36 C.F.R. § 261.7
Livestock
The following are prohibited:
(a) Placing or allowing unauthorized livestock to enter or be in the National Forest System or other lands under Forest Service control.
(b) Not removing unauthorized livestock from the National Forest System or other lands under Forest Service control when requested by a forest officer.
(c) Failing to reclose any gate or other entry.
(d) Molesting, injuring, removing, or releasing any livestock impounded under § 262.10 while in the custody of the Forest Service or its authorized agents.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 9
cases, 1982–2011 · leading case: United States v. Harold Larson, 746 F.2d 455 (8th Cir. 1984).
United States v. Harold Larson, 746 F.2d 455 (8th Cir. 1984). “On November 18, 1983, Harold Larson was charged with three counts of allowing unauthorized livestock to trespass on National Forest Service land under 36 C.F.R. § 261.7 and 16 U.S.C. § 551 . The charges arose from three separate incidents in which Larson’s cattle were observed…”
United States v. Bibbins, 637 F.3d 1087 (9th Cir. 2011). “1987) (construing 36 C.F.R. § 261.7 (a), which prohibits “allowing unauthorized livestock to enter or be in the National Forest System” to require the government to prove that the violator acted willfully); United States v.”
United States v. Larry B. Semenza, 835 F.2d 223 (9th Cir. 1987). “Semenza was convicted of two counts of allowing unauthorized livestock to trespass on National Forest Land in violation of 36 C.F.R. § 261.7 (a). 644 F.Supp. 780 . That regulation prohibits “[p]lacing or allowing unauthorized livestock to enter or be in the National Forest…”
United States v. Lavon R. Kent, 945 F.2d 1441 (9th Cir. 1991). “That regulation, 36 C.F.R. § 261.7 (a), prohibits “allowing unauthorized livestock to enter or be in the National Forest System.”
United States v. Osguthorpe, 13 F. Supp. 2d 1215 (D. Utah 1998). “In late 1994, the Forest Service issued a Notice of Violation against Osgu-thorpe for “placing or allowing unauthorized livestock to enter or be in the National Forest” pursuant to 36 C.F.R. § 261.7 (a). Osgu-thorpe did not contest this Notice of Violation and was subsequently…”
Bilderback v. United States, 558 F. Supp. 903 (D. Or. 1982). “36 C.F.R. § 261.7 (1980). In my view, these laws and regulations are inconsistent with the Oregon open range law.”
United States v. Lavon R. Kent, 912 F.2d 277 (9th Cir. 1990). “We have accordingly construed 36 C.F.R. § 261.7 (a) to require criminal intent.”
United States v. Semenza, 644 F. Supp. 780 (D. Mont. 1986). “Defendant was charged with two counts of allowing his cattle to trespass on forest lands, a violation of 36 C.F.R. § 261.7 (a) and § 261.1(b). He waived jury trial and was tried to the court on May 6-7, 1986.”
United States v. Gardner, 51 F. App'x 263 (9th Cir. 2002). “§ 551 and 36 C.F.R. § 261.7 (b). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.”
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.