|
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. |
|
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. |
|
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.
|
|
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).
|
|
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. |
|
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). |
|
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.
|
|
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.
|
|
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.
|
|
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
.
|
