the evaluation of species, the factors which influence the

determination of threat for a species include the following: natural or manmade factors

influencing the survival of the species, the effectiveness of regulatory functions, disease or

influence of native predators, the status of the species’ habitat, and the extent to which the

species is utilized (Listing a Species as a Threatened or Endangered Species, August, 2016).

Endangered Species. An endangered species is defined as, “one that is in danger of

extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range” (Listing a Species as a Threatened

or Endangered Species, August, 2016). Given the above definition, a species identified as

endangered is inherently exposed to greater levels of threat, comparative to other species. This

places the affected species in a critically vulnerable state, in which any drastic alteration could

lead to an irreversible impact: extinction.

Threatened Species. A threatened species is defined as, “one that is likely to become

endangered in the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range” (Listing

a Species as a Threatened or Endangered Species, August, 2016). As this status of a species may

not appear to be as prevalent as the label of “endangered” would be, one must consider how a
IGNORING NATURE NO MORE 6

species arrives at the status of endangered. Threatened species serve as a precursor for potential

endangered species. The rate of which threatened species transition into endangered species has

been increasing rapidly, more so within recent times. Threatened species give indication to the

early onset effects of species loss, to which many of the effects can be attributed to factors such

as commercial hunting.

Classification of threat under the Convention on International Trade in Endangered

Species (CITES). Through the CITES, an international agreement between various governments

concerning the impact of trade of the survival of species, different appendices were established

to determine the legality of actions involving endangered species. The range of appendices is

from Appendix I to Appendix III, with the prior (appendix I) being the species under the highest

levels and threat and the later (appendix III) being those under comparatively less threat (but still

threatened enough to have the label of “endangered”). These appendices indicate how much

threat a species is determined to be facing, and based upon the level of threat a species is facing,

determines what interactions a country can have regarding the species in question (Listing a

Species as a Threatened or Endangered Species, August, 2016). For example, if a plant species

were to be under the third appendix, while it is a species that is facing considerable threat by

extinction, the level of threat faced is not extreme enough to the point in which the country

cannot engage with the species altogether. In the suggested instance, a country would be allowed

to interact with a species under the appendix III label, with the only impediment to any

interaction being regulations in place moderating the extent to which these countries utilize or

transport these species. However, while a country could legally continue with the selling of

species faced by some level of threat, countries are unable to engage with species under appendix

I. Processes such a transporting a species that is labelled under appendix I is extremely difficult,
IGNORING NATURE NO MORE 7

even in circumstances where the species would benefit from the action. This is due to the fact

that these species are under the highest threats of extinction. Thus showing that while the

classification of species as endangered allows for protection of species suffering the harshest

impacts of near-extinction, there is also the failure to fully extend equal levels of protection of

species under comparatively lesser threats of extinction: which allows some species to worsen in

the overall condition as these species are allowed to be exploited.

Conservation Efforts Used for Endangered Species

The majority of conservation efforts used are aimed at benefiting the species impacted;

this aspect is applied to all species, regardless of whether the species is threatened with

extinction. Through this common goal of conservation efforts, helping the species that is being

negatively impacted as a result of external factors, the current factor that poses harm to the

species is immediately addressed. However, in many cases, this provision of direct aid to the

impacted species is the full extent of conservation efforts. In only working to restore the status of

the species to levels prior to threats of extinction, many aspects contributing to the entire issue go

unaddressed. This allows for the development of a cyclical effect, which is felt by species

threatened by extinction, as the issue as a whole is never truly addressed and species will

continuously result in species facing extinction level impacts. In order for conservation efforts to

be completely conclusive, the extent to which the harms of species loss entails must be

considered. In addition to addressing the factors that impose threat upon a species, other factors

such as the status of the environment and the overall state of the ecosystem (other species and the

relationships between the species native to the environment), must be addressed in order to

implement a truly effective method of conservation (Sisk, Launer, Switky, Erhlich, & Imhoff,

1994).
IGNORING NATURE NO MORE 8

How these Species Impact their Environments

These species play crucial roles in the environment. Species serve as crucial links within

the ecosystem, and the decrease of these already vulnerable species results in an imbalance in the

rest of the ecosystem. Endangered and threatened species were described as being of, “of esthetic

[sic], ecological, educational, historical, recreational, and scientific value” (Why save

Endangered Species?, 2005). This exhibits the deeply rooted connection that various groups

have within the confines of an ecosystem. As these species are interwoven into the complex

ecological systems, there are various purposes that each species serves, such as indicating the

status of the habitat, benefiting other species, or even regulating aspects of the environment.

Associated with each species loss, is further undermining of the fundamental aspects of an

environment. Species are interconnected. The loss of one species sets up the probable loss of

another, and so on. Ecosystems are delicate, and the loss of one species triggers potential losses

that eventually result in a chain reaction as the species losses contribute to the deterioration of an

environment. Therefore, when species already subjected to potential threats of extinction are

targeted, the ecosystem becomes increasingly vulnerable. This is because the species is already

vulnerable as proven via the looming threat of extinction, which is made worse with the

compounding effects of increased harmful human activity, such as destroying habitats and

poaching (Why save Endangered Species?, 2005). Given the vulnerability and intricacy of

nature, species must be protected in order to maintain a successful and functioning environment.

Endangered Species Trade

Information on the Endangered Species Trade

Products of animals threatened by extinction are in high demand. This increased demand

can be derived from two main sources: people whose daily experiences and culture have become
IGNORING NATURE NO MORE 9

accustomed to the usage of these animals for their products, and those who desire products made

from endangered species because such products are considered luxury items. As stated

previously, the value placed upon animal products grows as the species becomes increasingly

difficult to obtain access to. Additionally, many of these products are used for other purposes,

not solely being produced as luxury items; some cultures use these creatures for medicines or as

local delicacies. Elephants are being decimated for their tusks, which are sold in bulk as ivory.

Rhinos, specifically the black rhino, are being hunted for their horns, which has a value higher

than the current gold conversion rate (rhino horn = $100,000/kg, gold = a bit less than $40,000)

(Guilford, 2013). Even as these species are being shoved towards extinction, the level of greed

continues, despite the fact that there is a decreased supply of the desired products. As these

species are poached, there becomes increased competition for obtaining products from these

species. Therefore, different species are then hunted to act as supplemental products when the

desired products cannot be achieved (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2017). For example, as the

demand for elephants increases, so does the demand for the red helmeted hornbill. The elephant

is hunted for ivory, but as more regulations are being enacted and enforced, it becomes more

difficult to obtain ivory. While these regulations impede some aspects of the endangered species

trade, it fails to solve the problem, as it merely reflects the focus of these poachers from

elephants to the red helmeted hornbill. The red helmeted hornbill is a species that has recently

been brought to population levels near extinction. Rapid rates of decrease in the population were

a result of the increased poaching of the species as it was discovered that the red helmet hornbill

could be sold off as red ivory, a popular ivory alternative ("Helmeted Hornbill," 2017). Such is

the ironic nature of combating the endangered species trade.

IGNORING NATURE NO MORE 10

Monetary value of the endangered species trade. The endangered species trade is

estimated to be a multi-million dollar operation. Much of the money if obtained illegally through

criminal syndicates, which act as the major facilitators of the endangered species trade. However,

there are countries which contribute to and profit legally from the trade in endangered species; as

these nations either engage in the trade and do not receive any form of reprimanding for these

action or the country is able to exploit loopholes in the legislation regarding the trade. From the

endangered species trade, harvested plants and animals (or the respective parts of these species

that are of value) are then produced as commodities and products, medicines, or as food. The

associated high value of this trade is due to the rarity of the species targeted. As a species being

endangered subsequently entails that there is an ever dwindling amount of the particular species

available. Meaning that the poachers gain profit when in demand species are hunted, but also

when species with low population numbers are hunted and become available on the market

(WWF, ed., 2017).

Species Loss and the Harms Posed to the Environment

As has been stated numerous times prior, each loss of a species makes the surrounding

environment and species coexisting increasingly vulnerable. Therefore, in the process of

targeting species that are already in a vulnerable state, this easily leads to the deterioration of a

delicate system; upon which all living organisms depend.

Loss of biodiversity. Each loss of a species makes the ecosystem increasingly

vulnerable. With each species loss, there is more instability within the ecosystems. And from this

leads to increased degradation of the natural environment (Sisk, Launer, Switky, Erhlich, &

Imhoff, 1994).
IGNORING NATURE NO MORE 11

Loss of a keystone species. Keystone species are species that play a crucial role within

the environment, and without these species, the entirety of the ecosystem would soon collapse.

Some of these endangered species are keystone species. With these species playing such a

crucial role in the environment, and being equally vulnerable, this situation places the

environment in a precarious situation. In which, the species which all others depend upon for

survival is the most likely to become extinct, and with it soon to follow, the remainder of the

ecosystem (Sisk, Launer, Switky, Erhlich, & Imhoff, 1994).

Impacts

Economic

The complete extent of the endangered species trade can only be estimated at best, as the

full extend of illegal activities cannot truly be known. However, according to projections, the

endangered species trade is a multi-million dollar organization. From which, many criminal

organizations reap the profits (in addition to some governments). The continuance of the

endangered species trade at the current rate would allow for the unregulated flow of millions of

dollars that go unaccounted for within the economy. It must also be taken into consideration that

while the money that feeds into the endangered species trade may benefit the economy, the

overall cost that is the harming of species is not worth the monetary gain (Shogren, n.d.).

Ethical

The proliferation of the endangered species trade is a reflection of the status of society.

Continued poaching is done due to the inherent anthropocentric mindset that has gone

unchallenged by the majority of society. This anthropogenic mindset entails that people often

view humanity as pinnacle of importance, which often disregards the importance of other living

creatures and the environment which is depended upon by all creatures. As a result, society as a
IGNORING NATURE NO MORE 12

whole has remained unphased and relatively apathetic towards the deteriorating state of animals,

and the subsequently worsening state of nature. The shirking of responsibility for decimating the

environment and animal populations only fuels the decline that is suffered by the planet. Humans

are consuming at an increasingly rapid rate. And as this consumption increases, so does the

implicit greed that follows. In order to curtail the destruction that is being enacted on the

environment, there must be a shift in the general attitude held towards species and the

environment. Recognition of the fact that species affect the world which people are also

dependent upon, that other species inhabit the world, and species are equally vulnerable to the

actions of humanity. Awareness of the role which people play is essential for combatting the

endangered species trade, as humanity serves as the perpetrator for the exacerbated negative

impacts that befall upon the environment (Fontenay, 2012).

Environmental

The environmental impacts of the endangered species trade are echoed throughout the

discussion of the issue. The incessant pushing of these species towards the brink of extinction,

the degradation experienced by the environment, and the decline in the overall state of the

environment as each loss of a species makes the environment increasingly weaker. The

endangered species trade poses no benefits to the environment, as each species loss is

devastating. The loss of a species entails the loss of features, qualities, and traits entirely unique

to a single species, with no chance of replication of the exact species that was lost. While

extinction of species is a natural process that occur over time, the rapid rate at which species are

going extinct today can be attributed to human activity. Specifically directed at the fact that there

is little concern for the overarching impact of humanities collective actions and decisions (Sisk,

Launer, Switky, Erhlich, & Imhoff, 1994).

IGNORING NATURE NO MORE 13

Legislation

The Lacey Act

The Lacey Act was passed in 1900, and in its enactment, it became the first piece of

federal legislation outlining protections of the environment. Regulation of importing and

exporting of endangered species specified under CITES and extends to cover any species

indicated in state legislation. Then under the Lacey Act, anyone found in violation of the law

could be found guilty of civil or criminal penalties; depending upon the severity of the violation,

and there were outlined penalties (such as fines and jail time periods). Via the Lacey Act, the

United States federal government was then enable to address/ assume any environmental crimes

that occured between various states. This feature of the law solves for issue in which a crime that

occurs between various states does not have to be disrupted regarding which state assumes

jurisdiction, instead the authority is automatically flowed to the United States federal

government (J. Pilgrim, Personal communication, November 03, 2017). In 2008, the Lacey Act

was amended to be inclusive of more plants that were being faced with the threat of extinction.

The Lacey Act serves as a protection against the importing and exporting of endangered species,

which can serve as the basis for defense of the species impacted by the endangered species trade.

Protecting against not only the illegal transportation and selling of these species, but it also

serves as a preventative measure against invasive species which can be destructive to

environments and species (Lacey Act, n.d.).

Endangered Species Act (1973)

The Endangered Species Act (referred to as the “ESA”), was enacted into law during

Nixon’s administration. The legislation was enacted as a response to the increasing losses of

various species, and the increase of species that were being pushed towards the brink of
IGNORING NATURE NO MORE 14

extinction. Under the ESA, species were now able to be labelled as endangered or threatened,

and the United States federal government established an objective to help protect

endangered/threatened species and restore the environment which the species are dependent

upon. Through the objectives of restoring endangered species and the respective habitats to

sustainable levels, in addition to monitoring and managing threatened species as a preventative

measure to not have the species transition into a status of being endangered, this legislation

implemented reform in the method which would change the how the United States would address

the endangered species trade. By extending protection established under the CITES into the

United States, establishing a definition distinguishing endangered and threatened species,

incorporating plants and invertebrates as protected under this act, and prohibiting federal

agencies for authorizing operations that would damage an endangered or threatened species

population and the respective habitat (Endangered Species Act Overview, 2017). The passage of

the Endangered Species Act (1973) served as one of the most influential pieces of legislation for

combating the endangered specie strade. Under the ESA, the definitive categorization and

analysis of threat faced by a species was established, resulting in the labels applied to species

indicating endangered/ threatened. From this stemmed the prevention of government action or

funding of programs that would impede upon the improvement of deteriorated environments and

protected species from government abuses. This establishes a foundation of general protections

to be enforced for the wellbeing of endangered species, which cannot be contradicted by

government action. Under the ESA, general protections for endangered species were outlined,

providing a defense for these species when prior to the legislation, there was essentially none as

prior legislation was vague or ineffective. From this basis, legislation regarding the endangered

species trade was allowed to extend and further the protections received by species.
IGNORING NATURE NO MORE 15

Comparative Action Regarding the Endangered Species Trade at All Levels

Cases at the National Level

The Case of 5o was brought before the United States Supreme Court in 1979. Allard

faced prosecution due to the fact that the artifacts the he was selling contained eagle feathers, and

under the Eagle Protection Act (1940), the sale or transportation of any protects resulting from an

eagle (eggs, feathers, or other body parts). However, as the law was enacted in 1940, it does not

exclude the sale or possession of eagle products legally obtained prior to the enactment of the

law. After being accused and found guilty of possession of eagle feathers under the Eagle

Protection Act, Allard appealed and provided evidence that the feathers had been obtained

legally prior to the enactment of the act in 1940. Eventually, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of

Allard, finding his evidence sufficient proof that the feathers were legally obtained (Andrus v.

Allard). From this decision, it is reflected that past regulations regarding endangered species

poaching, though outdated, still have some effect in modern society, and allow for some

endangered species products to legally remain in circulation despite the current regulations

attempting to suppress it.

Cases at the International Level

The case of Whaling in the Antarctic (Australia v. Japan: New Zealand intervening) was

brought before the International Court of Justice. The issue arose due to the questioning of

whether or not the permit issued by Japan (JARPA II), which pursued a large-scale program

under the second phase of its Japanese Whale Research Program, is a breach of obligations

assumed by Japan under the 1946 International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling and of

other international obligations for the preservation of marine mammals and the marine
IGNORING NATURE NO MORE 16

environment. Paragraph 1 of Article VIII of the 1964 Convention for the Regulation of Whaling,

which provides that,

Notwithstanding anything contained in this Convention any Contracting Government

may grant to any of its nationals a special permit authorizing that national to kill, take and

treat whales for purposes of scientific research subject to such restrictions as to number

and subject to such other conditions as the Contracting Government thinks fit, and the

killing, taking, and treating of whales in accordance with the provisions of this Article

shall be exempt from the operation of this Convention. Each Contracting Government

shall report at once to the Commission all such authorizations which it has granted. Each

Contracting Government may at any time revoke any such special permit which it has

granted. (Whaling in the Antarctic (Australia v. Japan: New Zealand intervening)

The case began with Australia accusing Japan of breaching article VIII of the 1964

Convention, stating that the research program launched under a special permit, referred to as

JARPA II, was in violation of its core objective and was not hunting whales for scientific

purposes. The reason Australia had issue with the matter as the area in which Japan was using for

whaling, is a sanctuary for marine wildlife under Australia’s jurisdiction. In rendering its

decision, the International Court of Justice had to consider the purpose of the program and the

scientific research collected because of the program. While JARPA II did meet the qualifications

to be considered a research program, there still needed to be evaluations about the methods in

which it collected scientific information or if that was even what the program was doing. In

seeing that JARPA II was using cruel and torturous methods in hunting these whales, it was

evident that the purposes were not for scientific gain. Due to the nature of the program, its

intentions were found aims for commercial gains more probable. Therefore, the court, ruled in
IGNORING NATURE NO MORE 17

favor of Australia and found the actions of the JARPA II program in the arctic was in violation

of Article VIII from the 1964 Convention. As a result, the JARPA II program was discontinued,

and Japan is prevented from issuing any permits to allow action in any aspect or relation to the

JARPA II program. The precedent set forth by this case shows that animal wildlife crimes as a

whole can be more deeply investigated. This means that individuals or collectives which claim

false reasons for why they engage in particular action, are less likely to get away with their

actions. (Whaling in the Antarctic Australia v. Japan: New Zealand intervening)

Conclusion

The endangered species trade is a result of inherent detrimental mindsets which

contribute to the destruction of the natural environment via the excessive poaching of

endangered species. Many species on the brink of extinction are being dwindled down in

population at rates far greater experience ever before, these increased rates of population decline

can be directly attributed to human activity. As people engage in poaching of these creatures in

order to use the species for medicine, food, or luxury items. The endangered species trade can be

combated, through personal awareness and abolishing on anthropogenic mindsets (Society,

2012).
IGNORING NATURE NO MORE 18

References

16 U.S. Code Chapter 35 - ENDANGERED SPECIES. (n.d.). Retrieved from

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/16/chapter-35

Andrus v. Allard (November 27, 1979) (CaseLaw, Dist. file).

Canada Newswire. (1999, December 16). Airport Exhibit Promotes Public Awareness To

Combat Illegal Trade in Endangered Species. Retrieved from

https://search.proquest.com/docview/454792843/BD129010B13F4B52PQ/31?accountid=

3785.

CITES. (n.d.). News and highlights. Retrieved from https://www.cites.org/

CITES. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.fws.gov/international/cites/

Earth's Endangered Creatures. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.earthsendangered.com/

Endangered Species. (2017, July 16). Retrieved from http://www.animalplanet.com/wild-

animals/endangered-species/
IGNORING NATURE NO MORE 19

Evans, M. (2011, May 29). Endangered species. Retrieved from

http://www.earthtimes.org/encyclopaedia/environmental-issues/endangered-species/

Fisheries, N. (2013, August 08). Endangered Species Act (ESA). Retrieved from

http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/laws/esa/

Fontenay, E. D. (2012). Without offending humans: A critique of animal rights.

Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Guilford, G. (2013, May 15). Why Does a Rhino Horn Cost $300,000? Because Vietnam

Thinks It Cures Cancer and Hangovers. Retrieved from

https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/05/why-does-a-rhino-horn-cost-300-

000-because-vietnam-thinks-it-cures-cancer-and-hangovers/275881/

Helmeted Hornbill. (2017). Retrieved from

http://www.worldlandtrust.org/education/species/helmeted-hornbill

Lieberman, S. S. (1993, June). 1992 CITES amendments strengthen protection for

wildlife and plants. Retrieved from

https://search.proquest.com/docview/215039280/BD129010B13F4B52PQ/11?accountid=

3785.

Listing a species as a threatened or endangered species [PDF]. (2016, August). Falls

Church, VA: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services.

Merry, M. (2016, September 21). The War against Poaching In 2016. Retrieved from

http://www.endangered.org/the-war-against-poaching-in-2016/

Pilgrim, J. (2017, November 03). [Telephone interview].

Poaching. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.humanesociety.org/issues/poaching/

IGNORING NATURE NO MORE 20

Shogren, J. F. (n.d.). Economics and the endangered species act. Retrieved from

http://www.umich.edu/~esupdate/library/97.01-02/shogren.html

Sisk, T. D., Launer, A. E., Switky, K. R., Erhlich, P. R., & Imhoff, M. L. (1994,

October). Identifying Extinction Threats. Retrieved from

https://search.proquest.com/docview/216357595/3FEB7671287F4F24PQ/14?accountid=

3785.

Society, N. G. (2012, October 09). Endangered species. Retrieved from

https://www.nationalgeographic.org/encyclopedia/endangered-species/

United States, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, Department of Interior. (2005). Why save

endangered species? Washington, D.C.: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

United States, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, Department of Interior. (2017, November 1).

Endangered Species Act Overview. Retrieved from

https://www.fws.gov/endangered/laws-policies/

United States, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, Department of Interior. (n.d.). Lacey Act.

Retrieved from https://www.fws.gov/international/laws-treaties-agreements/us-

conservation-laws/lacey-act.html

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. (2017). Illegal Wildlife Trade. Retrieved from

https://www.fws.gov/international/travel-and-trade/illegal-wildlife-trade.html

Whaling in the Antarctic (Australia v. Japan: New Zealand intervening) (International

Court of Justice March 31, 2014).

WWF (Ed.). (2017). Illegal wildlife trade. Retrieved from

https://www.worldwildlife.org/threats/illegal-wildlife-trade#