TO: Supervisory Attorney BennardoFROM: Law Clerk Puruda KothariDATE: September 18, 2015RE: Alomar matter, 15-216, Knowing taking of endangered gray wolf

Andy Alomar committed a knowing taking of the gray wolf. It is unlawful for any person subject to the jurisdiction of the United States to take any endangered species of fish or wildlife within the United States or territorial seas of the United States. 1538. Prohibited acts, 16 U.S.C.A. 1538 (a)(1) (2015). Furthermore, a person who knowingly commits a violation of 1538 shall, upon conviction can with be fined for no more $50,000, or imprisoned for not more than one year, or both. 1540. Penalties and enforcement, 16 U.S.C.A. 1540 (b)(1) (2015). The grey wolf shot by Andy Alomar was an endangered species. Andy Alomar was not aware of the fact that he was shooting an animal of the endangered species. However, his act of shooting an animal was intentional in itself. Hence, he committed this act taking an animal knowingly which is a clear violation of 1538 and 1540. Therefore, Andy Alomar committed a knowing taking of the grey wolf.

Andy Alomar committed the act of taking the grey wolf. The term take means to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct. 1532. Definitions, 16 U.S.C.A. 1532 (19) (2015). Andy Alomar shot the grey wolf, wounding it in the process that ultimately resulted in its demise. Hence, he committed the act of taking.

Andy Alomar knowingly shot the grey wolf. Knowingly is an element of the offense of violating a regulation pertaining to any threatened species of fish or wildlife. Endangered Species Act of 1973, 9(a)(1)(G), 11(b)(1), 16 U.S.C.A. 1538(a)(1)(G), 1540(b)(1).United States v. St. Onge, 676 F. Supp. 1044 (D. Mont. 1988). Looking at the St. Onge precedent, it can be seen that given the regulatory nature of the Act, and its broad purposes to protect the listed species, the government cannot be required to prove that he had the specific intent to take an endangered species. The critical issue is not what the defendant was shooting but whether the act was done knowingly. Id. at 1045 (citing United States v. Billie, 667 F. Supp. 1485, 149293 (S.D.Fla. 1987)).The same scienter element can be applied to the act of Andy Alomars knowingly taking of the grey wolf. Andy Alomar could only claim accident or mistake if he did not intend to discharge his firearm, or the weapon malfunctioned, or similar circumstances occurred. Id. His not being aware of the animal being a grey wolf, an endangered species has no bearing on the fact that he intentionally shot an animal, knowing fully well what he was doing. Thus, Andy Alomar knowingly committed the act of shooting the grey wolf.