Lexplug logoLexplug

United States v. Chad Kirch McKittrick

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
142 F.3d 1170 (1998)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

The Endangered Species Act (ESA) grants the Secretary of the Interior broad authority to establish experimental populations using animals from healthy, unlisted foreign populations to conserve a species listed as endangered within the United States. A criminal violation of the ESA is a general intent crime, requiring only that the defendant knowingly engaged in the prohibited conduct, not that the defendant knew the specific protected status of the animal.


Facts:

  • The gray wolf is listed as an endangered species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) in most of the coterminous United States.
  • The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) captured gray wolves from a plentiful, unlisted population in Canada.
  • FWS released these Canadian wolves into Yellowstone National Park to establish an 'experimental population' to replenish the species where it had been eradicated.
  • One of the reintroduced wolves migrated from Yellowstone to the Red Lodge, Montana area.
  • Chad McKittrick shot and killed this wolf.
  • After killing the wolf, McKittrick skinned it, decapitated it, and took the hide and head to his home.

Procedural Posture:

  • The government charged Chad McKittrick with taking, possessing, and transporting a gray wolf in violation of the Endangered Species Act and the Lacey Act.
  • A jury in a trial before a U.S. Magistrate Judge found McKittrick guilty on all counts.
  • The Magistrate Judge sentenced McKittrick to six months' imprisonment.
  • McKittrick appealed the conviction and sentence to the U.S. District Court, where a District Judge affirmed both.
  • McKittrick (appellant) then appealed the District Court's decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

Locked

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Do the Fish and Wildlife Service's regulations, which establish an experimental population of gray wolves in Yellowstone using wolves from an unlisted Canadian population, violate the Endangered Species Act?


Opinions:

Majority - Judge Skopil

No, the regulations do not violate the Endangered Species Act. The court held that the FWS acted within its statutory authority under Section 10(j) of the ESA. The ESA's protection attaches to a species based on its location, not its origin, so the Canadian wolves became protected members of an endangered species upon entering the United States. This interpretation, which avoids depleting existing endangered populations for reintroduction efforts, is a reasonable construction of the statute that aligns with its conservation purpose and is entitled to deference. Furthermore, the statutory requirement that an experimental population be 'wholly separate geographically' from nonexperimental populations refers to established populations (defined by FWS as interbreeding groups), not lone, individual dispersers.


Concurring - Judge O'Scannlain

No, the regulations are valid, but the decision should rest on the plain text of the statute alone, without resorting to legislative history or statutory purpose. The ESA plainly authorizes the release of 'any population' of an endangered 'species,' and the gray wolf is a listed species, making the Canadian population eligible for release. Likewise, the statute requires geographic separation from other 'populations,' and under the ordinary meaning of the term, a few individual stray wolves do not constitute a population.



Analysis:

This decision solidifies the authority and flexibility of the Fish and Wildlife Service in managing endangered species recovery under the ESA. By endorsing a broad interpretation of Section 10(j), the court affirmed the agency's power to use healthy foreign populations for reintroduction efforts, a key conservation tool. The ruling also clarifies that the 'wholly separate geographically' requirement is pragmatic, focusing on established populations rather than the presence of a few individuals, which prevents recovery programs from being easily invalidated. This precedent strengthens the government's ability to implement conservation strategies and prosecute those who harm protected wildlife, even if the perpetrator claims ignorance of the animal's specific protected status.

G

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: United States v. Chad Kirch McKittrick (1998)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"