The following are prohibited:
(a) Damaging any natural feature or other property of the United States.
(b) Removing any natural feature or other property of the United States.
(c) Damaging any plant that is classified as a threatened, endangered, sensitive, rare, or unique species.
(d) Removing any plant that is classified as a threatened, endangered, sensitive, rare, or unique species.
(e) Entering any building, structure, or enclosed area owned or controlled by the United States when such building, structure, or enclosed area is not open to the public.
(f) Using any pesticide except for personal use as an insect repellent or as provided by special-use authorization for other minor uses.
(g) Digging in, excavating, disturbing, injuring, destroying, or in any way damaging any prehistoric, historic, or archaeological resource, structure, site, artifact, or property.
(h) Removing any prehistoric, historic, or archaeological resource, structure, site, artifact, property.
(i) Excavating, damaging, or removing any cave resource from a cave without a special use authorization, or removing any cave resource for commercial purposes.
(j) Damaging or removing without authorization any personal property that belongs to another person.
[46 FR 33520, June 30, 1981, as amended at 49 FR 25450, June 21, 1984; 51 FR 30356, Aug. 26, 1986; 59 FR 31152, June 17, 1994; 80 FR 21629, Apr. 17, 2015; 89 FR 92815, Nov. 25, 2024]
Notes of Decisions
United States v. Rory Doremus & David Doremus, 888 F.2d 630 (9th Cir. 1989).
· cites it 3× “POOLE, Circuit Judge: Appellants Rory and David Doremus were convicted of violating United States Forest Service regulations which prohibit “[djamaging any natural feature or other property of the United States” ( 36 C.F.R. § 261.9 (a) (1987)) and “[vjiolating any term or…”
United States v. Godfrey, 112 F. Supp. 3d 1097 (E.D. Cal. 2015).
· cites it 6× “In Count Three, Defendant was charged with damaging any natural feature or property of the United States, in violation of 36 C.F.R. § 261.9 (a). Id. In Count Four, Defendant was charged with unauthorized trail and significant surface disturbance on National Forest System land,…”
United States v. Maynard Charles Campbell, Jr., 42 F.3d 1199 (9th Cir. 1994).
“We upheld their convictions for damaging “any natural feature or other property of the United States” ( 36 C.F.R. § 261.9 (a)) (1987). We rejected the argument, raised by Campbell on this appeal, that in order to prosecute the government must first prove that the unauthorized…”
United States v. Peter Larson, 110 F.3d 620 (8th Cir. 1997).
“Assuming that this regulation benefits Larson, Larson’s argument hinges on his fossil harvesting having been noncommercial.”
Copar Pumice Co., Inc. v. United States, 112 Fed. Cl. 515 (Fed. Cl. 2013).
“47(b) and 36 CFR 261.9(b). Id. The 2006 NON cannot therefore provide the link between the Settlement Agreement and the alleged misrepresentations to allow this court to entertain plaintiffs’ claim.”
United States v. Rainbow Fam., 695 F. Supp. 294 (E.D. Tex. 1988).
“4 (prohibiting public disturbances and disorderly conduct); 36 C.F.R. § 261.9 (prohibiting damage to government property or endangered flora); 36 C.”
United States v. Good, 257 F. Supp. 2d 1306 (D. Colo. 2003).
· cites it 5× “Good is charged with the following: Count I: On or about March 16, 2001, damaging a natural feature or other property of the United States by digging a trench with a mechanized backhoe without authorization or approval, and aiding, abetting, and inducing another in the…”
Elko Cnty. Bd. of Supervisors v. Glickman, 909 F. Supp. 759 (D. Nev. 1995).
· cites it 2× “Duval was charged with two misdemeanors, for damaging a natural feature of the United States, 36 C.F.R. § 261.9 (a), and for placing a structure on national forest land without approval from the Forest Service.”
Duval Ranching Co. v. Glickman, 965 F. Supp. 1427 (D. Nev. 1997).
“Duval was charged with two misdemeanors: damaging a natural feature of the United States, 36 C.F.R. § 261.9 (a), and placing a structure on national forest land without approval from the Forest Service.”
United States v. Doremus, 658 F. Supp. 752 (D. Idaho 1987).
· cites it 10× “10 (k) by exceeding the terms of an approved operating plan for a mining claim by keeping more than five trenches open as provided by the plan and for violating 36 C.F.R. § 261.9 (a) by damaging trees and surface resources on National Forest land.”
United States v. Hook, 38 F. App'x 447 (9th Cir. 2002).
“§ 551 ; 36 C.F.R. § 261.9 (b) (removal of United States property) (conducting unauthorized work activity; here, mining.”
United States v. Stancil, 145 F. Supp. 3d 565 (W.D.N.C. 2015).
· cites it 8× “Service, in violation of 36 C.F.R. § 261.9 (b). [Doc. 1], The Defendant proceeded to trial'before the Magistrate Judge on September 30, 2014, and was convicted that day.”
— 36 C.F.R. § 261.9(a) — 1 case
United States v. Rory Doremus & David Doremus, 888 F.2d 630 (9th Cir. 1989).
“POOLE, Circuit Judge: Appellants Rory and David Doremus were convicted of violating United States Forest Service regulations which prohibit “[djamaging any natural feature or other property of the United States” ( 36 C.F.R. § 261.9 (a) (1987)) and “[vjiolating any term or…”
— 36 C.F.R. § 261.9(b) — 1 case
Copar Pumice Co., Inc. v. United States, 112 Fed. Cl. 515 (Fed. Cl. 2013).
“47(b) and 36 CFR 261.9(b). Id. The 2006 NON cannot therefore provide the link between the Settlement Agreement and the alleged misrepresentations to allow this court to entertain plaintiffs’ claim.”
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.