Results

Copyright © 2013 by Kentucky Journal of Equine, Agriculture, & Natural Resources Law; John Holland and Laura Allen. Reprinted with permission.

This discussion explores the apparent conflict of interests between pro-hunting and anti-hunting advocates in the management of state natural resources by state agencies. Section one describes the history of the Pittman-Robertson Act and its effects on how States implement their environmental policies. Section two describes how it appears that each State’s Department of Natural Resources or Department of Game and Fish caters only to the hunter in designating and implementing its environmental policies. Section three discusses the “intelligible principle” and its application in all the above-mentioned states. Specifically, the section will discuss how some anti-hunting organizations and other environmental organizations, which may or may not be anti-hunting, attempt to show that a state legislature has unconstitutionally delegated its authority to its Department of Natural Resources or Department of Game and Fish in order to show that the current system of determining and implementing state environmental policies is null and void. Finally, section four describes how the environmental policy interest of hunters is really the same as other (non-hunting) pro-environment/natural resource groups.

In response to the 2009 European Union (EU) ban on the import and export of most products made from seals, Canada and Norway, as large producers of seal products, have initiated proceedings against the EU for violating World Trade Organization (WTO) law. The authors of this law review, Robert Howse and Joanna Langille, promote the EU’s position and argue that animal welfare has long been a genuine motivation for legislation. More specifically, the authors of this law review argue that expressions of a community’s moral and spiritual belief are a legitimate basis for trade restriction.