Wildlife

Displaying 321 - 330 of 370
Titlesort descending Summary
TX - Wildlife - Subchapter H. Permits to Control Wildlife Protected by This Code. This statute allows an individual to apply to a local municipality to receive a permit to destroy wildlife that is posing a serious risk to agricultural interests or public safety. This provision relates to a section that disallows the killing of eagles save for this exception.
TX - Wildlife, wolves - Subchapter B. Nongame Animals Under these Texas statutes, no person may hunt, sell, buy or possess a live or dead bat, with exceptions. A violation is a Class C misdemeanor. It is a felony to possess, transport, receive, or release a live wolf in Texas (with exceptions). It is a class B misdemeanor to sell a living armadillo in Texas (with exceptions).
U.S. IVORY TRADE: CAN A CRACKDOWN ON TRAFFICKING SAVE THE LAST TITAN?
U.S. v. Hale


This opinion vacates and remands U.S. v. Hale, 2004 WL 2367994.
U.S. v. Tierney (Unpublished)


The district court did not err by denying the defendant's proposed entrapment instruction and that Nev. Admin. Code 504.471 is not unconstitutionally vague. He did not present evidence to support his position on either element. Rather than indicating government inducement or lack of predisposition, the evidence showed that the government merely provided the defendant with an opportunity to sell what he was already ready and willing to sell. The court also found the meaning of "wildlife" under Nevada law was not unconstitutionally vague.
UK - Wildlife - Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017
UK - Wildlife - The Humane Trapping Standards Regulations 2019
UK - Wildlife Trade - Ivory Act 2018
UK- Wildlife - Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981
United States v. Charette Defendant Charette was convicted by bench trial of taking a grizzly bear behind his home in Montana in violation of the federal Endangered Species Act. On appeal, defendant challenges his conviction on three grounds: (1) there was insufficient evidence to infer that he did not have a permit to take the grizzly bear; (2) his request for a jury trial was improperly denied; and (3) the lower court incorrectly analyzed his self-defense claim under an objective standard as opposed to the correct subjective standard. On appeal here, the court observed that the plain language of the ESA and legislative history makes it clear that permits and exceptions under the ESA are affirmative defenses, and not elements of the crime. In this case, Charette had the burden of proving the existence of a valid permit, which he did not do at trial. The court also quickly dispensed with the Sixth Amendment jury trial issue, finding that the taking of a grizzly bear is a petty offense. As to defendant's last argument on his self-defense claim, this court did find that the trial court erred in applying an objectively reasonable standard. This error was not harmless because it affected defendant's decision to testify as to his subjective belief in the need for self-defense. As a result, this court reversed the district court's decision, vacated defendant's conviction, and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Pages