Impacts of Pollution on Wildlife
Introduction
Impacts of pollution on wildlife has been a controversy and a contradicting issue since it has been experienced in the world and specifically in the united States of America for a long period of time. There are environmental laws which are hard on some manufacturing and production industry in North America and this makes them to be held responsible of various wildlife cases. The environmental laws in the United States of America have enacted endangered species Act in which it is a general rule which has held several companies responsible of the reduction of Wolverines in Montana glacial national park. Wolverines are special wildlife animals which the government considers important and are highly protected from any external infections. The following organizations were held responsible for the Wolverines decrease vehicle coalition, American petroleum institute; Montana petroleum association, western energy alliance, governor. "butch" otter; state of Montana, Montana fish, wildlife and parks and State of Wyoming. American petroleum companies which mainly refine Oil and gas were held responsible by wildlife protection agencies and this led to lawsuit being filed in the district court of Montana. Wolverines are considered to be of special interest the government and that is the reason the wildlife service organizations are accusing manufacturing and production companies of the influencing the decrease of their species in North America. As per the set environmental laws the wildlife services have been keenly following the reasons which they can rely on in pursuing lawful actions against the involved bodies (Environment Reporter n.d).
The controversial issue made some organization set a lawsuit since they were not happy with the accusations which were viewed as controversy. The Wildlife protection organizations file a case on several companies in Montana district and other nearly places for their involved in environmental pollution. This issue led the accused organizations to declare their stand in the court of law since they were not happy with environmental aspects which the wildlife agencies relied on to file the case on them. The organizations which were involved in the controversy issue are Sally Jewell, Secretary, U.S. Department of the Interior, Daniel m. Ashe, Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The defense team was made of other organizations which were also termed as responsible for the case and they had to be represented in the case and they are: Idaho farm bureau federation, Wyoming farm bureau, Montana farm bureau federation; Washington farm bureau, Idaho state snowmobile association; Colorado snowmobile association; Colorado off-highway.
Parties:
Two parties are involved in the controversial issue which is facing Northern America specifically in Montana national park. The two parties are the defendants of wildlife which is termed as the plaintiff team and the defendant’s team which was made up of Sally Jewell, Secretary, U.S. Department of the Interior, Daniel m. Ashe, Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The defense team was made of other organizations which were also termed as responsible for the case and they had to be represented in the case and they are: Idaho farm bureau federation, Wyoming farm bureau, Montana farm bureau federation; Washington farm bureau, Idaho state snowmobile association; Colorado snowmobile association; Colorado off-highway.
The second team which is the defense team was to bear with the accusations which were made on them since they had tried their best to curb environmental pollution but it is obvious that this kind of cases do not fail to be experienced. The team does not in any way accept the reliability and responsibility and the termed the plaintiff’s accusations as propaganda and controversy which had no basis in the environmental law. The Wildlife protection agencies mainly relied on endangered species Act which motivated them to transfer their responsibilities to others. The defense team was made up of many members since they were the nearby companies which were located in Montana district and that is the reason to why they were held responsible for what was happening to their surroundings.
Issue description:
The plaintiff team which was mainly made of the wildlife protection agencies argued that the number of Wolverines was decreasing because of the enormous pollution which was experienced in the environment .Numerous research have been conducted stating how there has been a decrease in the of Wolverines .The cause of the decrease of the wolverines population was investigated and pollution occurred to be the main cause .Destruction to wild animals is harmful especially in their ecosystem .Resulting deaths of the wolverines has been wide to a point of recognition. The team stated that previously done research portrays that the decline in the numbers of Wolverines was caused by pollution which led to destruction of these animals homes which normally is the snow covered mountains and depletion of the food source. The competitive level of the Wolverines is stated to have increased because their food sources had been interfered with .Decrease in the nature of a habitat in terms of water, food and among others results to competition in the habitat. Pollution has adverse effects to the wild animals especially the wolverines.
Pollution initiated climatic change in the habit areas were the wolverines lived and this led to lack of essential food sources and suitable environment for their survival. The quest to curb environmental pollution is difficult and that is the reason why the team declines any accusations to not have successfully rectified the crisis. The effects of Pollution are adverse and that’s why they ought to be rectified for the sake of the ecosystems prosperity and protection of wildlife. Environmental laws and all agencies emphasize on the protection of wildlife ecosystems at large.
The defense team was not happy of the accusations which were made on them since they had tried their best to curb environmental pollution. The team does not in any way accept the reliability and responsibility and the termed the plaintiff’s accusations as propaganda and controversy which had no basis in the environmental law. The Wildlife protection agencies mainly relied on endangered species Act which motivated them to transfer their responsibilities to others. The defense team was made up of many members since they were the nearby companies which were located in Montana district and that is the reason to why they were held responsible for what was happening to their surroundings.
Identification of the applicable laws
There are several laws which apply to the controversial issue facing the wildlife protection agency and the organizations accused which are the key stakeholders in building the environment in North America, and which when applied they can aid to settle down the differences they are experiencing. These laws are based on environmental aspects and taxation perspective since the government through some of its bodies it implemented laws which are not favorable to the oil refineries since it is initiating the rapid increase of their product prices.
Clean Air Act is applicable in the case of the controversial issue experienced between the government and the oil refineries. This aspect is a law which is mainly meant to reduce air pollution, and the State of California has established some taxation program to discourage individuals and organizations from breaking this law (Bartley 3). The State government through environment protection agency it has increased taxes payable per gallon of gasoline to seventy-five percent which has initiated a hike in the products prices as compared to Los Angeles. The States government of California is using taxation programs to enhance this law by increasing the tax fees payable by gasoline refineries. The aim of the government by establishing and implementing the taxation program as an aspect of controlling and curbing environmental pollution was to ensure quality is enhanced to in the State.
Environmental quality Act is another law which could apply to the controversial issue between the government and the gasoline or oil-based refineries. This Act requires individuals and organizations in the United States of America to carry on actions or activities which do not contribute to environmental pollution by ensuring they are quality. The expectations of the government by establishing and implementing this law was to discourage people from using low-quality vehicles which have engines which can initiate incomplete burning of fuels hence polluting the environment with carbon. The Act is meant to motivate people to buy hybrid and fuel efficient vehicles which cannot be involved in pollution of the environment (Northern America Environmental Laws n.d).
.
Endangered Species Act is a national constitutional law which protects all animals from negative impacts which result from environmental pollution. This Act is applicable mostly when an individual or organization is involved in environmental pollution activities which are dangerous to the animal species. Animals in this Act mean human beings, dogs, pets and any other species associated with them. This law applies to the controversial issue between the government and the refineries since if the organizations are handling products such as gasoline, they are likely to endanger lives of all animals in the State of California in the case of any pollution. Plants are also protected under this Act since they are important environmental elements (Northern America Environmental Laws n.d).
The public organization involved in the controversial issue is environment protection agency. The agency was established to oversee all related environmental issues in the United States of America. Its main responsibility is to ensure the set laws and policies are followed. Generally, the United States of America environment protection agency was established to reinforce and implement government set laws and policies. The agency has several regulations which they apply in controlling environmental pollution. As per its regulations, individuals caught polluting the environment is arrested and taken to court; they punish people caught misleading the public about environmental issues which is contrary to the alerts they issue to the citizens.
Problem solution evaluation
Application of the law is not appropriate to these issues since it may take long or even it might not satisfy all the involved parties' demands. The best solution can be achieved through arbitration in which all wildlife protection organizations, environmental protection agencies should meet with all associated stakeholders should be involved to revise the environmental laws and taxation programs. This kind of technique should also involve expertise team which can coordinate all ventures and ensure the appropriate solution is achieved. Arbitration method is more useful since this controversy as taken long and the court ruling has not been able to eliminate it. In arbitration setting issues from all the involved parties will be addressed without favoring one side.
A ruling by the court will not clearly solve this matter since it will portray some support to the one hand. If the above the controversy will still arise in future and it may under-develop the energy sector since some key players may decide to quit the Northern America since the government will be misusing them by the strictness of the environmental laws. The interested parties in the industry may choose to establish their businesses in other States such as Los Angeles where the market is stable compared to California.
Interview
Ten stakeholders who were involved in the case were conducted via a phone call, and they clear responded to the following questions;
Who was held responsible for the hike in oil and gas prices?
Are we all oil refineries represented in the court?
How was the government defended?
What was the final court ruling?
The answers given by the ten respondents were similar since they all attended the trial. They stated that all stakeholders were held responsible for the price rise, and they should have unity to prevent recurrence of the same in future. All the accused organizations were well represented by their team of advocates and the government were well defended by it lawyers too. It was unfortunate that the accused organizations were held responsible for the hike in oil and gas prices. The above statement is in line with the final ruling which the court issue even though the presiding judges emphasized that the environmental laws and regulations should be reviewed (Shally-Jensen 7).
Conclusion
There are environmental laws which are difficult to be followed by all stakeholders in an environment. These laws are challenging to some manufacturing and production industry in North America and this makes them to be held responsible of various wildlife cases. The environmental laws in the United States of America have enacted endangered species Act in which it is a general rule which has held several companies responsible of the reduction of Wolverines in Montana glacial national park. Wolverines are special wildlife animals which the government considers important and are highly protected from any external infections. The following organizations were held responsible for the Wolverines decrease vehicle coalition, American petroleum institute; Montana petroleum association, western energy alliance, governor. "butch" otter; state of Montana, Montana fish, wildlife and parks and State of Wyoming. American petroleum companies which mainly refine Oil and gas were held responsible by wildlife protection agencies and this led to lawsuit being filed in the district court of Montana. Wolverines are considered to be of special interest the government and that is the reason the wildlife service organizations are accusing manufacturing and production companies of the influencing the decrease of their species in North America. As per the set environmental laws the wildlife services have been keenly following the reasons which they can rely on in pursuing lawful actions against the involved bodies.
Two parties are involved in the controversial issue which is facing Southern California. The two parties are the defendants of wildlife which is termed as the plaintiff team and the defendant’s team which was made up of Sally Jewell, Secretary, U.S. Department of the Interior, Daniel m. Ashe, Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The defense team was made of other organizations which were also termed as responsible for the case and they had to be represented in the case and they are: Idaho farm bureau federation, Wyoming farm bureau, Montana farm bureau federation; Washington farm bureau, Idaho state snowmobile association; Colorado snowmobile association; Colorado off-highway. The plaintiff team which was mainly made of the wildlife protection agencies argued that the number of Wolverines was decreasing because of the pollution which was experienced in the environment.
The team stated that previously done research portrays that the decline in the numbers of Wolverines was caused by pollution which led to destruction of these animals homes which normally is the snow covered mountains and depletion of the food source. The competitive level of the Wolverines is stated to have increased because their food sources had been interfered with. Pollution initiated climatic change in the habit areas were the wolverines lived and this led to lack of essential food sources and suitable environment for their survival.
The defense team couldn’t accept the accusations which were made on them since they had tried their best to curb environmental pollution. The team does not in any way accept the reliability and responsibility and the termed the plaintiff’s accusations as propaganda and controversy which had no basis in the environmental law. The Wildlife protection agencies mainly relied on endangered species Act which motivated them to transfer their responsibilities to others. The defense team was made up of many members since they were the nearby companies which were located in Montana district and that is the reason to why they were held responsible for what was happening to their surroundings.
Works cited
Northern America Environmental Laws. St. Paul, Minn: West Pub. Co, 1900. Print.
Environment Reporter. Washington: Bureau of National Affairs, 1970. Print.
Bartley, Ernest R. Tidelands Oil Controversy: A Legal and Historical Analysis. Place of
Publication not identified: Univ Of Texas Press, 2015. Print.
Ashford, Nicholas A, and Charles C. Caldart. Environmental Law, Policy, and Economics:
Reclaiming the Environmental Agenda. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press, 2008.
Shally-Jensen, Michael. Encyclopedia of Contemporary American SocialIssues. Santa Barbara,
Calif: ABC-CLIO, 2011. Print.
.
