In the cases in which landowner’s livelihoods are dependent on the land they live in, there have been rare circumstances granted in which threatened animals were allowed to be killed or injured for the harming of livestock. While there are cases in which the Endangered Species Act has caused irrefutable harm to people’s livelihoods amendments were made to the bill to counteract such events. The “no surprises policies” assures property owners that, “ Fish and Wildlife Service will not apply additional land use restrictions beyond the habitat conservation plan originally agreed upon between the landowners and the government” (ballpedia). There are many alternatives and paths to the restrictions placed in order for landowners to be accommodated to this bill. To simply kill off animals within the property due to these restrictions is simply an act of unlawful conduct, there is no
In the cases in which landowner’s livelihoods are dependent on the land they live in, there have been rare circumstances granted in which threatened animals were allowed to be killed or injured for the harming of livestock. While there are cases in which the Endangered Species Act has caused irrefutable harm to people’s livelihoods amendments were made to the bill to counteract such events. The “no surprises policies” assures property owners that, “ Fish and Wildlife Service will not apply additional land use restrictions beyond the habitat conservation plan originally agreed upon between the landowners and the government” (ballpedia). There are many alternatives and paths to the restrictions placed in order for landowners to be accommodated to this bill. To simply kill off animals within the property due to these restrictions is simply an act of unlawful conduct, there is no