As a lawyer I can say there are some posters in this thread who would have flunked out of law school.
Let me help out a little:
1. An action is legal unless a statute specifically declares it illegal.
2. If a statute says an action is illegal unless a permit is obtained, then if you do that thing without a permit, it is illegal.
3. If regulations are promulgated under a statute, those regulations have the same force as the statute.
4. We live under a system of dual soverignty. Therefore, we are required to obey both Federal and state laws, which sometimes address the same or related subjects.
5. If a state statute conflicts with a Federal statute, the doctrine of federal preemption means that the Federal statute will govern. So, for example, if a Federal statute, such as the Migratory Bird Act, says you cannot kill or harass migratory birds without a permit, and a state statute says you can kill them if they are attacking your chickens, then the Federal statute will govern. In practical terms this means you can be prosecuted under Federal law if you kill a migratory bird protected under the statute, without a permit.
6. The date of enactment of a state statute is irrelevant in determining whether it is pre-empted by Federal law. A state cannot simply pre-empt Federal law by passing a contradictory statute, after the passage of a Federal statute.
7. A state statute which is pre-empted by a Federal law may remain codified in the state statute books. There is no system or requirement that such state statutes be repealed or removed from the books. Note: this is one reason why being a lawyer is hard -- you can't just read a statute and assume it applies as written 100% of the time. You have to research the history of the statute and related court cases to determine if it has been superseded or somehow modified.
8. Federal statutes sometimes delegate their enforcement in part to state law enforcement officers. Thus state Fish and Game officers (who are law enforcement officers just like the local police or the state police) can, and sometimes do, enforce Federal fish and game laws.
9. A Federal statute may permit states to enact additional, more stringent or more detailed, regulation on the same subject. But it would be very unusual for Congress to pass a Federal statute which allowed states to opt out of -- or modify to make less stringent -- the Federal statute. (State laws which allow hunting of certain migratory bird species such as ducks and geese are permitted under the Migratory Bird Act, but only within certain limits. For example, it's the regulations under the Migratory Bird Act which limit Wisconsin's duck season to 60 days in length.)
10. Just because you can get away with something does not mean it's legal. Just because local law enforcement officials (such as perhaps in a rural area) choose not to enforce certain laws, does not make it legal to violate those laws.
11. Not all laws make sense to all people. But if you choose to violate the law, you risk the consequences. In the case of an intentional violation of the Migratory Bird Act, those consequences can be severe.
12. Federal law enforcement officials are not known for being forgiving or letting things slide.
13. Species which do not migrate and which are not endangered are typically not subject to Federal regulation or protection. Examples include quail, deer and black bears.
.
