|
State v. Saurman |
The court reaffirmed the tenet that it is a proper exercise of state police power to adopt measures to protect wild animals as a resource for all citizens. In doing so, the court held that it was a proper exercise of police power for the legislature of Ohio to enact a wild animal "shining" prohibition. Appellants challenged the law as unconstitutional because it ostensibly outlawed otherwise innocent conduct, as an individual can shine for wild animals without the purpose of hunting those animals. The court disagreed, finding that the statute's purpose was to counteract the problems related to enforcement, since it was difficult to ascertain which individuals shining from vehicles also carried hunting implements.
|
|
The Cormorant Conflict |
This paper analyzes the conflicting management goals for the double-crested cormorant in Canada and the United States. In doing so, the paper answers the question whether one can predict how the migratory, double-crested cormorant population will be managed through international law, when the United States perceives the rise of the cormorant population an economic and biological threat, but where Canada views the cormorant’s comeback a biodiversity success story.
|
|
The Mute Swan Case, the Fund for Animals, et al. v. Norton, et al: National, Regional, and Local Environmental Policy Rendered I |
This article suggests that an obstruction of sound environmental policy occurred in 2003 when The Fund for Animals used the National Environmental Policy Act to prevent the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Maryland Department of Natural Resources from implementing a plan to cull the population of mute swans in the Chesapeake Bay. The author suggests that there is no question that feral mute swans (cyngus olor) are harmful to the native habitats of the Chesapeake Bay. The research and scientific record into the effects of non-native mute swans on native environs is both extensive and comprehensive.
|
|
TRACKING THE ADC: RANCHERS' BOON, TAXPAYERS' BURDEN, WILDLIFE'S BANE |
|
|
TRACKING THE ADC: RANCHERS' BOON, TAXPAYERS' BURDEN, WILDLIFE'S BANE |
|
|
U.S. Sportsmen's Alliance Foundation v. New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection |
The New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, Division of Fish and Wildlife executed an administrative order preventing the issuance of bear hunting permits. Hunters and hunting organizations sought judicial review of the administrative decision. The Supreme Court of New Jersey ultimately held it was within the authority of the Environmental Protection Commissioner to approve policies of the Fish & Wildlife Council and, therefore, execute the administrative order against bear hunting permits.
|
|
U.S. v. Taylor |
The defendant moved to dismiss the indictment on the ground that Maine section 7613 (related to the importation of fish bait species) places an impermissible burden on interstate commerce in violation of the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution. While the court noted there is nothing in either the statute or its legislative history which expresses the clear intent of Congress that the Lacey Act Amendments are meant to insulate state legislation from attack under the Commerce Clause, it found that the somewhat unique characteristics associated with Maine's wild fish population, the substantial uncertainties surrounding the effects these organisms have on fish and the unpredictable consequences attending the introduction of exotic species into Maine's wild fish population (including the introduction of fish parasites into the native population), the state clearly has a legitimate and substantial purpose in prohibiting the importation of live bait fish.
|
|
Unified Sportsmen of Pennsylvania ex rel. their members v. Pennsylvania Game Com'n |
A Pennsylvania association consisting of hunters and outdoorsmen and members of the association filed a complaint/request for writ of mandamus against the Pennsylvania Game Commission, Department of Conservation and Natural Resources (DCNR), and various state officials, seeking an order directing Commission and DCNR to provide the data and information on which the Commission relied in setting "harvest" figures for Pennsylvania's deer population. Before this Court in our original jurisdiction are the preliminary objections of the Pennsylvania Game Commission , the Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, and certain Commonwealth officers (collectively, Respondents). The court first found that the Sportsmen indeed have standing, conferred both by statute and under the under the traditional substantial-direct-immediate test. However, Respondent Game Commission's demurrer was sustained, primarily because the court agreed that due to the ambiguous nature of Sportsmen's pleading, it is not possible to discern a legal theory to support the relief requested. Further, the court sustained Respondent's claim that the DCNR, its Secretary, and the state's Governor were not proper parties to association's suit. Despite these procedural defects, the court did not dismiss the Sportsmen's action, and instead allowed them to amend their complaint within 30 days of this order.
|
|
US - Conservation - Fish & Wildlife Conservation Act |
The Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act, approved September 29, 1980, authorizes financial and technical assistance to the States for the development, revision, and implementation of conservation plans and programs for nongame fish and wildlife. The original Act authorized $5 million for each of Fiscal Years 1982 through 1985, for grants for development and implementation of comprehensive State nongame fish and wildlife plans and for administration of the Act. It also required the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to study potential mechanisms for funding these activities and report to Congress by March 1984. |
|
US - Conservation - Fish & Wildlife Improvement Act of 1978 |
The Fish and Wildlife Improvement Act of 1978 authorizes the Secretaries of the Interior and Commerce to establish, conduct, and assist with national training programs for State fish and wildlife law enforcement personnel. It also authorized funding for research and development of new or improved methods to support fish and wildlife law enforcement. The law provides authority to the Secretaries to enter into law enforcement cooperative agreements with State or other Federal agencies, and authorizes the disposal of abandoned or forfeited items under the fish, wildlife, and plant jurisdictions of these Secretaries. |
