macman99

This has nothing to do with US Attorneys being "lazy" or not wanting to "lower" themselves to charging certain violations. It depends on the district, what other cases they have (i.e. the seriousness of them), and their workload. The same applies to state courts, and I've seem many states and counties which don't take wildlife crimes all that seriously, for whatever reason. For example, if your local court is inundated with murders and drug violations, it may be harder to get them to take an over limit of geese all that seriously. It has nothing to do with "laziness."

That being said, a state court can be just as likely to "plea bargain away" a case as a federal one - again, depends on their prosecutorial resources, what else they have on their plate, and the strength of the case.

Also, I can assure you that the question of who gets any fines is going to be the LAST thing on an agency's mind when presenting a case for prosecution. Officers want the best bang for the buck (no pun intended), and they'll get behind any court willing to charge these people who has the best chance of getting a successful prosecution, regardless where any fines or seizures end up going. Moreover, federal courts can certainly designate into which coffers the fines go, anyway.

Some other points: most states get JEA money, whether they're coastal or not. Also, if a state's wildlife officers have a MOU (Memorandum of Understanding) with the feds, they hold federal deputation which allows them to enforce the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, to begin with (state laws regarding waterfowl hunting mirror the MBTA, and they can be more restrictive, but never less).

It is correct that generally, the feds will not charge if a state has already done so. With that in mind - and especially if the state in question is signatory to the MOU mentioned above - it is almost certain that a discussion between the state and the feds already occurred to determine the best venue for prosecution. These sound like very good penalties, but many state penalties are not nearly as good. In that discussion, considerations were probably made regarding not only how good the penalties are, but the likelihood of the subjects to be able to pay them (the greatest fines in the world don't mean squat if the person charged can't pay them). So again, if the subjects/their attorneys make a successful argument that they can't pay, you may still see plea bargaining. The main advantage of state prosecution is the revocation of hunting privileges, which is obviously easier for a state to levy and which - to many hunters - can be much more damaging than simply writing a check.

I said "generally" in the paragraph above regarding federal prosecution after state charges have been filed because the feds WILL charge if the state charges are deemed insufficient or a state seems unwilling to enforce them. This is called the Pettit Policy, which the Department of Justice can (and does) invoke from time to time - though usually only where a lower court is sympathetic to the persons being charged and seems only to be "going through the motions," with little apparent interest in truly punishing the violators.

Oldtimr

I suggest you really have never worked with US attornies, I have,they are lazy and don't want a case unless it provides them some glory and game cases don't do that for them. In this area the federal courts leave a lot to be desired in conservation cases, the main reason the feds settle most cases on civil charges instead of criminal charges. Don't presume to tell me what happens in my state and how the law and the courts works and an MOU is not needed for all states to enforce federal laws in PA since the PA law incorporates the federal duck stamp act and the migratory bird act. In addition, The Dept of Justice's Petite policy prevents the feds from charging for a crime that a state has already charged a suspect for unless there is a compelling federal interest to do so, I have neer seen it done on a game case, it just isn't done so it goes alot further than "in general". You do not know as much as you think you do. I will say it again, I did not make the op to create an argument, I did it for information to hunters who may be concerned about violations, what I said was true and I know what I am talking about or I would not have said it.

Topgun 3006

I don't know that I would go as far as to say the US Attorneys are lazy, but rather that most of the time they are certainly looking for the cases that will stand out and help them and their careers and game law violations such as this one would seldom fall under that category! As far as the Feds filing charges on this particular case, it would be very unlikely since it didn't fall under a violation of the Lacey Act involving interstate transportation of the illegally taken birds. Having retired from a state of MI LE type of career where I mostly prosecuted intentional violators of the law, it does me good to see people pay the price when they are scofflaws and I think the penalties in this case, including the violators paying to have the birds processed for the needy, was spot on! Thanks to Oldtimr for making the OP bringing this case to light, and I also try to do the same when I see outstanding cases like this one where the violators didn't just get a slap on the wrist like happens way too often in many jurisdictions. Maybe these guys should also have been forced to take a remedial math class at night school since they could obviously shoot, but not count!

bronko22000

I heard about this a couple months ago. I think it was in the PA Game News or an article in the Sunday paper. I'm glad these guys got caught. Here I am trying to find a place to hunt geese and these guys are slaughtering them.

Uncle Nicky

I saw this article last month in the NRA's American Hunter magazine.