cited with approval: [A] national program to protect and improve the natural habitats of endangered species preserves the possibilities of interstate commerce in these species and of interstate movement of persons, such as amateur students of nature or professional scientists who come to a state to observe and study these species, that would otherwise be lost by state inaction. Id. at 995; see also Douglas v. Seacoast Products, 431 U.S. 265, 282, 97 S.Ct. 1740, 1750, 52 L.Ed.2d 304 (1977) (federal regulation of taking of fish in state waters was valid under Commerce Clause; “[t]he movement of vessels from one State to another, in search of fish ... is certainly activity which Congress could conclude affects interstate commerce”); Utah v. Marsh, 740 F.2d 799, 803-04 (10th Cir.1984) (<HOLDING>). The only two courts to confront post-Lopez
holding interstate movement of travelers to observe photograph and appreciate a variety of bird and animal life sufficient to bring federal regulations within ambit of commerce clause holding that stock exchanges asserting their rights to engage in interstate commerce free of discriminatory taxes are within the zone of interests protected by the commerce clause holding that commerce clause authorizes congress to punish any particular criminal action even without proof of a relation to interstate commerce when the activity is part of a class of activities determined by congress to affect interstate commerce holding that state regulations of intrastate wildlife are within dormant commerce clause recognizing power of states to engage in some regulation of interstate commerce