|
Detailed Discussion of the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act |
This article explores the history and text of the BGEPA. It further examines the relevant legal issues spawned by the Act, including free exercise challenges by Native Americans, the abrogation of treaty rights, commerce in eagle parts, and requisite intent for criminal prosecution under the Act.
|
|
DE - Hunting - § 739. Prohibitions respecting bald eagles; disturbing, damaging or destroying nests; eggs; penalties |
Delaware law makes it a Class A environmental misdemeanor to disturb or damage the nest or eggs of a bald eagle or to kill or possess a bald eagle. It is also prohibited to barter and trade in bald eagles or their parts. |
|
Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. Zinke |
In this case, the Center for Biological Diversity and Maricopa Audubon Society (collectively “CBD”) challenged the determination of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (“FWS”) that the Sonoran Desert Area bald eagle (“desert eagle”) is not a distinct population segment (“DPS”) eligible for listing under the Endangered Species Act. There are two requirements for DPS status: (1) the discreteness of the population segment in relation to the remainder of the species to which it belongs, and (2) the significance of the population segment to the species to which it belongs. Here, the parties agreed that the desert eagle population is discrete, but they disputed whether the population is significant. CBD argued that if FWS found that a population segment satisfies any of the four listed significance factors, it is required to conclude that the population segment is significant. The court held that FWS did not act arbitrarily and capriciously in concluding that the desert eagle did not satisfy significance requirement for being a DPS, even though it found that the desert eagle satisfied the persistence requirement and one significance factors. The district court's grant of summary judgment to FWS was affirmed. |
|
CT - Hunting of bald eagle prohibited - Chapter 490. Fisheries and Game |
Connecticut law prohibits the harassment and killing of bald eagles. Violation of the statute can result in a fine of not more than $100 or up to thirty days in jail, or both. |
|
Coyote v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service |
Defendant brought a motion after the USFWS denied his application to obtain eagle feathers for religious use where defendant failed to obtain certification from the Bureau of Indian Affairs that he was a member of a federally-recognized tribe. The court held that this requirement is both contrary to the plain reading of that regulation and arbitrary and capricious. For discussion on formerly recognized tribes and the BGEPA, see
Detailed Discussion.
|
|
Conflicting Values: The Religious Killing of Federally Protected Wildlife |
This Comment explores the current conflict between federal wildlife protection and Indian religious use of animals which reflects this philosophical debate.
|
|
CO - Wildlife, nongame - Wildlife; Illegal Possession |
Colorado law prohibits the taking, hunting, or possession of animals deemed property of the state or wildlife taken in violation of state, federal, or non-U.S. law (including bald and golden eagles), resulting in a misdemeanor with up to one year in jail and fines. Further, there is an additional penalty for the taking of "big game" species. It is also illegal to have in one's possession any nonnative or exotic species. |
|
CO - Hunting - Willful Destruction of Wildlife |
Colorado has a unique statute specific to poaching for the purpose of acquiring parts or "trophies" from an animal with the intent of abandoning the carcass, or even soliciting someone else to do so. Taking or hunting big game, eagles, or endangered species with this intent results in a felony. The intent of the law is stated "to protect the wildlife from wanton, ruthless, or wasteful destruction or mutilation for their heads, hides, claws, teeth, antlers, horns, internal organs, or feathers." |
|
Center for Biological Diversity v. Salazar |
Plaintiffs filed action against Interior and FWS to set aside FWS's finding that the desert bald eagle does not qualify as a distinct population segment (“DPS”) entitled to protection under the Endangered Species Act (“ESA”). Plaintiff's motions for summary judgment was granted. The Court found that FWS' 12–month finding was based on the 2007 delisting rule, which failed to comport with the notice, comment, and consultation requirements of the ESA. The Court set aside the 12–month finding as an abuse of discretion.
|
|
Callahan v. Woods |
Plaintiff alleged the requirement that his infant daughter receive a social security number as a prerequisite to obtain public benefits infringed on his free exercise of religion. Since the court held that the the social security number requirement substantially interfered with plaintiff's free exercise of religious beliefs, the compelling interest test was applied to determine constitutionality of the regulation. This substantial burden/compelling interest test became the model for infringement of religious exercise claims, including those under the BGEPA. For application of this test to religious challenges to the BGEPA, see
Detailed Discussion of Eagle Act
.
|
