ABSTRACT
A pitfall of using legal cases as precedent to analyze subsequent conflicts is a tendency to categorize cases and categories of cases glibly, not wisely. The modern, very different view of the universe has replaced the plenum and its satisfying solidity with a blooming, buzzing, busy world in which species must compete for the factors necessary for their continued existence. The more insidious attack upon a species’ reproductive ability is a less dramatic but equally destructive action of habitat deprivation. Each individual of a species requires a certain amount of space containing a certain amount of food and other features that enable it to live and reproduce. Proponents for protecting endangered species argue that recent population growth, development, and pollution may “speed up” the process of extinction. The district court’s finding of habitat degradation that could result in extinction constitutes “harm.” The district court’s finding of a “taking” was not clearly erroneous.
