The Secretary of the Interior is authorized to cooperate with the States, through their respective State fish and game departments, in wildlife-restoration projects as hereinafter in this chapter set forth; but no money apportioned under this chapter to any State shall be expended therein until its legislature, or other State agency authorized by the State constitution to make laws governing the conservation of wildlife, shall have assented to the provision of this chapter and shall have passed laws for the conservation of wildlife which shall include a prohibition against the diversion of license fees paid by hunters for any other purpose than the administration of said State fish and game department, except that, until the final adjournment of the first regular session of the legislature held after September 2, 1937, the assent of the Governor of the State shall be sufficient. The Secretary of the Interior and the State fish and game department of each State accepting the benefits of this chapter, shall agree upon the wildlife-restoration projects to be aided in such State under the terms of this chapter and all projects shall conform to the standards fixed by the Secretary of the Interior. One of the purposes of this chapter is to provide financial and technical assistance to the States for the promotion of hunting and recreational shooting.
Notes of Decisions
Baldwin v. Fish & Game Comm'n of Mont., 436 U.S. 371 (1978).
· cites it 4× “917 , as amended, 16 U. S. C. §§ 669 -669i (1976 ed.). We fail to see how these federal aspects transform a recreational pursuit into a fundamental right protected by the Privileges and Immunities Clause, or how they impose a barrier to resident-nonresident differentials.”
New Mexico v. Mescalero Apache Tribe, 462 U.S. 324 (1983).
“28 The State receives federal matching funds through the Pittman-Robertson Act, 16 U. S. C. § 669 (hunting), and the Dingell-Johnson Act, 16 U.”
Sierra Club v. United States Fish & Wildlife Serv., 235 F. Supp. 2d 1109 (D. Or. 2002).
· cites it 3× “Plaintiffs’ third claim is brought under the Wildlife Restoration Act (WRA), also known as the Pittman-Robertson Act, 16 U.S.C. §§ 669 -669k. There, plaintiffs contend that the study is not substantial in character and design as required by the WRA’s implementing regulations.”
Scarborough Citizens Protecting Resources v. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Serv., 674 F.3d 97 (1st Cir. 2012).
· cites it 2× “As alleged in the complaint, in 1961 Maine purchased the tract of land (formerly owned by a railroad and apparently consisting predominately of the Trail itself) exclusively using federal funds granted to the state under the Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration Act, also known…”
Sportsmen's Wildlife Def. Fund v. Romer, 29 F. Supp. 2d 1199 (D. Colo. 1998).
· cites it 4× “§ 1983 for violation of the Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration Act (P-R Act); 16 U.S.C. § 669 et seq. against defendants Roy Romer, in his official capacity as the Governor of the State of Colorado, John Mumma, in his official capacity as Director of the Colorado Division of…”
Fund for Animals v. Babbitt, 89 F.3d 128 (2d Cir. 1996).
· cites it 2× “The Statutory Framework Under the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act, 16 U.S.C. §§ 669 -669Í (“WRA”),- the federal government provides funding to states for, inter alia, “research into problems of wildlife management as may be necessary to efficient administration affecting…”
Sierra Club v. United States Fish & Wildlife Serv., 189 F. Supp. 2d 684 (W.D. Mich. 2002).
· cites it 2× “These Plaintiffs have brought this suit challenging the federal and state administration of four conservation grants (for the grant years of 1998 to 2002) made pursuant to the Federal Aid to Wildlife Restoration Act, 16 U.S.C. §§ 669 et seq., commonly known as the…”
State v. Cutler, 708 P.2d 853 (Idaho 1985).
· cites it 2× “The entire wildlife area is operated as a wildlife restoration project by the Idaho Department of Fish and Game under the authority of two federal statutes: the Federal Aid and Wildlife Restoration Act, 16 U.S.C. §§ 669 et seq., and the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of…”
Florida Wildlife Fed'n v. United States Army Corps of Engineers, 404 F. Supp. 2d 1352 (S.D. Fla. 2005).
“On August 2, 2004, the FWC had asked the Service to review the application for approval because the acquisition of Cor-bett was partially funded through the Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration Act, 16 U.S.C. § 669 et seq., and because the uses proposed by the County were…”
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.