The Chief of the Forest Service, through the Regional Foresters and Forest Supervisors, shall determine the extent to which national forests or portions thereof may be devoted to wildlife protection in combination with other uses and services of the national forests, and, in cooperation with the Fish and Game Department or other constituted authority of the State concerned, he will formulate plans for securing and maintaining desirable populations of wildlife species, and he may enter into such general or specific cooperative agreements with appropriate State officials as are necessary and desirable for such purposes. Officials of the Forest Service will cooperate with State game officials in the planned and orderly removal in accordance with the requirements of State laws of the crop of game, fish, fur-bearers, and other wildlife on national forest lands.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
4
cases (
1 in the last 5 years), 2009–2023 · leading case:
Herrera v. Wyoming, 139 S. Ct. 1686 (2019).
Herrera v. Wyoming, 139 S. Ct. 1686 (2019).
“1095 ; 36 CFR §§ 241.2 , 241.3 (Supp. 1941); § 261.”
Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. Usfs, 80 F.4th 943 (9th Cir. 2023).
“§ 1732 (b); 36 C.F.R. §§ 241.2 , 261.10(d). Arizona allows hunters to use lead ammunition except when hunting waterfowl.”
Utah Native Plant Soc'y v. U.S. Forest Serv., 923 F.3d 860 (10th Cir. 2019).
“"); 36 C.F.R. § 241.2 (FS regulation calling for cooperation with state officials in the management of wildlife within the national forests).”
Friends of the Columbia Gorge, Inc. v. Elicker, 598 F. Supp. 2d 1136 (D. Or. 2009).
· cites it 3× “36 C.F.R. § 241.2 also requires USFS, in conjunction with state fish and wildlife agencies, to determine the extent to which the national forests may be used for wildlife management.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.