50 C.F.R. § 20.25
Wanton waste of migratory game birds
No person shall kill or cripple any migratory game bird pursuant to this part without making a reasonable effort to retrieve the bird, and retain it in his actual custody, at the place where taken or between that place and either (a) his automobile or principal means of land transportation; or (b) his personal abode or temporary or transient place of lodging; or (c) a migratory bird preservation facility; or (d) a post office; or (e) a common carrier facility.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6
cases, 1991–2002 · leading case: United States v. Morgan, 311 F.3d 611 (5th Cir. 2002).
United States v. Morgan, 311 F.3d 611 (5th Cir. 2002). “Specifically, he argues that his conduct was justified because he thought that if he left the other hunters’ birds in the water, he would be committing “wanton waste” in violation of 50 C.F.R. § 20.25 (“No person shall kill or cripple any migratory game bird pursuant to this…”
United States v. Lyon, 949 F.2d 240 (8th Cir. 1991). “The magistrate judge also concluded that each defendant aided the wanton waste of migratory waterfowl, in violation of 50 C.F.R. § 20.25 . Eighteen ducks were visible on the water and around the duck blind, and in the boat trail the defendants used.”
United States v. David S. Morgan, 283 F.3d 322 (5th Cir. 2002). “Specifically, he argues that his conduct was justified because he thought that if he left the other hunters’ birds in the water, he would be committing “wanton waste” in violation of 50 C.F.R. § 20.25 (“No person *327 shall kill or cripple any migratory game bird pursuant to…”
United States v. Doepel, 755 F. Supp. 249 (E.D. Ark. 1991). “50 C.F.R. § 20.25 specifies: No person shall kill or cripple any migratory game bird .”
United States v. Edwards, 976 F. Supp. 810 (E.D. Ark. 1997). “24); second, wanton waste of game birds by failing to retain custody of mallard ducks taken jointly with hunting companions ( 50 C.F.R. § 20.25 ), and third, failing to tag said birds when leaving them as required by 50 C.”
United States v. Edwards, 976 F. Supp. 807 (E.D. Ark. 1997). “On May 12, 1997, an information was filed by the United States Attorney charging all five hunters with taking in excess of the daily bag limit of ducks ( 50 C.”
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.