U.S. Code » Title 16 » Chapter CHAPTER 53— CONTROL OF ILLEGALLY TAKEN FISH AND WILDLIFE

16 U.S.C. § 3377

Exceptions

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 16 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a) Activities regulated by plan under Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act

The provisions of paragraph (1) of section 3372(a) of this title shall not apply to any activity regulated by a fishery management plan in effect under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.).

(b) Activities regulated by Tuna Convention Acts; harvesting of highly migratory species taken on high seasThe provisions of paragraphs (1), (2)(A), and (3)(A) of section 3372(a) of this title shall not apply to—(1) any activity regulated by the Tuna Conventions Act of 1950 (16 U.S.C. 951–961) or the Atlantic Tunas Convention Act of 1975 (16 U.S.C. 971–971(h) 11 So in original. Probably was meant to be “971–971h”.); or(2) any activity involving the harvesting of highly migratory species (as defined in paragraph (14) of section 3 22 See References in Text note below. of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act [16 U.S.C. 1802(14)]) taken on the high seas (as defined in paragraph (13) of such section 3) if such species are taken in violation of the laws of a foreign nation and the United States does not recognize the jurisdiction of the foreign nation over such species.(c) Interstate shipment or transshipment through Indian country of fish, wildlife, or plants for legal purposes

The provisions of paragraph (2) of section 3372(a) of this title shall not apply to the interstate shipment or transshipment through Indian country as defined in section 1151 of title 18 or a State of any fish or wildlife or plant legally taken if the shipment is en route to a State in which the fish or wildlife or plant may be legally possessed.

(Pub. L. 97–79, § 8, Nov. 16, 1981, 95 Stat. 1078.)Editorial NotesReferences in Text

The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, referred to in subsec. (a), is Pub. L. 94–265, Apr. 13, 1976, 90 Stat. 331, which is classified principally to chapter 38 (§ 1801 et seq.) of this title. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 1801 of this title and Tables.

The Tuna Conventions Act of 1950, referred to in subsec. (b)(1), is act Sept. 7, 1950, ch. 907, 64 Stat. 777, which is classified generally to chapter 16 (§ 951 et seq.) of this title. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 951 of this title and Tables.

The Atlantic Tunas Convention Act of 1975, referred to in subsec. (b)(1), is Pub. L. 94–70, Aug. 5, 1975, 89 Stat. 385, which is classified generally to chapter 16A (§ 971 et seq.) of this title. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 971 of this title and Tables.

Section 3 of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, referred to in subsec. (b)(2), was subsequently amended, and pars. (13) and (14) of section 3 no longer define the terms “high seas” and “highly migratory species”. However, such terms are defined elsewhere in that section.

Codification

“Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act” substituted for “Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976” in subsecs. (a) and (b)(2), on authority of Pub. L. 96–561, title II, § 238(b), Dec. 22, 1980, 94 Stat. 3300, which provided that all references to the Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976 be redesignated as references to the Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act and Pub. L. 104–208, div. A, title I, § 101(a) [title II, § 211(b)], Sept. 30, 1996, 110 Stat. 3009, 3009–41, which provided that all references to the Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act be redesignated as references to the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7 cases, 1985–2016 · leading case: United States v. Gaston Saunders, 828 F.3d 198 (4th Cir. 2016).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
United States v. Gaston Saunders, 828 F.3d 198 (4th Cir. 2016). · cites it 3× “16 U.S.C. § 3377 (a). Citing that exception, the captains moved to dismiss the indictments.”
United States v. Tomeny, 144 F.3d 749 (11th Cir. 1998). “§ 3373 (d)(1), but it specifically excepts from this proscription “any activity regulated by a fishery management plan in effect under the Magnuson[ ] Act,” see 16 U.S.C. § 3377 (a). Because § 3377(a) renders legal under the Lacey Act all fishing practices explicitly allowed by…”
United States v. Jesus Ismael Miranda, J.M. Seafood, Inc., 835 F.2d 830 (11th Cir. 1988). “” 16 U.S.C.A. § 3377 (c). The instruction requested by appellants stated in part: Therefore, if you find that Defendants meet the exception to the law which I have read to you, inasmuch as the sales of the lobster tails made to the government were obtained legally and trans *832…”
United States v. Morgan Doubleday, 804 F.2d 1091 (9th Cir. 1986). “Under the defendant’s interpretation, the Lacey Act cannot enforce any halibut regulations because the Gulf of Alaska Plan triggers the exemption in 16 U.S.C. § 3377 (a). If this were true, there would be no legislation that enforces the comprehensive regulatory scheme…”
United States v. Martinell, 611 F. Supp. 399 (M.D. Penn. 1985). · cites it 2× “The defendant, however, contends that the exception section, 16 U.S.C. § 3377 (c) prohibits the application of the above cited sections to interstate shipments of legally taken wildlife through a state if the shipment is en route to a state in which the wildlife may be legally…”
United States v. David L. Ertsgaard, 222 F.3d 615 (9th Cir. 2000). “” 1 16 U.S.C. § 3377 (a). Ertsgaard contends, and the district court held, that the specific regulatory provisions that Ertsgaard allegedly violated — that is, the Individual Fishing Quota regulations for halibut — qualify as a “fishery management plan” in effect under the…”
United States v. Hagen, 782 F. Supp. 1351 (D. Neb. 1991). “Finally, the defendant’s motion to reconsider, filing # 33, requests that I specifically consider an argument raised in his closing statements at the evidentiary hearing which relates to certain enumerated “exceptions” to the Lacey Act, codified at 16 U.S.C. § 3377 .…”
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.