|
Barrett v. State |
This case concerns a New York law that protected beavers and their habitat in New York by stating that no one "shall molest or disturb any wild beaver or the dams, houses, homes or abiding places of same." The claimants owned land that endured considerable commercial destruction due to the beavers that were present. Claimants were initially awarded damages and alleged on appeal that the law represented an unconstitutional exercise of police power and, that, since the beavers were "owned" by the state at the time of the destruction, the state is liable for the damage. The Court disagreed, finding the ownership of wildlife is in the state in its sovereign capacity, for the benefit of all the people. As a result, the state was acting in its proper police power authority and is not liable for the damage that ensued from "liberating" the beaver.
|
|
CA - Fish & Game - Chapter 6.5. Control of Illegally Taken Fish and Wildlife |
This set of laws outlines various violations involving the possession and movement of illegally obtained animals and imposes liability for those activities. |
|
CA - Fish & Game - Chapter 1. General Definitions |
This chapter includes the general definitions for the Fish and Game Code. |
|
CA - Fish & Game - Chapter 1. Taking and Possessing in General |
These sections make it unlawful to take any bird, mammal, fish, reptile, or amphibian except as provided in this code. Some of the restrictions in the code refer to taking after season, offering a prize or inducement to take game, setting a bounty for an animal, using sniper scopes, artificial lights, or trap guns. Section 2009 also makes it a crime willfully interfere with the participation of any individual in the lawful activity of shooting, hunting, or fishing. |
|
CA - Hunting - Article 1. Methods of Taking (including trapping methods) |
These sections pertain to hunting in California. A hunting license is required, and certain hunting methods are prohibited, such as night hunting, hunting while intoxicated, shooting at an animal from a vehicle, Internet hunting, the use of body-gripping or metal-jawed traps, the use of certain poisons and lead bullets, and the use of bird or mammal calls. |
|
CA - Hunting - Chapter 4. Deer. Article 2. License Tags |
These provisions relate to the license requirements for deer hunting for both residents and nonresidents of California. For example, the holder of a deer tag license shall carry the tag while hunting deer, and upon the killing of any deer, shall immediately fill out the tag and permanently mark the date of the kill. The deer tag shall be immediately attached to the antlers of antlered deer or to the ear of any other deer and kept attached during the open season and for 15 days thereafter. |
|
CA - Parks - § 5008.1. Animals brought into parks; conditions; maintenance of Internet Web site |
This law allows the state parks director to determine when it is in the public interest to allow visitors to bring animals to units of the state park system. Animals brought in by visitors must be under immediate control of the visitor and must not pose a safety threat, create a public nuisance, or pose of threat to natural or cultural resources. The department may require a person bringing an animal into a state park system to provide proof of appropriate immunizations and valid licenses. In 2018, the legislature added a part to the law that states no later than July 1, 2020, the department shall establish and maintain on its Internet Web site a comprehensive, up-to-date list of each state park system unit with information on whether the unit or a portion of the unit allows dogs and additional information that may include, but is not limited to, the specific areas of the unit in which dogs are allowed and the total miles of trail in the unit that are open to dogs. |
|
Carrelli v. Dept. of Natural Resources |
Wildlife rehabilitation permit applicant was denied a permit by the Ohio Department of Natural Resource’s Division of Wildlife. She requested an administrative hearing to challenge the denial of her application. On appeal, the court held that because wildlife rehabilitation permit applicants do not possess a private property interest in wildlife or in receiving a rehabilitation permit, the state may deny a permit based on its own discretion, so long as the decision to deny the permit is reasonably related to the state’s legitimate government interest. Therefore, even when an applicant possesses the proper credentials required to obtain a permit, the state may deny the permit in protecting the state’s legitimate government interest.
|
|
Citizens for Balanced Use v. Maurier |
Upon the Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife, and Parks’s decision to relocate a brucellosis-free herd of bison out of Yellowstone National Park and into tribal lands, plaintiffs sought an injunction to halt this movement until the department complied with MCA § 87-1-216. The District Court granted the plaintiffs a preliminary injunction. Upon appeal by defendants and defendant intervenors, however, the Supreme Court of Montana held that MCA § 87-1-216 did not apply and that the District Court relied on erroneous grounds for issuing a preliminary injunction under MCA § 27-19-201(2). The case was therefore reversed, the preliminary injunction vacated and the case was remanded back to the District Court.
|
|
Colombia, DECRETO LEY 2811, 1974, Code of Natural Resources |
The Code of Natural Resources and Environmental Protection declared the environment a common heritage of the nation and nature as a legal good that has to be protected. Article 1 of this code establishes that, “the preservation and management of natural resources are of public utility and social interest." The main goal of this statute is to protect and restore the environment. It strives for the preservation, improvement and rational utilization of the natural resources, attempting for a continued availability of such resources. |
