36 C.F.R. § 261.8

Fish and wildlife

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

The following are prohibited to the extent Federal or State law is violated:

(a) Hunting, trapping, fishing, catching, molesting, killing or having in possession any kind of wild animal, bird, or fish, or taking the eggs of any such bird.

(b) Possessing a firearm or other implement designed to discharge a missile capable of destroying animal life.

(c) Possessing equipment which could be used for hunting, fishing, or trapping.

(d) Possessing a dog not on a leash or otherwise confined.

(e) Curtail the free movement of any animal or plant life into or out of a cave, except as authorized to protect a cave resource.

[42 FR 2957, Jan. 14, 1977, as amended at 46 FR 33520, June 30, 1981; 59 FR 31152, June 17, 1994]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5 cases, 1972–2014 · leading case: United States v. Wilson Kane Patzer, AKA Willie Patzer, 15 F.3d 934 (10th Cir. 1993).
United States v. Wilson Kane Patzer, AKA Willie Patzer, 15 F.3d 934 (10th Cir. 1993). · cites it 4× “1b, and one count of outfitting on NFSS lands without being licensed by the State of Wyoming as an outfitter in violation of 36 C.F.R. §§ 261.8 (a) and 261.1b. Patzer was sentenced to two years of probation, fined $1,000, ordered to pay restitution in the sum of $1,593.”
United States v. Nikolay Senchenko, 133 F.3d 1153 (9th Cir. 1998). · cites it 2× “” 36 C.F.R. § 261.8 (a) (1995). Snaring bears is prohibited by Washington state law, which allows big game to be hunted only with a firearm, bow and arrow, or by falconry.”
United States v. Rodríguez-Romero, 18 F. Supp. 3d 116 (D.P.R. 2014). “Velázquez Camacho also stated that she ignored the presence of the weapons yet when confronted by the Court as to the shotgun she alleged that Defendant used it to hunt at the federal reserve of El Yunque, which is prohibited under 36 C.F.R. § 261.8 , as cited by the United…”
United States v. Parker, 36 F. Supp. 3d 550 (W.D.N.C. 2014). · cites it 9× “another and with others known and unknown to the Grand Jury to knowingly acquire, receive, and transport wildlife with a market value in excess of $350, that is, American black bear and whitetail deer, which the defendants knew was taken, possessed, and transported in violation…”
United States v. Cunningham, 349 F. Supp. 1115 (M.D. Fla. 1972). “(Junior) Cunningham was convicted in a trial before a magistrate *1116 of the United States of killing and possessing a deer in violation of 36 C.F.R. § 261.8 (1963), a regulation promulgated by the Secretary of Agriculture pursuant to 16 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.