Bald Agreement
Finally, proposals have been made for bald eagles to be completely removed from the ESA list. In 1999, the Wildlife and Nature Service proposed a comprehensive delisting of the kahladler: The Kahladler (pictured) is currently protected by three acts of Congress: the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (16 U.S.C. No. 668), the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 (16 U.S.C No. 703-711), and the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C). The golden eagle is also covered by BGEPA and MBTA, but retains no cover under esa, as it is not listed as an endangered or threatened species. (see section 6, infra) The BGEPA is a federal law and there is no private right of action under the law. (See, Protect Our Eagles from the City of Lawrence , 715 F.Supp. 996 (D. Kan. 1989), where concerned citizens tried unsuccessfully to deal with the destruction of a cotton tree used by eagles in accordance with BGEPA and other statuses such as a pole). The history of the BGEPA shows an act that has developed to meet the changing needs of species and humans for whom the eagle is a central figure.
The amendment was accepted in part to keep the population in decline of the golden eagle, but also as an additional protective measure for the caïc, both species being relatively indistinguishable in the early years of life. However, the inclusion of the golden eagle under the vein of status raised a new question. Golden eagles, like Kahladler, are revered in Indian religious culture as icons or spiritual messengers. Prior to the registration of the Golden Eagle, Indian tribes would have hunted golden eagles, as was necessary for religious ceremonies. Now that both birds were protected by federal laws, Congress realized the need to provide a mechanism for the Indian religious use of eagles. During the oral proceedings, it was found that the defendants had not demonstrated the likelihood of a good faith or credible defence and for this reason the High Court refused to refer the proceedings to the plenary. The judge was not satisfied with the accused`s allegations and found that the assertion that Ms. Stack`s signature was a forgery was nothing more than a bald allegation, unsupported by evidence and inconsistent with other written evidence. Whereas through this act of Congress and through the tradition and customs of the life of this nation, the chladler is no longer just a bird of biological interest, but a symbol of American ideals of freedom. and not all courts agree with this analysis.
In U.S. v. St. Pierre, 578 F.Supp. In 1424 (D.C S.D. 1983), the court found that the absence of a particular intent in the law denied the accused`s charge. Indeed, the court expressly stated that a conviction for a crime could be so imperishable for reputation that it would not convict the accused of an offence for which the law was ambiguous as to his intent. The Ninth Circle then confirmed Allard`s argument in various real-world circumstances. In U.S. v. Hugs, 109 F.3d 1375 (9th cir in 1997), the accused invited infiltrators to a big game hunt.
During the hunt, the accused successfully shot several gold and kahladler. Officers later provided the accused with eagle coins for money and services. On appeal, the accused challenged their convictions on a free exercise argument. In particular, the accused claimed that their religious freedom had been reduced by the Eagle Act because of the difficulty of obtaining the necessary parts of the eagle through the authorization procedure.