Suchergebnisse

Consider the following scenario: USA Oil, an American company incorporated in Delaware with its principal place of business in California, has been conducting ongoing oil drilling operations in the Gulf of Mexico. The company operates three oil platforms off the Texas coast. One is located two miles offshore, another six miles offshore, and the third ten miles offshore. Federal authorities receive notice that on several occasions since the company began operating these rigs, it deliberately allowed large quantities of oil to leak into the Gulf from each of them. The government seeks to indict USA Oil on three counts of violating the Clean Water Act, as amended by the Oil Pollution Act of 1990. The U.S. Attorney's office in the Southern District of Texas coordinates the investigation as all relevant documents, witnesses, and evidence are located in that district. All of USA Oil's executive officers reside near the company's principal place of business in San Diego, in the Southern District of California. The rig foreman in charge of USA Oil's Gulf of Mexico operations at the time the violations occurred has since left the company and now lives and works for another company near Prudhoe Bay, in the District of Alaska. Where should the government file the indictments? The United States Constitution requires that the trial be held in the district in which the crime was committed, and the government must prove that venue is proper by a preponderance of the evidence. Failure to prove venue in a criminal trial precludes a conviction, and if a verdict of acquittal results from that failure, such failure leads to a double jeopardy bar to reindictment in the appropriate district. Therefore, the government must make an airtight determination at the outset of the prosecution as to where proper venue lies. There are three separate venue provisions for the trial of federal crimes. 18 U.S.C. § 3237 stipulates that venue for offenses begun in one district and completed in another, or for offenses committed in more than one ...

Abstract
ContextFeral cats (Felis catus) are known predators of northern quolls (Dasyurus hallucatus). Management to suppress feral cat densities often uses the poison sodium monofluoroacetate (compound 1080) in baits broadcast aerially. Eradicat® baits have demonstrated efficacy at reducing feral cat densities in some environments. However, these are not registered for use in northern Australia because their risk to non-target northern quolls remains unknown.
AimsWe investigated the risks of aerially deployed feral cat Eradicat® baits containing 4.5mg of the poison 1080 on the survival of free-ranging northern quolls.
MethodsThe study was conducted over a 20000-ha area in the Pilbara bioregion in Western Australia. Twenty-one wild northern quolls from a baited area and 20 quolls from a nearby reference area were fitted with radio-collars, and their survivorship was compared following the aerial deployment of over 9700 feral cat baits. Survivorship of quolls was assessed before and after the baiting campaign.
Key resultsFive radio-collared quolls died at the baited area; four mortalities were due to feral cat predation, and the cause of one death was uncertain. At the reference area, seven radio-collared quolls were confirmed dead; three mortalities were due to feral cat predation, two from wild dog predation, and the cause of death of two could not be determined. Evidence for sublethal poison impacts on quolls, inferred by monitoring reproductive output, was lacking; average litter size was higher in quolls from the baited area than in those from the unbaited area, and within range of litters reported elsewhere, suggesting that acute effects of 1080 (if ingested) on reproductive success were unlikely.
ConclusionsRadio-collared northern quolls survived the trial using Eradicat® baits, and females showed no acute effects of sublethal poisoning on the basis of reproductive output. A lack of quoll deaths attributed to 1080 poisoning suggests that the use of Eradicat® poses a low risk to northern quolls in the Pilbara. Importantly, the high level of mortalities associated with predation by feral cats, and to a lesser extent, canids, validates the threats of these introduced predators on quolls, suggesting that their control in areas where quolls are present is likely to be beneficial for the recovery of this species.
ImplicationsLand managers aiming to conserve northern quolls in the Pilbara would see conservation benefits if they introduced an operational landscape-scale feral cat baiting program using Eradicat® baits, with appropriate monitoring.