Federal

Summary: <div> The Animal Lovers Volunteer Association (ALVA) brought this action to enjoin the Navy from shooting feral goats on San Clemente Island (a military enclave under the jurisdiction of the Navy). After the district court granted (Cite as: 765 F.2d 937, *938) summary judgment for the Navy, the&nbsp;ALVA appealed. This Court found that the ALVA failed to demonstrate standing, where it only asserted an&nbsp;organizational interest in the problem, rather than&nbsp;allegations of actual injury to members of the organization. The organization failed to demonstrate an interest that was distinct from an interest held by the public at large. Affirmed. </div>

Summary: <p> The Government issued regulations which allowed for the sport hunting of the Eastern Timber Wolf&nbsp; (otherwise known as the gray wolf) in Minnesota, where the wolf was listed as threatened.&nbsp; The court held that such regulations were invalid because the Endangered Species Act, Section 4(d) required that such regulations must be "for the conservation" of the wolf, which means for the best interest of the wolf.&nbsp; The court found that the hunting of the wolf in this manner did not have the motive&nbsp;of the best interest of the wolf in mind. </p>

Summary: <p> Following his conviction for a violation of the Lacey Act, 16 U.S.C. &sect; 3371, et seq., Defendant Heuer moved for a new trial.&nbsp; Where defendant, who obtained guiding and license for hunting elk, engaged in conduct that involved purchase of elk, it was not necessary for government to prove such services occurred in interstate commerce for purposes of Lacey Act conviction. </p>

Summary: <p> The operator of a dog kennel brought an that alleged the&nbsp;Kansas Animal Dealers Act violated the Constitution. The District Court held that the Kansas Animal Dealers Act did not violate commerce clause and was, in fact,&nbsp;a valid exercise of the state's traditional police power. </p>

Summary: <p> Action was brought to determine Indian tribe members' rights related to off-reservation hunting of white-tailed deer, fisher and other furbearing animals, and small game within the area of the state ceded to the United States by the plaintiff tribes.&nbsp; The Court held that Indians and non-Indians were each entitled to one half of game harvest within each harvesting area rather than as a whole territory to accommodate the longer Indian hunting season.&nbsp; With&nbsp;regard to hunting on private land in the ceded area, the&nbsp;Court held that plaintiffs' members have no more rights than non-Indian hunters to hunt or to trap on private lands, as tribal members who are hunting or trapping on private lands&nbsp;are still subject to state hunting and trapping regulations.&nbsp;&nbsp;The Court also held that the state could properly prohibit Indians from hunting deer during the summer and at night due to the safety risk to humans. </p>

Summary: <p> Larry Todd and James Short appeal their convictions for conspiracy to violate the Lacey Act which prohibits the sale of wildlife taken or possessed in violation of federal law--here, The Airborne Hunting Act, 16 U.S.C. &sect; 742j-1 (1976).&nbsp; The court held that&nbsp;the judge's failure to give instructions related to the dates of the alleged acts constituting the conspiracy did not raise an ex post facto challenge since the facts allege only two overt acts that occurred prior to the effective date of the Lacey Act amendments; all of the other acts occurred during the effective period of the amendments and most of the evidence focused on events that occurred within the effective date of the amendments.&nbsp; The appellants also contend that the government failed to establish that the game taken had a market value in excess of $350.&nbsp;&nbsp; The court held that the evidence was insufficient to support Short's conviction under the substantive violation of the Lacey Act because the government offered no evidence that the value of the dead eagle, deer, or javelina exceeded $350. </p>

Summary: <p> An action was brought against the BLM under the Federal Tort Claims Act claiming that the government was negligent in failing to inform the adopters that they would not be eligible to receive title if they intended to sell the horses to slaughter. The court dismissed the claim for lack of jurisdiction, characterizing the issue as one sounding in contract, based upon the PMCA, and one that therefore should be brought before the U.S. Claims Court.&nbsp;&nbsp; </p>

Summary: <p> Associations of dog owners sued Dade, County, Florida seeking declaratory judgment that an ordinance that regulated &ldquo;pit bull&rdquo; dogs was unconstitutionally vague. Plaintiffs contend that there is no such breed as a pit bull, but rather a three breeds&nbsp;that this ordinance has mistakenly lumped together. The District Court held that ordinance sufficiently defined &ldquo;pit bull&rdquo; dogs by specifically referencing three breeds recognized by kennel clubs, including a description of the characteristics of such dogs, and provided a mechanism for verification of whether a particular dog was included. The uncontradicted testimony of the various veterinarians reflected that most dog owners know the breed of their dog and that&nbsp;most dog owners look for and select a dog of a particular breed. </p>

Summary: <p> Richard "Dick" Robinson was charged by the Department of Agriculture with violating the Animal Welfare Act for transporting a wolf from Utah to California for exhibition on television without a license. Robinson exhibited the wolf on several television programs to promote his most recent book about his exploits as an animal trainer and producer of animal films. Respondent once held a valid exhibitor's license under the AWA, but the license was revoked in 1979 when Robinson failed to comply with the terms of a consent decision requiring him to install more adequate plywood cover for his bear cages. After a hearing, the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) for the Department of Agriculture issued a cease and desist order to prevent Robinson from further illegally transporting and exhibiting his animals and assessed a $500 civil penalty against him. The Judicial Officer of the Department of Agriculture affirmed the order of the ALJ on appeal. The 10th Circuit affirmed the&nbsp;ALJ's conclusion that a cease&nbsp;and desist order by itself was insufficient and that a $500 penalty was necessary to impress Robinson with the need to comply with the Act's requirements in the future. </p>

Summary: <p> Ricky Bryant appeals convictions on one misdemeanor and two felony counts of purchasing illegally obtained fox pelts, violations of the Lacey Act Amendments of 1981, 16 U.S.C. &sect; 3371-3378 (1981).&nbsp; The court held that the North Carolina regulation, which unambiguously&nbsp;prohibited&nbsp;the hunting of&nbsp;foxes without&nbsp;authorization&nbsp;and expressly stated that dealing in untagged pelts is illegal, withstood the void for vagueness test as prosecuted under the Lacey Act.&nbsp; The court further dismissed challenges&nbsp;based on an entrapment defense and arguments that the&nbsp;Lacey Act constitutes an unconstitutional delegation to the States of legislative power reserved to Congress. </p>