Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-03244/USCOURTS-ca8-05-03244-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Scott Henderson
Appellee
Brian Herndon
Appellant
W. H. Noe
Appellant
Tommy Taggart
Appellant

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-3244

___________

W. H. Noe, also known as W. H. *

(Dutch) Noe, doing business as Ducks *

& Ducks, Inc.; Tommy Taggart, doing *

business as Mallard Magic; Brian *

Herndon, doing business as Big Creek *

Hunting, *

*

Appellants, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the

v. * Eastern District of Arkansas.

*

Scott Henderson, In His Official * [PUBLISHED]

Capacity as Director of the Arkansas *

Game & Fish Commission, *

*

Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: July 31, 2006

Filed: August 7, 2006

___________

Before RILEY, COLLOTON, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

In this declaratory judgment action, W. H. Noe, d/b/a Ducks & Ducks, Inc.,

Tommy Taggart, d/b/a Mallard Magic, and Brian Herndon, d/b/a Big Creek Hunting,

Appellate Case: 05-3244 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/07/2006 Entry ID: 2075316
1

The Honorable J. Leon Holmes, Chief Judge, United States District Court for

the Eastern District of Arkansas.

-2-

appeal from an order of the district court1

 granting summary judgment in favor of

Scott Henderson, in his official capacity as Director of the Arkansas Game and Fish

Commission. For reversal, appellants argue that the district court erred in holding that

the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA), 16 U.S.C. §§ 703-712, and federal

regulations promulgated thereunder, do not preempt Arkansas regulations governing

activities involving captive-reared mallard ducks.

We review the district court’s decision de novo. See Crain v. Bd. of Police

Comm’rs, 920 F.2d 1402, 1405-06 (8th Cir. 1991) (review standard; summary

judgment is particularly appropriate where unresolved issues are primarily legal rather

than factual); Nat’l Bank of Commerce v. Dow Chem. Co., 165 F.3d 602, 607 (8th

Cir. 1999) (preemption is question of law that this court reviews de novo). Federal

preemption occurs when (1) Congress explicitly prohibits state regulation; (2)

Congress implicitly prohibits state regulation by pervasively occupying the regulatory

field; (3) state law directly conflicts with federal law; or (4) a federal agency, acting

within the scope of its delegated authority, intends its regulations to have preemptive

effect. See Chapman v. Lab One, 390 F.3d 620, 624-25 (8th Cir. 2004).

To begin, we read the district court’s statement that “[c]aptive-reared mallard

ducks are not within the scope of the [MBTA],” in its context, to express the view that

captive-reared mallard ducks are not within the scope of federal permitting

requirements. The district court implied that Congress specifically left room for the

states to regulate in the area of permit requirements for captive-reared mallard ducks,

and therefore “[n]othing in the [MBTA] prohibits a State from requiring a permit for

possession or sale of captive-reared mallard ducks.” Such reasoning is consistent with

federal preemption principles. See Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc., 505 U.S. 504,

Appellate Case: 05-3244 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/07/2006 Entry ID: 2075316
2

50 C.F.R. § 21.13 provides in part,

Captive-reared and properly marked mallard ducks, alive or dead, or

their eggs may be acquired, possessed, sold, traded, donated, transported,

and disposed of by any person without a permit, subject to the following

conditions, restrictions, and requirements:

. . . .

(b) All mallard ducks possessed in captivity, without a permit, shall have

been physically marked by at least one of the [methods described] . . . .

(c) When so marked, such live birds may be disposed of to, or acquired

from, any person and possessed and transferred in any number at any

time or place: Provided, That all such birds shall be physically marked

prior to sale or disposal . . . . 

(d) When so marked, such live birds may be killed, in any number, at any

time or place, by any means except shooting. Such birds may be killed

by shooting only in accordance with all applicable hunting regulations

governing the taking of mallard ducks from the wild: Provided, That

such birds may be killed by shooting, in any number, at any time, within

the confines of any premises operated as a shooting preserve under State

-3-

517 (1992) (Congress’s enactment of provision defining preemptive reach of statute

implies that matters beyond that reach are not preempted). 

We further agree with the district court that neither the MBTA nor any

regulation promulgated thereunder conflicts with or expressly prohibits the state

regulations at issue. Contrary to appellants’ interpretation of 16 U.S.C. § 711

(“Nothing in this subchapter shall be construed to prevent the breeding of migratory

game birds on farms and preserves and the sale of birds so bred under proper

regulation for the purpose of increasing the food supply.”), the word “regulation” in

section 711 plainly refers to the regulatory process, see Black’s Law Dictionary 1311

(8th ed. 2004) (defining “regulation” as “[t]he act or process of controlling by rule or

restriction”), not specifically and exclusively to 50 C.F.R. § 21.13.2

 In other words,

Appellate Case: 05-3244 Page: 3 Date Filed: 08/07/2006 Entry ID: 2075316
license, permit or authorization. 

-4-

we interpret section 711 as allowing the states to engage in the process of regulating

the breeding and sales of migratory birds reared in captivity for food, provided the

states do so in a manner consistent with federal law. Accord 16 U.S.C. § 708 (nothing

in MBTA shall be construed to prevent states and territories from making and

enforcing laws or regulations for further protection of migratory birds, nests, and eggs,

provided they are consistent with MBTA and treaty conventions); 50 C.F.R. § 20.72

(no person at any time, by any means, or in any manner, shall take, possess, transport,

or export any migratory bird, or any part, nest, or egg of such bird, in violation of any

applicable law or regulation of any state).

Accordingly, the order of the district court is affirmed.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 05-3244 Page: 4 Date Filed: 08/07/2006 Entry ID: 2075316