Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): legal hunting. Id. Since the unambiguous text of 50 C.F.R. § 20.23 states that "tak[ing] migratory game birds” is an element of the offense (as opposed to taking species of migratory game birds not open to legal hunting), this Court rejects appellant’s legislative intent argument. To the extent appellant's third ground may relate to a lack of intent to commit the offense charged, such an argument would also be unavailing. The Fifth Circuit has noted that most misdemeanor offenses under the MBTA do not require a mens rea element as they are strict liability offenses. United States v. Morgan, 311 F.3d 611, 614-15 (5th Cir.2002) (distinguishing "baiting” crimes which do require a minimal level of scienter); United States v. Stephans, 142 Fed.Appx. 821 (5th Cir.2005) (unpublished opinion) (<HOLDING>). Moreover, even if appellant's offense were 
 Holding statements: (A) recognizing that a violation of the mbta is a strict liability offense (B) holding that notice not required because cercla is a strict liability statute (C) recognizing the significance of control in strict products liability (D) recognizing strict product liability actions (E) holding that duress is unavailable to defendants charged with the strict liability offense of child abuse
Output (English): holding that notice not required because cercla is a strict liability statute