16 U.S.C. § 707
Violations and penalties; forfeitures
1998—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 105–312, § 103(1), substituted “$15,000” for “$500”.
Subsecs. (c), (d). Pub. L. 105–312, § 103(2), (3), added subsec. (c) and redesignated former subsec. (c) as (d).
1986—Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 99–645 substituted “shall knowingly” for “shall” in introductory provisions.
1960—Pub. L. 86–732 designated existing provisions as subsec. (a), inserted “Except as otherwise provided in this section”, and added subsecs. (b) and (c).
1936—Act
Act June 20, 1936, ch. 634, § 2, 49 Stat. 1556, provided in part that the amendment by section 2 is effective as of the day aforesaid (
For transfer of certain enforcement functions of Secretary or other official in Department of the Interior under this subchapter to Federal Inspector, Office of Federal Inspector for the Alaska Natural Gas Transportation System, and subsequent transfer to Secretary of Energy, then to Federal Coordinator for Alaska Natural Gas Transportation Projects, see Transfer of Functions note set out under section 706 of this title.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 64
cases, 1935–2017 · leading case: Harmelin v. Michigan, 501 U.S. 957 (1991).
Harmelin v. Michigan, 501 U.S. 957 (1991). “§ 711 , offering to barter a migratory bird with up to two years in prison, 16 U. S. C. § 707 (b), and purloining a "key suited to any lock adopted by the Post Office Department" with a prison term of up to 10 years, 18 U.”
United States v. Douglas Crooked Arm, 788 F.3d 1065 (9th Cir. 2015). “Defendants argued, in essence, that the indictment alleged facts sufficient to support a misdemeanor charge of trafficking in migratory bird parts in violation of 16 U.S.C. § 707 (a), but that were insufficient to support a felony charge of trafficking in migratory birds in…”
Mahler v. United States Forest Serv., 927 F. Supp. 1559 (S.D. Ind. 1996). “16 U.S.C. § 707 . The MBTA’s implementing regulations define “take” as follows: to pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or attempt to pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect.”
United States v. Pitrone, 115 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 1997). “This harlequinade requires us to examine a matter of first impression: the degree of scienter needed for a felony conviction under 16 U.S.C. § 707 (b) (1994), a part of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA).”
Lewis v. United States, 518 U.S. 322 (1996). “, 16 U. S. C. § 707 (violation of migratory bird treaties, laws, and regulations); 29 U.”
Andrus v. Allard, 444 U.S. 51 (1979). “Appellee Pierre Bovis was prosecuted under the Eagle Protection Act and under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, 16 U. S. C. § 707 , which provides criminal penalties for the unlawful sale of migratory birds.”
United States v. Morgan, 311 F.3d 611 (5th Cir. 2002). “When amending the MBTA to add scienter requirements for felony offenses in 1986, Congress was careful to note that “Mottling in this amendment is intended to alter the ‘strict liability’ standard for misdemeanor prosecutions under 16 U.S.C. § 707 (a), a standard which has been…”
United States v. Engler, 806 F.2d 425 (3rd Cir. 1986). “85-5834 and 85-5835, the government appeals from the district court’s post-trial dismissal of indictments on the basis that the strict liability felony provision of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, 16 U.S.C. § 707 (b)(2), violates the due process clause.”
United States v. Regina Kay Garrett, 984 F.2d 1402 (5th Cir. 1993). “” See 16 U.S.C. § 707 (b). The misdemeanor provisions of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act are discussed infra in connection with United States v.”
United States v. Corbin Farm Serv., 444 F. Supp. 510 (E.D. Cal. 1978). “16 U.S.C. § 707 (a). The question to be decided is what is the “unit of prosecution” intended by Congress — each dead bird or each act resulting in the death of one or more birds? Historically, it appears that defendants have been charged with only one count even when more than…”
United States v. Zak, 486 F. Supp. 2d 208 (D. Mass. 2007). “” 16 U.S.C. § 707 (a). Bald eagles came within the purview of the MBTA in 1972 when the United States and Mexico amended their original treaty.”
United States v. Douglas Crooked Arm, 853 F.3d 1065 (9th Cir. 2017). “” 16 U.S.C. § 707 (b)(2). Absent intent to sell, the Act makes it a misdemeanor to “kill” or “transport” a migratory bird.”
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.