Wildlife
Title |
Summary |
|---|---|
| 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 |
In this case, Brian F. Charette filed an appeal after he was sentenced to six months of imprisonment and ordered to pay $5,000 in restitution for shooting and killing a grizzly bear in violation of the Endangered Species Act. Charette argued three issues on appeal: (1) that the trial court's denial of a jury trial violated his constitutional rights; (2) that the trial court erred in defining the elements of his charged offense; and (3) that the trial court erred in denying Charette's Rule 29 motion for a judgment of acquittal. The court found that the trial court did not err in denying a jury trial because Charette’s offense was considered a petty offense because it carried a maximum sentence of six months. For all crimes that are considered petty offenses, the Sixth Amendment right to a trial by jury is not triggered. Lastly, the court addressed Charette’s Rule 29 motion which calls for an acquittal if the essential elements of the offense are not proven beyond a reasonable doubt. In order for someone to be convicted of knowingly taking an endangered species the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt, that: (1) the defendant knowingly killed the animal; (2) the animal was engendered; (3) the defendant had no permit to kill the animal; and (4) the defendant did not act in self-defense or defense of others. Charette argued that the government failed to prove that he did not have a permit to kill the grizzly bear. The court ultimately found that the government did prove this element on the basis that Charette told officers that he did not report shooting the bear because he did not want to deal with the “hassle.” The court found that it was reasonable to believe that had Charette had a permit to kill the grizzly bear, he would not have found reporting it to be a hassle and therefore the government sufficiently established this element. As a result, the court affirmed the lower court’s decision. |
| 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. |
| US - Agriculture - Animal Damage Control Act | Animal Damage Control Act of March 2, 1931, (46 Stat. 1468) provided broad authority for investigation, demonstrations and control of mammalian predators, rodents and birds. Public Law 99-19, approved December 19, 1985, (99 Stat 1185) transferred administration of the Act from the Secretary of the Interior to the Secretary of Agriculture. Pub. L. 102-190(Div. A, title III, Sec. 348, Dec. 5, 1991, 105 Stat. 1348) and P.L. 102-237 (Title X, Sec. 1013(d), 105 Stat. 1901, Dec. 13, 1991) added provisions directing the Secretaries of Defense and Agriculture, respectively, to take actions to prevent the introduction of brown tree snakes into other areas of the U.S. from Guam. |
| US - Eagle - Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act | The BGEPA prohibits any form of possession or taking of both bald and golden eagles through criminal and civil sanctions as well as an enhanced penalty provision for subsequent offenses. Further, the BGEPA provides for the forfeiture of anything used to acquire eagles in violation of the statute. The statute excepts from its prohibitions on possession the use of eagles or eagle parts for exhibition, scientific, and Indian religious uses. |
| US - Elephant - African Elephant Conservation Act | A U.S. federal law that reaffirms the endangered status of African elephants and allocates money toward conservation efforts. |
| US - Elephant - Asian Elephant Conservation Act | A U.S. federal law that reaffirms the endangered status of Asian elephants and allocates money toward conservation efforts. |
| US - Funding State - Pittman-Roberson Act (Chapter 5B. Wildlife Restoration) | The Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration Act authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to cooperate with the States, through their respective State fish and game departments, in wildlife-restoration projects. However, no money shall be expended until the state in question assents to the provisions of this chapter and has passed laws for the conservation of wildlife, which includes a prohibition against the diversion of license fees paid by hunters for any other purpose than the administration of the fish and game department. |