Depredating eggs 100bestdatingsites org
Faced with population pressures due to direct hunting and habitat encroachment, Congress enacted protection for this majestic bird of prey. This surely brings to mind the legal maxim that ignorance of the law is no defense. The expansive nature of activities under the BGEPA is directed at deterring reckless and negligent killing of eagles by profit-driven corporations. Utah, 2000), the court held that counsel is not deemed ineffective for failing to advise defendant that he may lose his grazing rights with the government if convicted under the BGEPA.
The Eagle Act, as originally enacted, prohibited any form of hunting, possession, or sale of the bald eagle. This in and of itself has created controversy as early court decisions held that Indians hunting eagles on reservations were exempted from the Act due to pre-existing treaties. While the Supreme Court has resolved the issue of treaty abrogation, religious challenges remain hotbeds of litigation to the BGEPA. One wonders whether the court would have been so sympathetic to defendant’s plight had he intended to use the talons in an offensive ritual or anti-American display of art. This feature is but one of the many deterrent mechanisms under the Act. Defendant Okelberry was a livestock rancher in Utah.
More recently high concentrations of DDT, DDE, and diedrin, all of which cause eggshell thinning and drastically reduce reproductive success, have been found in the body tissue of eagles. Pitt, Eagles and Indians: The Law and the Survival of a Species,100 5 Pub. As originally enacted, the Eagle Act prohibited the "willful" possession and taking of bald eagles. Only taking, shooting, shooting at, capturing, and trapping constitute acts normally associated with hunting and poaching. As observed by the Moon Lake court, eagle electrocution was explicitly discussed before the Senate Committee on Commerce: Sen. The court disagreed, finding that multiple convictions in a single proceeding were sufficient to trigger the enhanced penalty provision. When the act was amended in 1962, Congress again excepted these two functions for pre-existing bird products. An explanatory letter from the Department of Agriculture that was adopted in the Senate Report on the bill defines the reach of the Eagle Protection Act to make it unlawful to "take, possess, sell, purchase, transport, or otherwise deal with the bald eagle . Further, the court aligned itself with other cases, holding that a claim challenging free exercise of religion may not be asserted where the activity at issue was purely commercial. The district court denied defendant’s argument that he had a right under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) (42 U. On appeal, the Tenth Circuit held that RFRA was not implicated, as the subsequent commercial sale of the eagle skin defeated defendant’s claim of free exercise. The recent proposed NAFERA (Native American Free Exercise of Religion Act) (See, Section 3D, supra) legislation would create an exception to abandoned eagle parts found on Indian reservations. In essence, it appears that the Regulations attempt to amend the statute, a legal impossibility. At issue was the seizure of several golden eagle items confiscated in connection with the violation. 1988), the court upheld a charitable deduction stemming from the donation of artifacts containing eagle feathers.
Not until 1972 did Congress amend the statutory penalties and intent. Within the prohibited activities under the BGEPA, it is commerce in eagle parts that captures the most attention. It is this cycle fostered by a monetary incentive that Congress determined particularly dangerous to the eagle. Indeed, the court found offensive the notion that one could, "under the guise of religion, stockpile protected species for commercial sale." Id. In the still murky jurisdprudence surrounding religious challenges to the BGEPA, it appears that commercial sale uniformly dissolves challenges on appeal. Moreover, the language of the Act prevents the import or export of eagles or their parts for any purpose. Since the adoption of the Eagle Act, its amendments, and its regulations, we have received requests to allow the transportation of dead bald and golden eagles, their parts, nests, or dead eggs into or out of the United States for scientific or exhibition purposes or for religious use by American Indian tribes. However, the court noted the language from Allard that strictly condemned the commercial sale of eagle items, regardless of the date they were acquired. The failure of the government to act in accordance with the statutory requirements did not void ownership by the taxpayers, nor did it contravene public policy.
The Act protected both live and dead eagles covered by the act, as well as eagle parts, nests, and eggs. 1989), where concerned citizens unsuccessfully sought to enjoin the destruction of a grove of cottonwood trees used as perches by eagles under the BGEPA and other statutes). The amendment was adopted in part to preserve the declining golden eagle population, but also as an additional protective measure for the bald eagle, as the two species are relatively indistinguishable in the first few years of life. The following describes the pertinent components of the BGEPA: The BGEPA provides for criminal prosecution in addition to civil fines. The Hetzel decision is often relied upon for its analysis of the intent component under the BGEPA. Perhaps one of the most unique deterrent provision under the BGEPA is the grazing rights component. In a controlled operation by Fish and Wildlife agents to obtain further evidence against defendant who was suspected of setting out poison traps, agents set up a "ruse" site next to an existing poison trap.
Later amendments increased the penalties proscribed by the statute, which include civil and criminal sanctions. The history of the BGEPA demonstrates an act that has evolved to meet the changing needs of the species and people for whom the eagle is a central figure. However, including the golden eagle under the ambit of the statute raised a new issue. This network of regulatory and enforcement measures have made the BGEPA one of the most successful wildlife statutes to date. It is that permit process that continues to spawn much of the litigation under the BGEPA today. Moreover, while the amended statute lists in its definitional section the term "whoever" as including associations, partnerships, and corporations, it does not specifically include "Indians." 16 U. The severe penalties under the statute reflect an intent by Congress to deter any form of taking. However, despite the court’s ultimate finding, it is arguable under the facts that the defendant indeed possessed the eagle parts with the requisite intent. The BGEPA provides that, in addition to criminal and civil penalties, any person convicted under the statute may lose his or her grazing contracts with the federal government. At this site, agents set a deceased carcass of an eagle, skunk, and deer.
In 1940, Congress recognized the need to protect the Nation’s symbol of freedom and liberty. The statute does not distinguish the type of knowledge one must have to constitute criminal possession (e.g., knowledge based on some form of malice or recklessness, or simple knowledge of one’s actions). This was due in part to the fact that "[t]he Interior Department had taken the view that the Act did not apply to poisoning prior to the amendment unless the poison was deliberately put out to kill eagles." Corbin Farm Service , supra, at --.
The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act was originally borne of a need to protect only the bald eagle. In the magistrate’s findings of facts, he noted that defendant did not know that removing the talons from the eagle for the Boy Scout function was a violation of the law. The court in fact used this legislative history to buttress its argument that the MBTA likewise covered poisoning.