|
KS - Wildlife Possession - Chapter 32. Wildlife, Parks and Recreation. |
Knowingly capturing, killing, or possessing for profit, or selling, bartering, purchasing or offering to do so as well as the shipping or transportation of wildlife constitutes the commercialization of wildlife. The possession of listed wildlife for commercial purposes is considered a "nonperson" misdemeanor or felony depending on whether the aggregate value is greater than $1000. Commerce in protected wildlife (including eagles) incurs at least the minimum fine and may also result in the confiscation of equipment, license sanctions, and restitution. |
|
In re Pajarito American Indian Art, Inc. |
A trustee in a bankruptcy proceeding sought turnover of Sioux Indian Ghost Dance Shield containing eagle feathers. The court observed that normally the laws of the UCC would prevail and the merchants to whom the item was entrusted would have legitimate title to transfer, but since the BGEPA prohibits the sale of eagle artifacts, only the original owner had title to the shield, not the bankrupt who allegedly tried to sell the shield nor the potential purchasers. The court held that the underlying public policy outlined in
Allard
weighed heavily in the decision to invalidate what it termed an illegal contract. For further discussion on commerce in eagle parts under the BGPEA, see
Detailed Discussion of Eagle Act
.
|
|
IL - Protected species - Article II. Game Protective Regulations. |
This collection of statutes provides that the title of all wild birds and mammals rests with the state. A new section in 2011 vests the Department of Natural Resources with the ability to control the possession and release of species deemed exotic or invasive. Other sections concern the possession of certain wild birds and animals. Possession of any listed wild bird or its parts (including the eagle) is illegal under the statute, except for the bona fide scientific or zoological exhibition. |
|
Horen v. Commonwealth |
Native American medicine woman and her husband convicted of illegally possessing wild bird feathers in violation of Virginia statute. The Virginia Court of Appeals held that the statute violates RFRA because it does not provide a scheme to possess feathers for religious purposes, as it does for other purposes. Thus, the statute was not religiously neutral because it discriminated based on content and the state did not employ the least restrictive means in advancing its compelling interest. For further discussion on the federal Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, see
Detailed Discussion of Eagle Act
.
|
|
Gurtek v. Chisago County |
Appellants sought review of a denial of a special-use permit to build a large campground adjacent to a bald eagle nesting site. They contended that the denial by the county board was arbitrary and capricious. The court held that the denial was reasonable where the county proffered two legally valid reasons for denying the permit: the danger to the sensitive nesting eagle population and the detrimental effect the increased human activity would have on the unspoiled nature of the property.
|
|
Golden Eagles for the Gods |
Ted Williams' article explores the religious ritualistic killing of golden eaglets by a faction of the Hopi Indian Tribe. Williams questions whether the National Park Service Policy that contravenes both the BGEPA and Park Service policy truly reflects the best interest of both the Native American religious community and the fragile eagle population.
|
|
Gibson v. Babbitt |
Defendant, a Native American, challenged the constitutionality of the limitation of eagle parts through the permit system to members of federally recognized tribes. The limitation under the federal eagle permit system to federally recognized Indian tribes does not violate RFRA because the government has a compelling interest in protecting a species in demise and fulfilling pre-existing trust obligations to federally-recognized tribes in light of the limited supply of eagle parts. For further discussion on free exercise challenges under the BGEPA, see
Detailed Discussion of Eagle Act.
|
|
GA - Hunting - Chapter 3. Wildlife Generally |
Georgia is unique as it prohibits the killing, possession, sale, and transporting of eagles and other migratory birds except for the transportation of feathers into the state of non-migratory birds for millinery purposes (the making of hats or headdresses). |
|
FL - Endangered Species - Chapter 379. Fish and Wildlife Conservation. |
This statute prohibits the intentional killing or wounding of any animal, or the eggs or nest of any animal, listed as threatened, endangered, or of special concern, making it a Level Four violation under s. 379.401. The bald eagle has been designated under this provision. |
|
Eagle Permits Issued Under 50 C.F.R. 22 et seq |
The Federal Regulations (50 C.F.R. 22 et seq) govern the issuance of permits to take bald or golden eagles. Only under these proscribed circumstances will permits be issued to take any eagles. Included among these categories are Indian religious permits, scientific permits, falconry permit, and permits to take inactive golden eagle nests by mining operators (links pdf. versions of these applications are provided in this document).
|
