Fish and Wildlife Dept

Displaying 41 - 50 of 66
Titlesort descending Summary
MI - Wildlife Conservation - Chapter 324. Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act This Section describes the Department of Natural Resource's authority to co-operate with the federal government and to use hunters' license fees for wildlife restoration.
MI - Wildlife Conservation -Chapter 324. Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act. These sections describe the regulatory powers of the Department of Natural Resources in issuing conservation orders protecting fish, game, and birds.
MN - Fish & Game - Chapter 97A. Game and Fish. Penalties These Minnesota statutes pertain to criminal sanctions for violations of fish and game laws. A person is guilty of a misdemeanor if s/he takes, buys, sells, transports or possesses a wild animal in violation of the laws. A person is guilty of a gross misdemeanor if s/he knowingly disregards no trespassing signs or trespasses after being notified not to trespass. It is also a gross misdemeanor to violate provisions relating to buying or selling fur-bearers, deer, bear, moose, elk, or caribou, fishing with illegal methods, and transporting animals over the limit. A gross misdemeanor may be punished by a fine and/or imprisonment.
MO - Fish and Game - Chapter 252 (The Wildlife and Forestry Law)

This chapter establishes the Missouri Department of Conservation, outlines the agency's scope of authority, and includes all of the state's wildlife and endangered species statutes.
OH - Wildlife possession - Chapter 1533. Hunting; Fishing. Restoration, Possession, and Transportation of Wildlife 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.
People v. Bootman


This is one of the first cases to construe the issue of interstate commerce with regard to state game laws and the Lacey Act.  Defendant purchased game birds that were killed outside of New York and brought them into the state when it was lawful to possess them.  The court stated it was required by the rule of stare decisis to hold that the Legislature did not intend to make criminal the possession during the closed season of game killed and brought here during the open season.  The court notes that the passage of the New York legislation occurred three months before the passage of the Lacey, thus having no effect.  The court does go on to note the Legislature has now made it clear that it is well within state police power to regulate wildlife.
People v. Zimberg


Defendants were charged with having in their possession in the city of Detroit with intent to sell pikeperch (yellow pickerel) that were undersized, contrary to a Michigan statute.  In response to defendants' challenge to the constitutionality of the statute, the court noted that it is universally held in this country that wild game and fish belong to the state and are subject to its power to regulate and control; that an individual may acquire only such limited or qualified property interest therein as the state chooses to permit.  Defendants also contended the statute violated equal protection.  The court disagreed, finding the argument is without foundation in fact, as the statute makes no discrimination.
SCREENING WATER DIVERSIONS FOR FISH PROTECTION: A SURVEY OF POLICY, PRACTICES AND COMPLIANCE IN THE PACIFIC NORTHWEST
Sentencia C-148/22 Attorney Gabriel Andrés Suárez Gómez filed an unconstitutionality complaint with the Constitutional Court, arguing that recreational fishing violated the precautionary principle, the right to a healthy environment, and the prohibition of animal cruelty. Following the precedent created with C-045, 2019, prohibiting sport or trophy hunting, the Colombian Constitutional Court held on May 2, 2022, that the provisions concerning recreational fishing contained in various national laws were unconstitutional, effectively banning this practice in the entire territory. The court found that fishing for the sole purpose of recreation without any other relevant purposes like commercial or sustenance constitutes a form of animal abuse. Specifically, the court emphasized that the mandate of animal protection stems from the principle of the ecological constitution, the social function of property, and human dignity. Moreover, it was pointed out that, in this context, both the Legislature and the Court have previously recognized all animals as sentient beings. The court held that while it is not possible to define with absolute certainty the harmful consequences of recreational fishing in terms of conservation and animal welfare principles or the degradation of hydrobiological resources, there is relevant scientific information that must be considered to avoid harmful effects on fish and the habitat. Regarding animal sentience, after an exhaustive analysis, the court emphasized that there are compelling reasons to consider that fish can feel pain, and the mandate of animal protection requires treating sentient beings with dignity. Similarly, according to the FAO, there is currently no method capable of fully eliminating the mistreatment of fish, and there are environmental impacts that must be seriously considered alongside the economic benefits proposed in favor of recreational fishing. This situation led the Constitutional Court to activate the precautionary principle. The court held that there is a duty to protect animals, which implied a prohibition of animal cruelty. This duty protects both the ecosystemic balance and individual sentient animals with intrinsic value. This protection is differentiated and weighted based on the type of species involved, whether domestic or wild. Moreover, the duty of animal protection carries an indisputable binding effect, requiring assessments of reasonableness and proportionality in its application by both legislators and judges. After an extensive analysis of the positive and negative effects that the prohibition of this activity would carry out, the court concluded that recreational fishing constitutes a form of animal cruelty that violates the right to a healthy environment, specifically the prohibition against animal cruelty in accordance with laws and constitutional jurisprudence that lacked constitutional support as it is not grounded in constitutionally permissible limits for animal mistreatment, such as (a) religious freedom; (b) dietary habits; (c) medical research and experimentation; and (d) deeply rooted cultural practices. Considering the interests of those affiliated with the activity, who would be significantly impacted by the invalidation of the laws subject to this opinion, and who have been conducting activities under laws previously deemed constitutional, the court decided to defer the effects of the decision for one year. This was with the purpose of allowing those adversely affected by it to adapt to the new circumstances.
State ex rel. Missouri Dept. of Conservation v. Judges of Circuit Court of Reynolds County


Sixteen residents who violated portions of the wildlife code challenged the hearings that they received before a panel from the Department of Conservation, which were not conducted in an evidentiary fashion or recorded.  The Court found that, pursuant to the rulemaking authority granted under the State constitution to the Department of Conservation, the regulations provide for noncontested hearings unless the permitee is entitled by law to a contested hearing (a "contested case" is a proceeding before an agency in which legal rights, duties or privileges of specific parties are required by law to be determined after hearing).  The Court found that no such law applies to this case, citing a case that determined hunting is not a fundamental right.

Pages