C.F.R. » Title 50 » CHAPTER I—UNITED STATES FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR › SUBCHAPTER B—TAKING, POSSESSION, TRANSPORTATION, SALE, PURCHASE, BARTER, EXPORTATION, AND IMPORTATION OF WILDLIFE AND PLANTS › PART 20—MIGRATORY BIRD HUNTING › Subpart A—Introduction

50 C.F.R. § 20.1

Scope of regulations

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

(a) In general. The regulations contained in this part relate only to the hunting of migratory game birds, and crows.

(b) Procedural and substantive requirements. Migratory game birds may be taken, possessed, transported, shipped, exported, or imported only in accordance with the restrictions, conditions, and requirements contained in this part. Crows may be taken, possessed, transported, exported, or imported only in accordance with subpart H of this part and the restrictions, conditions, and requirements prescribed in § 20.133.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7 cases, 1977–2018 · leading case: Moresi v. State, Dept. of Wildlife & Fisheries, 567 So. 2d 1081 (La. 1990).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Moresi v. State, Dept. of Wildlife & Fisheries, 567 So. 2d 1081 (La. 1990). “The regulations adopted in response to that statute provide that migratory game birds may be taken, possessed or transported only in accordance with the restrictions contained in 50 C.F.R. § 20.1 et seq. The regulations seek to conserve migratory birds by placing limits on the…”
United States v. Gregory Obendorf, 894 F.3d 1094 (9th Cir. 2018). “” 50 C.F.R. § 20.1 (a) (emphasis added). Section 20.”
United States v. Stephen S. Boynton James R. Booth Bernard Dadds, Jr., 63 F.3d 337 (4th Cir. 1995). “; see also 50 C.F.R. § 20.1 et seq. Two exceptions to this rule are set forth in a regulation promulgated by the Fish and Wildlife Service pursuant to the Act, 50 C.”
California ex rel. California Dep't of Fish & Game v. Quechan Tribe of Indians, 424 F. Supp. 969 (S.D. Cal. 1977). “§§ 703 , 706, 708; 50 C.F.R. §§ 20.1 , 20.11, 20.11(2), 20.21-25, 20.”
United States v. Catlett, 747 F.2d 1102 (6th Cir. 1984). “See 50 C.F.R. § 20.1 (1983). One of the restrictions laid down by the Secretary is that migratory birds may not be taken: By the aid of baiting, or on or over any baited area.”
Falk v. United States ex rel. Dep't of the Interior, 452 F.3d 951 (8th Cir. 2006). “By contrast, 50 C.F.R. § 20.1 l(j), which is the relevant regulation in the case at bar, defines “baited area” as "any area on which salt, grain, or other feed has been placed, exposed, deposited, distributed, or scattered, if that salt, grain, or other feed could save as a lure…”
United States v. Strassweg, 337 F. Supp. 2d 956 (W.D. Ky. 2004). “Since defendants planted seed to prevent soil erosion in accordance with official recommendations of the state extension specialist, they were engaged in a normal soil stabilization practice within the meaning of 50 C.F.R. § 20.1 l(i). 17 . The regulations define baited area and…”
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.