![eagles hunting s eagles hunting s](https://s.w-x.co//util/image/w/eagletrap210.jpg)
The Endangered Species Act imposes an equally stringent ban on the hunting of the bald eagle. The Eagle Protection Act, by its terms, prohibits the hunting of the bald or golden eagle anywhere within the United States, except pursuant to a permit issued by the Secretary of the Interior. 900 (1985), and we now reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals insofar as it reversed Dion's convictions under the Endangered Species Act and affirmed the dismissal of the charge against him under the Eagle Protection Act.
![eagles hunting s eagles hunting s](https://astanatimes.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/20180205121117-1-1024x682.jpg)
It also affirmed the District Court's dismissal of the charge of shooting a golden eagle in violation of the Eagle Protection Act. As to those, it stated that Dion could be convicted only upon a jury determination that the birds were killed for commercial purposes. Shooting bald eagles in violation of the Endangered Species Act. The Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed all of Dion's convictions except those for Dion was also convicted of selling carcasses and parts of eagles and other birds in violation of the Eagle Protection Act and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, 40 Stat.
#EAGLES HUNTING S TRIAL#
The District Court dismissed before trial a charge of shooting a golden eagle in violation of the Bald Eagle Protection Act, 54 Stat. Respondent Dwight Dion, Sr., a member of the Yankton Sioux Tribe, was convicted of shooting four bald eagles on the Yankton Sioux Reservation in South Dakota in violation of the Endangered Species Act, 87 Stat. JUSTICE MARSHALL delivered the opinion of the Court. MARSHALL, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court.ĬERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR (b) Since the Eagle Protection Act divested respondent of his treaty right to hunt bald eagles, he had no such right to hunt bald eagles that he could assert as a defense to the Endangered Species Act charge. More particularly, Congress' action in 1962 in amending the Act to extend its ban to the golden eagle and authorizing the Secretary to issue permits for Indian hunting reflected an unmistakable and explicit legislative policy choice that Indian hunting of the bald or golden eagle, except pursuant to permit, is inconsistent with the need to preserve those species. Here, such intention is strongly suggested on the face of the Eagle Protection Act, and this view is supported by the legislative history. Congress' intention to abrogate Indian treaty rights must be clear and plain. (a) The Eagle Protection Act abrogated the rights of members of the Yankton Sioux Tribe under the 1858 treaty to hunt the bald or golden eagle on the Yankton Reservation. Held: The Court of Appeals erred in recognizing respondent's treaty defense to the prosecutions. The Court of Appeals reversed the convictions and affirmed the dismissal of the other charge, holding that members of the Tribe have a right under an 1858 treaty to hunt bald and golden eagles within the Yankton Reservation for noncommercial purposes, and that neither of the Acts in question abrogated this treaty right. Respondent, a member of the Yankton Sioux Tribe, was convicted after a jury trial in Federal District Court of, inter alia, the shooting of four bald eagles in violation of the Endangered Species Act, but the court before trial dismissed a charge of shooting a golden eagle in violation of the Eagle Protection Act. The Endangered Species Act imposes a similar ban on the hunting of the bald eagle. The Bald Eagle Protection Act (Eagle Protection Act) makes it a federal crime to hunt the bald eagle or the golden eagle, except that such hunting may be authorized, pursuant to a permit issued by the Secretary of the Interior, "for the religious purposes of Indian tribes" or for certain other narrow purposes compatible with preservation of those species.