Opinion ID: 782410
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Long Cove

Text: 61 The defendants in Long Cove were charged with violating the NSPA by taking undersized clams from Long Island Sound and selling them to area restaurants. See Long Cove, 582 F.2d at 161, 162. There was no dispute that the practice of harvesting and selling undersized clams violated various environmental laws; the question was whether the transport of these clams across state lines constituted the interstate transport of stolen goods under the NSPA. See id. at 162-63. The government argued that the clams were stolen from the State of New York because of a New York law that provides: 62 The State of New York owns all fish, game, wildlife, shellfish, crustacea and protected insects in the state, except those legally acquired and held in private ownership. Any person who kills, takes or possesses such fish, game, wildlife, shellfish, crustacea or protected insects thereby consents that title thereto shall remain in the state for the purpose of regulating and controlling their use and disposition. 63 Id. at 164 (quoting N.Y. Envtl. Conserv. Law § 11-0105). 64 The Court stated that the key question was whether New York has asserted a true ownership interest in wildlife such as the Fifth Circuit, in [ McClain ], held that Mexico has done since 1972 with respect to pre-Columbian artifacts. We think not. Id. at 165. The Court emphasized that the New York statute stated that the purpose of asserting ownership was only to regulate and control the use and disposition of wildlife, not to actually take possession of it. See id. The Court further noted that while New York claimed to own the wildlife, it was not liable for an attack by any wild animal, as a private owner of such an animal would be. See id. 65 The distinctions between the facts of the Long Cove case and the facts of the case at hand are clear and require a different outcome here. First, as the testimony before the district court made clear, Egypt does assert a possessory interest in antiquities pursuant to Law 117. While the State of New York has never attempted to seize all wildlife found within its borders, Dr. Gaballa testified that the Egyptian government actively pursues any person found to have obtained an antiquity and takes immediate possession of all antiquities of which it becomes aware. 66 Second, both Dr. Gaballa and General El Sobky confirmed that the purpose of Law 117 is to bring all newly discovered antiquities within the direct possession and control of the Egyptian government in order to ensure that they are properly preserved and documented. Hundreds of antiquities police are employed by the Egyptian government solely to effectuate this purpose. To the contrary, the purpose of the New York law is simply to control the use and disposition of wildlife. See Long Cove, 582 F.2d at 164-65. 67 Third, the New York law explicitly excepts those wildlife legally acquired and held in private ownership. Id. at 164. Law 117 provides for no exceptions for private ownership of antiquities discovered after the effective date of the law. 6 It is legal under certain circumstances for a private person to obtain and dispose of wildlife in New York, for instance, by obtaining a hunting, fishing or trapping license. See, e.g., N.Y. Envtl. Conserv. Law § 11-0701(4) (McKinney 2003) (A fishing license entitles the holder to take fish by angling, spearing, hooking, longbow and tipups, to take frogs by spearing, catching with the hands or by use of a club or hook, and to take bait fish for personal use.). When a licensed hunter or fisherman catches wildlife in New York, it is his to keep and dispose of as he chooses. 68 In Egypt, on the other hand, it is impossible for a private party to get a license to obtain, possess or dispose of antiquities. Law 117 does provide in Article 34 for foreign missions to receive archaeological exploration and excavation licenses. However, Article 35 states that [a]ll antiquities discovered by foreign archaeological excavation missions shall be state owned. If the Antiquities Authority determines that the foreign mission is outstanding, and has performed important excavation and restoration work, the Authority may reward the mission by donating certain antiquities which are expendable by reason of their similarity to other items excavated from the same location. Even then, the donated antiquities must be thoroughly examined and fully recorded, and may only be donated to a museum, not to the excavators themselves. 69 We also note that in Long Cove we were not called upon to rule directly on the application of the NSPA to property owned pursuant to a patrimony law, and we did not question the correctness of McClain. Long Cove cited McClain more than once, in a positive light, which is significant in light of the considerable publicity the Fifth Circuit's controversial holding in McClain had generated at the time. See Long Cove, 582 F.2d at 163, 165. These citations give no indication that the Court disapproved of the outcome or analysis of McClain. 70