(a) The prohibitions in this part apply, except as otherwise provided, when:
(1) An act or omission occurs in the National Forest System or on a National Forest System road or trail.
(2) An act or omission affects, threatens, or endangers property of the United States administered by the Forest Service.
(3) An act or omission affects, threatens, or endangers a person using, or engaged in the protection, improvement or administration of the National Forest System or a National Forest System road or trail.
(4) An act or omission occurs within the designated boundaries of a component of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System.
(b) Nothing in this part shall preclude activities as authorized by the Wilderness Act of 1964 or the U.S. Mining Laws Act of 1872 as amended.
(c) Unless an offense set out in this part specifies that intent is required, intent is not an element of any offense under this part.
(d) None of these prohibitions apply to any person engaged in fire suppression actions.
[42 FR 35958, July 13, 1977, as amended at 43 FR 32136, July 25, 1978; 46 FR 33519, June 30, 1981; 66 FR 3218, Jan. 12, 2001; 73 FR 30307, May 27, 2008]
Notes of Decisions
United States v. Rory Doremus & David Doremus, 888 F.2d 630 (9th Cir. 1989).
· cites it 3× “Appellants’ statutory rights derive from the provision in the 1872 Act which reserves to the claimant “the exclusive right of possession and enjoyment of all the surface included within the lines of their locations.”
United States v. Godfrey, 112 F. Supp. 3d 1097 (E.D. Cal. 2015).
· cites it 4× “§ 551 and 36 C.F.R. § 261.1 et seq. Doc. # 12. In Count One, Defendant was charged with unauthorized cutting and damaging of any timber, tree, and forest product, in violation of 36 C.”
Elko Cnty. Bd. of Supervisors v. Glickman, 909 F. Supp. 759 (D. Nev. 1995).
· cites it 3× “Initially, they argued that, as holders of 1872 mining rights, they were not even subject *765 to that regulation, because 36 C.F.R. § 261.1 , which sets out the scope of prohibited activities on national forest lands, specifically exempts from its general prohibition those…”
United States v. Benjamin Scott Lindsey & Thomas E. Lindsey, 595 F.2d 5 (9th Cir. 1979).
“36 CFR, § 261.1 (c) authorizes promulgation of regulations applicable to activities occurring in a national forest and to “an act or omission [that] affects, threatens or endangers property of the United States administrated by the Forest Service.”
United States v. Grant, 318 F. Supp. 2d 1042 (D. Mont. 2004).
· cites it 2× “36 C.F.R. § 261.1 (c). Lindsey argued that because he was not on federal land, he could not be in violation of a regulation governing federal land.”
United States v. Kent, 679 F. Supp. 985 (E.D. Cal. 1987).
“Pursuant to this section, the secretary adopted the regulations found at 36 C.F.R. § 261.1 et seq. Section 261.10(b) of these regulations prohibits “taking possession of, occupying, or otherwise using National Forest System lands for residential purposes without a special-use…”
United States v. Fee, 787 F. Supp. 963 (D. Colo. 1992).
“§ 551 and the regulatory *965 scheme enacted pursuant thereto contained at 36 C.F.R. § 261.1 , et seq., and was passed pursuant to authority granted to Forest Supervisor Sexton.”
United States v. Parker, 36 F. Supp. 3d 550 (W.D.N.C. 2014).
· cites it 2× “” 36 C.F.R. § 261.1 (a)(1). The “National Forest System” is defined by 36 C.”
United States v. Stancil, 145 F. Supp. 3d 565 (W.D.N.C. 2015).
· cites it 2× “The scope of this prohibition is defined by 36 C.F.R. § 261.1 which states: (a) The prohibitions in this part apply, except as otherwise provided, when: (1) An act or omission occurs in the National Forest System or on a National Forest System road or trail.”
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.