Statutes
| Statute by category |
Citation |
Summary |
|---|---|---|
| Canada - Alberta - Alberta Statutes. Animal Protection Act | R.S.A. 2000, c. A-41, s. 1 | This set of laws from Alberta, Canada comprises the Animal Protection Act. The Act states that no person shall permit or cause an animal to be in distress. Specifically, a person who owns or is in charge of an animal must ensure that the animal has adequate food and water, must provide the animal with adequate care when the animal is wounded or ill, and must provide the animal with reasonable protection from injurious heat or cold as well as adequate shelter, ventilation and space. A person who contravenes this Act is guilty of an offence and liable to a fine of not more than $20,000 in addition to restrictions on owning animals for a specified period of time. The Act also outlines the power of both peace officers to take animals in distress into their custody and humane societies to provide care for seized animals. |
| OH - Cemeteries, Pet - Chapter 961. Pet Cemeteries | R.C. § 961.01 - 99 | This Ohio chapter concerns the establishment of "pet cemeteries." The owner of land used for a pet cemetery must file a declaration in the county recorder's office that the land is to be used only for such purposes. Unless the deed restriction is removed, no person shall use land restricted as provided in this section for any purpose other than for pet cemetery purposes. The pet cemetery must be at least three acres in size and the owner must comply with deposit requirements described under the "endowment care fund." Violation of the provisions relating to& the land use restriction (961.02), the size of the pet cemetery (961.03), or the endowment care fund requirement (961.04) results in a fine of up to $5,000 or imprisonment for up to one year, or both. |
| OH - Cruelty - Consolidated Cruelty Statutes | R.C. § 959.01 - 959.99 | These statutes comprise Ohio's anti-animal cruelty and animal fighting provisions. Included in the prohibited acts are abandoning domestic animals, willfully injuring or poisoning domestic or agricultural animals, drugging animals in competition, and "cruel" acts to both wild and domestic animals as defined by statute. The section also prohibits dogfighting and cockfighting. |
| OH - Breeder - Chapter 956. Dog Breeding Kennels; Dog Retailers. | R.C. § 956.01 - 99 | This section represents Ohio's commercial dog breeding laws. Under the chapter, a "high volume breeder" is defined as an establishment that keeps, houses, and maintains six or more breeding dogs and: (1) In return for a fee or other consideration, sells five or more adult dogs or puppies in any calendar year to dog brokers or pet stores; (2) In return for a fee or other consideration, sells forty or more puppies in any calendar year to the public; or (3) Keeps, houses, and maintains, at any given time in a calendar year, more than forty puppies that are under four months of age, that have been bred on the premises of the establishment, and that have been primarily kept, housed, and maintained from birth on the premises of the establishment. High volume breeders have additional duties under the law related to well-being of the dogs kept. The chapter also details requirements for licenses and/or registrations for high volume breeders, rescues, and dog brokers. Inspections are also outlined in the chapter, with high volume breeders having a requirement of at least one inspection annually. Penalties for violation of provisions, availability of injunctions, and revocation of licenses is also covered. |
| OH - Ordinance - 955.221 County, township, and municipal corporation ordinances to control dogs | R.C. § 955.221 | This Ohio statute provides that a board of county commissioners, board of township trustees, municipal corporation may adopt and enforce resolutions to control dogs that are not otherwise in conflict with any other provision of the Revised Code. These ordinances or resolutions to control dogs include, but are not limited to, ordinances or resolutions concerned with the ownership, keeping, or harboring of dogs, the restraint of dogs, dogs as public nuisances, and dogs as a threat to public health, safety, and welfare, except that such ordinances or resolutions shall not prohibit the use of any dog which is lawfully engaged in hunting or training for the purpose of hunting while accompanied by a licensed hunter. |
| OH - Assistance Animals - Consolidated Assistance Animal Laws | R.C. § 955.011; R.C. § 955.43; R.C. § 2921.321; R.C. § 4511.47; §4925.06; R.C. § 5.241 | The following statutes comprise the state's relevant assistance animal and guide dog laws. |
| OH - Humane Slaughter - Chapter 945. Humane Slaughter of Livestock. | R.C. § 945.01 - 99 | These laws comprise Ohio's humane slaughter provisions. After July 1, 1967, no method of slaughtering livestock or handling in connection with the commercial slaughtering of livestock shall be utilized unless it is humane. Humane methods are defined as those that render animals insensible to pain by a single blow or gunshot or an electrical, chemical, or other means that is rapid and effective. Slaughter in accordance with the ritual requirements of the Jewish faith or any other religious faith that prescribes a method of slaughter whereby the animal suffers loss of consciousness by anemia of the brain is also allowed. Violation of the act results in a fine of not more than one hundred dollars. |
| OH - Exotic - Chapter 935. Dangerous Wild Animals and Restricted Snakes | R.C. § 935.01 - .99 | On June 5, 2012, Ohio governor Kasich signed the "Dangerous Wild Animal Act" into law. Under this new section, no person shall possess a dangerous wild animal on or after January 1, 2014 unless he or she is authorized under an unexpired wildlife shelter/propagation permit or other exception. Dangerous wild animals include big cats, some smaller exotic cats, bears, elephants, hyenas, gray wolves, alligators, crocodiles and nonhuman primates other than lemurs. Except as provided, no person shall acquire, buy, sell, trade, or transfer possession or ownership of a dangerous wild animal on or after the effective date of this section. |
| OH - Horse slaughter - Chapter 919. Horse Meat | R.C. § 919.01 - 919.99 | These Ohio statutes deal with horse slaughter and horse meat. Any person who has any establishment that processes and sells horse meat for human food must be licensed by the department of agriculture. The statutes also stipulate certain labeling, signage, and record-keeping requirements. A violation is a first degree misdemeanor. |
| OH - Livestock - Chapter 904. Livestock Care Standards | R.C. § 904.01 - 904.09 | These Ohio statutes establish the Ohio livestock care standards board and Ohio livestock care standards fund. The statutes make it illegal to falsify any plans, specifications, data, reports, records, or other information required to be kept or submitted to the director of agriculture or the board. |
| OH - Impound - Impounding Animals | R.C. § 715.23 | This Ohio statute empowers municipal corporations to regulate, restrain, or prohibit the running at large of cattle, horses, swine, sheep, goats, geese, chickens, or other fowl or animals (except as otherwise provided for dogs), impound and hold these animals, and authorize the sale of the animals for the penalty imposed. |
| OH - Trust - Chapter 5804. Creation, Validity, Modification and Termination of Trust | R.C. § 5804.08 | Ohio enacted its pet trust law in 2007. A trust may be created to provide for the care of an animal alive during the settlor's lifetime. The trust terminates upon the death of the animal or, if the trust was created to provide for the care of more than one animal alive during the settlor's lifetime, upon the death of the last surviving animal. |
| OH - Emergency - 4765.52 Provision of emergency medical services to dog or cat | R.C. § 4765.52 | This Ohio statute specifies the emergency treatment that a medical technician or first responder could provide, prior to a dog or cat being transferred to a veterinarian for further treatment. The statute also highlights the immunities that medical responders, directors, and emergency medical service organizations have under the statute, unless they engage in an act or omission while providing medical services to a dog or cat, that constitutes willful or wanton misconduct. The statute also makes clear that a veterinarian who acts in good faith is not liable for any act or omission that occurred prior to the veterinarian providing services to the cat or dog. |
| OH - Veterinary - Chapter 4741. Veterinarians. | R.C. § 4741.01 - 4741.99 | These are the state's veterinary practice laws. Among the provisions include licensing requirements, laws concerning the state veterinary board, veterinary records laws, and the laws governing disciplinary actions for impaired or incompetent practitioners. |
| OH - Bald Eagle - Chapter 4503. Licensing of Motor Vehicles. | R.C. § 4503.572 | This Ohio statute provides that funds derived from bald eagle license plates sales are used exclusively to acquire, develop, and restore habitat for bald eagles in Ohio. |
| OH - Restaurant - 3717.14 Dogs in outdoor dining area of retail food establishment or food service operation | R.C. § 3717.14 | This Ohio law, enacted in 2018, allows a retail food establishment or food service operation to allow patrons to bring dogs to outdoor dining area of the establishment or operation in accordance with this section. The establishment who allows dogs must do the following: (1) adopt a policy that requires patrons to control their dog, whether with a leash or otherwise, while the dog is in the outdoor dining area; (2) not allow the person to take the dog into the outdoor dining area through any of the establishment's or operation's indoor areas; and (3) comply with sanitation and other standards of Ohio codes. Dogs brought to outdoor dining areas must be properly vaccinated in accordance with state and local laws. |
| OH - Domestic Violence - 3113.31 Petitions; protection orders concerning domestic violence | R.C. § 3113.31 | This Ohio law concerns protection orders in cases of domestic violence. In 2014, the law was amended to allow a court to grant a protection order that may: (E)(1)(i) require that the respondent not remove, damage, hide, harm, or dispose of any companion animal owned or possessed by the petitioner; and (j) authorize the petitioner to remove a companion animal owned by the petitioner from the possession of the respondent. “Companion animal” has the same meaning as in section 959.131 of the Revised Code, which is defined as any animal that is kept inside a residential dwelling and any dog or cat regardless of where it is kept. The term “companion animal” does not include livestock or any wild animal. |
| OH - Ecoterrorism - Chapter 2923. Conspiracy, Attempt, and Complicity; Weapons Control. Corrupt Activity. | R.C. § 2923.31 - 2923.36 | This Ohio law define "animal or ecological terrorism" as the commission of any felony that involves causing or creating a substantial risk of physical harm to any property of another, the use of a deadly weapon or dangerous ordnance, or purposely, knowingly, or recklessly causing serious physical harm to property and that involves an intent to obstruct, impede, or deter any person from participating in a lawful animal activity, from mining, foresting, harvesting, gathering, or processing natural resources, or from being lawfully present in or on an animal facility or research facility. |
| OH - Equine Liability Act - Chapter 2305. Jurisdiction; Limitation of Actions. Miscellaneous Provisions. | R.C. § 2305.321 | This act stipulates that an equine sponsor, equine activity participant, equine professional, veterinarian, farrier, or any other person is not liable in damages in a tort or other civil action for harm that an equine activity participant allegedly sustains during an equine activity, which resulted from the inherent risks of equine activities. However, there are exceptions to this rule: an equine sponsor, equine activity participant, equine professional, veterinarian, farrier, or any other person will be held liable for injuries of an equine activity participant if he or she displays a willful and wanton or intentional disregard for the safety of the participant and if he or she fails to make reasonable and prudent efforts in ensuring the safety of the participant. In addition, an equine sponsor, equine activity participant, equine professional, veterinarian, farrier, or any other person will also be held liable for the injury of an equine activity participant if he or she is injured on the land or at a facility due to a dangerous latent condition of which was known to the equine sponsor, professional or other person. |
| OH - Cruelty - Chapter 1717. Humane Societies. County Humane Societies | R.C. § 1717.01 - 1717.18 | This chapter relates to the formation and powers of humane societies in Ohio. Under the chapter, a county humane society organized under section 1717.05 of the Revised Code may appoint agents, who are residents of the county or municipal corporation for which the appointment is made, for the purpose of prosecuting any person guilty of an act of cruelty to persons or animals. Such agents may arrest any person found violating this chapter or any other law for protecting persons or animals or preventing acts of cruelty. |
| OH - Wildlife possession - Chapter 1533. Hunting; Fishing. Restoration, Possession, and Transportation of Wildlife | R.C. § 1533.28 - 1533.32 | These Ohio statutes regulate possession of wildlife. These laws make it illegal to transport fish, game birds, or wild quadrupeds or any part thereof, unless in a container with a label showing certain information. However, no one may transport certain game birds and game quadrupeds out of state. No person may fish in any of the waters in the state without a license, including taking frogs or turtles. However, people fishing in privately owned waters are exempt from the license requirements. |
| OH - Fur - Chapter 1533. Hunting; Fishing. Fur Dealers | R.C. § 1533.23 - 1533.27 | Under these Ohio statutes regulating fur dealers, no person may deal in or buy green or dried furs, skins, or parts taken from fur-bearing animals of the state without a fur dealer's permit. Fur dealers are also required to keep a daily record. |
| OH - Nongame - Chapter 1533. Hunting; Fishing. Special Hunting Area; Nongame Birds; Scientific Permits. | R.C. § 1533.06 - 1533.09 | This Ohio statute prohibits the injuring, killing, pursuing, possessing, or exposing to commerce of all nongame birds. The statute further prohibits the killing or possession at any time of bald or golden eagles, except for the educational or zoological possession by government affiliated agencies. Notably, each possession or taking of a bird or bird part constitutes a separate offense. |
| OH - Falconry - Chapter 1533. Hunting; Fishing. Falconry. | R.C. § 1533.05, 1533.051 | This Ohio statute regulates falconry in the state. It specifically excludes bald eagles from the listed species of raptors for use in falconry. |
| OH - Hunting - Chapter 1533. Hunting; Fishing. General Provisions. | R.C. § 1533.03 - 1533.031 | This section reflects Ohio's hunter harassment provisions. No person shall purposely prevent or attempt to prevent any person from hunting, trapping, or fishing for a wild animal. A person who is or may be reasonably affected by the prohibited conduct can seek an injunction. The companion statute also provides that no person shall purposely prevent or attempt to prevent hunting by creating noise or loud sounds through the use of implements that are intended to affect the behavior of the wild animal being hunted. |
| OH - Endangered Species - Chapter 1531. Division of Wildlife. Propagation and Preservation. | R.C. § 1531.25, 1531.26 | This Ohio statute provides for a wildlife fund created by tax revenue that is used to monitor and protect non-game and endangered species. Additionally, revenues in the wildlife fund from sources such as the Bald Eagle License Plate Fund and direct donations may also be used to pay the costs of acquiring, developing, and restoring habitat for bald eagles within this state. |
| OH - Endangered Species - Chapter 1518. Endangered Species. | R.C. § 1518.01 - 1518.99; 1531.25, 1531.99 | These Ohio statutes protect both endangered plants and animals as defined by the State of Ohio as well as those species listed on the federal ESA list. Taking of an endangered or threatened animal species constitutes a misdemeanor and the person is required upon pleading guilty to the offense, in addition to any fine, term of imprisonment, seizure, and forfeiture imposed, to make restitution for the minimum value of the wild animal illegally held, taken, or possessed. Notably, if the aggregate value of the animal(s) taken exceeds $1,000, a person is guilty of a felony. |
| OH - Lien, care - 1311.48 Lien for care of animals | R.C. § 1311.48 - 54 | This Ohio law states that any person who feeds or boards an animal under contract with the owner shall have a lien on such animal to secure payment for food and board furnished. |
| MA - Initiatives - 2008 Question 3 (dog racing) | Question 3 (2008) | This proposed law would prohibit any dog racing or racing meeting in Massachusetts where any form of betting or wagering on the speed or ability of dogs occurs. The State Racing Commission would be prohibited from accepting or approving any application or request for racing dates for dog racing. Any person violating the proposed law could be required to pay a civil penalty of not less than $20,000 to the Commission. All existing parts of the chapter of the state's General Laws concerning dog and horse racing meetings would be interpreted as if they did not refer to dogs. These changes would take effect January 1, 2010. The measure was approved by a margin of 65% to 35 %. |
| MA - Initiatives - Question 3, 2000 (dog racing) | Question 3 (2000) | This Massachusetts ballot question asked voters in 2000 whether they wanted to prohibit in Massachusetts any dog racing where any form of betting or wagering on the speed or ability of dogs occurs. Any person violating the proposed law could be required to pay a civil penalty of not less than $20,000 to the State Racing Commission. The question failed with 49% voting "yes" and 51% voting "no" on the question. |
| MA - Initiatives - Question 3, Minimum Size Requirements for Farm Animal Containment (2016) | Question 3 | Massachusetts Question 3 is a law proposed by initiative petition and appears on the 2016 ballot. This proposed law would prohibit any farm owner or operator from knowingly confining any breeding pig, calf raised for veal, or egg-laying hen in a way that prevents the animal from lying down, standing up, fully extending its limbs, or turning around freely. The Secretary of the Commonwealth's official summary states: "This proposed law would prohibit any farm owner or operator from knowingly confining any breeding pig, calf raised for veal, or egg-laying hen in a way that prevents the animal from lying down, standing up, fully extending its limbs, or turning around freely. The proposed law would also prohibit any business owner or operator in Massachusetts from selling whole eggs intended for human consumption or any uncooked cut of veal or pork if the business owner or operator knows or should know that the hen, breeding pig, or veal calf that produced these products was confined in a manner prohibited by the proposed law. The proposed law would exempt sales of food products that combine veal or pork with other products, including soups, sandwiches, pizzas, hotdogs, or similar processed or prepared food items." A "yes" vote would prohibit any confinement of pigs, calves, and hens that prevents them from lying down, standing up, fully extending their limbs, or turning around freely. A "no" vote would make no change in current laws relative to the keeping of farm animals. |
| ME - Initiatives - Question 2 (bear hunting) | Question 2 (2004) | This Maine citizen initiated was defeated in the November 2004 election (only 47% voted "yes"). The question posed to voters asked voters, "Do you want to make it a crime to hunt bears with bait, traps or dogs, except to protect property, public safety or for research?" Per the Maine Bureau of Corporations, Elections, and Commissions summary, the initiated bill was to prohibit the use of bait to hunt or attract bear, the use of a dog to hunt or pursue bear and the use or setting of a trap to hunt or capture bear except under certain circumstances (such as by state or federal employees to kill or capture depredating bears or by commercial timber operators). |
| ME - Initiatives - Question 1, An Act To Prohibit the Use of Dogs, Bait or Traps When Hunting Bears Except under Certain Circumstances | Question 1 (2014) | Question 1 is a citizen initiated referendum that will be appearing on the November 4, 2014 ballot. The referendum seeks to prohibit the use of dogs to hunt or pursue bear, the use of bait to hunt or attract bear, and the setting of a trap to hunt or capture bear. There are certain exceptions for scientific and research purposes and for public safety. |
| IN - Initiatives - Question 1, Right to Hunt and Fish Amendment | Question 1 | Question 1 is a legislatively referred constitutional amendment that appears on the 2016 general election ballot. The official summary states the following: "Provides that the right to hunt, fish, and harvest wildlife is a valued part of Indiana's heritage and shall be forever preserved for the public good. Provides that the people have a right, which includes the right to use traditional methods, to hunt, fish, and harvest wildlife, subject only to the laws prescribed by the general assembly and rules prescribed by virtue of the authority of the general assembly to: (1) promote wildlife conservation and management; and (2) preserve the future of hunting and fishing. Provides that hunting and fishing are the preferred means of managing and controlling wildlife. Provides that this constitutional amendment does not limit the application of any laws relating to trespass or property rights. This proposed amendment has been agreed to by one general assembly." A "yes" vote is in favor of such a constitutional amendment and a "no" vote is against amending the state constitution. |
| AU - Cruelty - Queensland Animal Care and Protection Act 2001 (QLD) | Queensland Animal Care and Protection Act 2001 |
The purposes of this Act are to promote the responsible care and use of animals; provide standards for the care and use of animals that--achieve a reasonable balance between the welfare of animals and the interests of persons whose livelihood is dependent on animals; and to allow for the effect of advancements in scientific knowledge about animal biology and changes in community expectations about practices involving animals; to protect animals from unjustifiable, unnecessary or unreasonable pain; to ensure the use of animals for scientific purposes is accountable, open and responsible. Attached pdf is the 2003 reprint. |
| US - Golden Eagle - Protection | Public Law 87-884; 76 Stat. 1246 (1962) |
This public law amended the Eagle Protection Act by adding golden eagles as a protected species under the Act. The Joint Resolution states that the golden eagle was added under the Act not only because it too faced extinction, but its listing would further protect the bald eagle, as the two species are sometimes mistaken for each other. For further discussion, see the Eagle Act Detailed Discussion. |
| IE - Cruelty - Protection of Animals, 1911 | Protection of Animals Act, 1911 | This Ireland law makes it illegal for a person to cause any animal “unnecessary suffering.” The act outlines all of the ways a person can be guilty of causing an animal harm including: beating, kicking, over-loading, torturing, and poisoning. If a person is found guilty under the act, the court has the power to take ownership of the animal and order the guilty party to pay any damages that resulted from the harm. |
| IE - Cruelty - Protection of Animals (Amendment) Act, 1965 | Protection of Animals (Amendment) Act, 1965 | This Ireland law is an amendment to the Animal Protections Act of 1911. It provides for more specific regulations regarding the treatment of animals. This act specifically addresses: care of impounded animals, use of poisonous gas in rabbit holes, restrictions on spring traps, open trapping, injured animals, laying of poisons, issues relating specifically to dogs, use of anesthetics in operations of animals, and the regulation of sale of pet animals. |
| MO - Initiatives - Proposition B (dog breeders) | Proposition B (2010) |
This 2010 ballot measure asked whether Missouri law shall be amended to: require large-scale dog breeding operations to provide each dog under their care with sufficient food, clean water, housing and space; necessary veterinary care; regular exercise and adequate rest between breeding cycles; prohibit any breeder from having more than 50 breeding dogs for the purpose of selling their puppies as pets; and create a misdemeanor crime of puppy mill cruelty” for any violations. It was passed in 2010 by 51.6% of voters. |
| MO - Initiatives - Proposition A (felony animal fighting) | Proposition A (1998) |
This 1998 ballot proposal asked, "[s]hall a statute be enacted making it a class D felony to bait or fight animals; permit such activities on premises you control; or promote, conduct, stage, advertise or collect fees for such activities; and making it a class A misdemeanor to knowingly attend baiting or fighting of animals; knowingly sell, offer for sale, or transport animals for such purposes; own, possess, manufacture or deal in cockfighting implements; bear wrestle; permit bear wrestling on premises you control; promote, conduct, stage, advertise, or collect fees for bear wrestling; or market, possess, train, or surgically alter a bear for bear wrestling?" It was passed in 1998 by 62.6% of voters. |
| TX - Initiatives - Proposition 6, Right to hunt, fish and harvest wildlife | Proposition 6 (2015) |
This proposed constitutional amendment recognizes the right of the people to hunt, fish, and harvest wildlife subject to laws that promote wildlife conservation. It was a legislative referendum originally proposed as Senate Joint Resolution 22 (attached below). The measure passed in November 2015 with 82% of the vote. |
| CA - Initiatives - Proposition 6 (horse slaughter) | Proposition 6 (1998) | This proposition would prohibit any person from possessing, transferring, receiving or holding any horse, pony, burro or mule with intent to kill it or have it killed, where the person knows or should know that any part of the animal will be used for human consumption. It provides that a violation constitutes a felony offense. There is also a provision making the sale of horsemeat for human consumption a misdemeanor offense, with subsequent violations punished as felonies. The measure was passed in 1998 with 59.4% of the vote. |
| CA - Initiatives - Proposition 4 (trapping) | Proposition 4 (1998) | This state initiative measure was proposed in 1998 and prohibits trapping mammals classified as fur bearing (or non-game) with body gripping traps for recreation or commerce in fur. This includes, but is not limited to, steel-jawed leghold traps, padded-jaw leghold traps, conibear traps, and snares. Cage and box traps, nets, suitcase-type live beaver traps and common rat and mouse traps are not considered body-gripping traps. It passed with 57.5% of the vote. |
| AZ - Initiatives - Proposition 201 (cockfighting) | Proposition 201 (1998) | Proposition 201 would amend state law to create the crime of cockfighting. Cockfighting would be classified as a class 5 felony, generally punishable by a possible fine of up to $150,000 and a possible prison term ranging from nine months to two years. Presence at a cockfight would be classified as a class 1 misdemeanor, generally punishable by a possible fine of up to $2,500 and a possible jail term of up to six months. This proposition would extend existing state law animal cruelty exemptions and defenses that apply to lawful hunting, ranching, farming, rodeos and related activities to also apply to cockfighting. The measure passed in 1998 with 68.1% of the vote. |
| AZ - Initiatives - Proposition 201 (trapping and taking) | Proposition 201 (1994) | Proposition 201 would make it illegal to use certain methods of taking "wildlife" on public land, including federal, state, county and municipal land. The listed devices that would be prohibited are "any leghold trap, any instant kill body gripping design trap, or by a poison or a snare." The measure passed with 58.5% of the vote. |
| CA - Initiatives - Proposition 12 (2018) | Proposition 12 (2018) | Proposition 12 establishes new minimum space requirements for certain farmed animals, including veal calves, pregnant pigs, and egg-laying hens. It also requires that egg-laying hens be raised in a cage-free environment after December 31, 2021. The measure follows the passage of Proposition 2 in 2008, which banned the sale of products from animals raised in violation of the minimum animal welfare requirements. |
| AZ - Initiatives - Proposition 109 (right to hunt and fish) | Proposition 109 (2010) | Proposition 109 would have amended the Arizona Constitution. It failed with only 43.5% voting "yes" for the measure. The proposition stated that: 1. Wildlife is held in trust for the citizens of this state, whom have a right to lawfully hunt, fish and harvest the wildlife. 2. The legislature has the exclusive authority to enact laws to regulate hunting, fishing and harvesting of wildlife. The legislature may grant rule making authority to a game and fish commission. No law or rule shall unreasonably restrict hunting, fishing or harvesting of wildlife or the use of traditional means and methods for those activities. Any law or rule shall have the purpose of wildlife conservation and management and preserving the future of hunting and fishing. 3. Lawful public hunting and fishing are the preferred means of managing and controlling wildlife. By its terms, nothing in Proposition 109 shall be construed to modify any law relating to trespass or property rights. |
| AZ - Initiatives - Proposition 102 (voter wildlife initatives) | Proposition 102 (2000) | This 2000 Arizona ballot proposition sought to restrict voter initiatives related to wildlife. It was defeated with only 37.5% voting for the measures. According to the summary by the Arizona Legislative Council, Proposition 102 directs the State to manage wildlife in the public trust to assure the continued existence of wildlife populations. Public trust is a legal concept relating to the ownership, protection and use of natural resources. Under the public trust, the State must manage wildlife for the public benefit, which includes both present and future generations. Proposition 102 would also amend the Arizona Constitution to require that any initiative measure relating to the taking of wildlife does not go into effect unless it is approved by at least two-thirds of the voters who vote on the measure. Currently, the Arizona Constitution requires a simple majority vote for initiative measures. The two-thirds requirement would also apply to measures authorizing or restricting (1) the methods of taking wildlife (2) the seasons when wildlife may be taken. The two-thirds requirement would not apply to legislative enactments or to measures that the Legislature refers to the voters. |
| MI - Initiatives - Proposal 14-2, A REFERENDUM OF PUBLIC ACT 520 OF 2012, ESTABLISHING A HUNTING SEASON FOR WOLVES AND AUTHORIZING ANNUAL WOLF HUNTING SEASONS | Proposal 14-2 (2014) |
This is the second wolf-related ballot measure for the November 4, 2014 election that also operates as a veto referendum. If the proposal is approved, it would uphold Public Act 21 of 2013, which authorizes the Natural Resources Commission to directly designate game species (including wolves) and determine hunting seasons. In Michigan, a "Yes" vote on a veto referendum upholds the law and a "No" vote rejects the law. As a result, the referendum's supporters are campaigning for a "No" vote. |
| MI - Initiatives - Proposal 14-1, Keep Michigan Wolves Protected | Proposal 14-1 (2014) |
This proposal for 2014 is a referendum of Public Act 520 of 2012, which authorizes the establishment of the first open hunting season for wolves. It will appear on the November 4, 2014 ballot. The measure will UPHOLD Public Act 520, which allows the authorization of wolf hunting seasons in Michigan. In Michigan, a "Yes" vote on a veto referendum upholds the law and a "No" vote rejects the law. As a result, the referendum's supporters are campaigning for a "No" vote. |