16 U.S.C. § 708
State or Territorial laws or regulations
Nothing in this subchapter shall be construed to prevent the several States and Territories from making or enforcing laws or regulations not inconsistent with the provisions of said conventions or of this subchapter, or from making or enforcing laws or regulations which shall give further protection to migratory birds, their nests, and eggs, if such laws or regulations do not extend the open seasons for such birds beyond the dates approved by the President in accordance with section 704 of this title.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7
cases, 1977–2011 · leading case: Mahler v. United States Forest Serv., 927 F. Supp. 1559 (S.D. Ind. 1996).
Mahler v. United States Forest Serv., 927 F. Supp. 1559 (S.D. Ind. 1996). “16 U.S.C. § 708 . Mahler argues that the red pine salvage sale would cause a “taking” of migratory birds that would violate the MBTA.”
United States v. Moon Lake Elec. Ass'n, Inc., 45 F. Supp. 2d 1070 (D. Colo. 1999). “16 U.S.C. § 708 . The Secretary of the Department of the Interior (“the Secretary”), whose, definition is not challenged by Moon Lake, defines “taking” as to “pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect.”
Friends of Cuyamaca Valley v. Lake Cuyamaca Rec. & Park Dist., 94 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 7217 (Cal. Ct. App. 1994). “), which provides that states also may regulate the hunting of migratory birds so long as the state regulations fall within or are more protective than the federal regulatory scheme ( 16 U.S.C. § 708 ). Sections 355 and 356 of the California Fish and Game Code provide the State…”
California Ex Rel. California Dep't of Fish & Game v. Quechan Tribe of Indians, 424 F. Supp. 969 (S.D. Cal. 1977). “16 U.S.C. § 708 . In view of the direct regulation of Congress, it is doubtful whether a non-Indian is immune from these restrictions even though he hunts on an Indian reservation.”
Noe v. Henderson, 373 F. Supp. 2d 939 (E.D. Ark. 2005). “To the contrary, the Migratory Bird Treaty Act expressly permits State regulation: Nothing in this subchapter shall be construed to prevent the several States and Territories from making or enforcing laws or regulations not inconsistent with the provisions of said conventions or…”
W. H. Noe v. Scott Henderson, 456 F.3d 868 (8th Cir. 2006). “Accord 16 U.S.C. § 708 (nothing in MBTA shall be construed to prevent states and territories from making *871 and enforcing laws or regulations for further protection of migratory birds, nests, and eggs, provided they are consistent with MBTA and treaty conventions); 50 C.”
Noe v. State, 381 S.W.3d 915 (Ark. Ct. App. 2011). “2d at 943 (citing 16 U.S.C. § 708 ). |fiIn December 2004, Noe and two of his customers filed a federal declaratory-judgment action, alleging that certain AGFC Codes were preempted by the MBTA and 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.