Fur or Trapping

Displaying 21 - 30 of 107
Titlesort descending Summary
Citizens for Responsible Wildlife Management v. State


A citizen groups filed a declaratory judgment action against the State of Washington seeking a determination that the 2000 initiative 713 barring use of body-gripping traps, sodium fluoroacetate, or sodium cyanide to trap or kill mammals was unconstitutional.  The Supreme Court found that appellants did not show beyond a reasonable doubt that Initiative 713 violated the constitution, and thus affirmed the superior court's denial of the summary judgment motion.  The court also held that the initiative was exempt from the constitutional provision prohibiting legislation that revises or amends other acts without setting them forth at full length.
CO - Fur - § 12b. Prohibited methods of taking wildlife (Constitutional Provision) This Colorado constitutional provision provides that it is unlawful to take wildlife with any leghold trap, any instant kill body-gripping design trap, or by poison or snare in the state of Colorado subject to the listed exceptions.
DE - Fur - Chapter 5. Specific Offenses In Delaware, a person is guilty of the unlawful trade in dog or cat by-products in the 2nd degree if the person knowingly or recklessly sells, barters or offers for sale or barter, the fur or hair of a domestic dog or cat or any product made in whole or in part from the fur or hair of a domestic dog or cat. The unlawful trade in dog or cat by-products in the 2nd degree is a class B misdemeanor. A person is guilty of the unlawful trade in dog or cat by-products in the 1st degree if the person knowingly or recklessly sells, barters or offers for sale or barter, the flesh of a domestic dog or cat or any product made in whole or in part from the flesh of a domestic dog or cat. The unlawful trade in dog or cat by-products in the first degree is a class A misdemeanor.
DE - Hunting - Chapter 7. Regulations and Prohibitions Concerning Game and Fish. Subchapter I. General Provisions. § 724. Wilful This Delaware law reflects the state's hunter harassment provision. Under the law, no person shall wilfully obstruct or impede the participation of any individual in the lawful taking of fish, crabs, oysters, clams or frogs; the lawful hunting of game birds or animals; or the lawful trapping of any game animals. Violation is a class B environmental misdemeanor. Incidental interference is not unlawful.
DE - Hunting, Internet - § 704(h). Prohibited hunting and trapping devices and methods; confiscation of devices; primitive weapon season Section (h) of this Delaware law on prohibited hunting methods prohibits "Internet hunting." Under the law, no person shall operate, provide, sell, use, or offer to operate, provide, sell, or use any computer software or service that allows a person not physically present at a hunt site to remotely control a weapon that could be used to take a live animal or bird by remote operation, including, but not limited to, weapons or devices set up to fire through the use of the Internet or through a remote control device. The statute also regulates trapping. Per the law, no person shall make use of any pitfall, deadfall, scaffold, cage, snare, trap, net, pen, baited hook, lure, urine or baited field or any other similar device for the purpose of injuring, capturing or killing birds or animals protected by the laws of this State, except as otherwise specified.
Detailed Discussion of Fur Animals and Fur Production


This discussion focuses on fur production from both farmed and wild sources. It details US laws that impact fur, both federal and state, including a discussion on state trapping laws. Laws from countries that are major producers of fur products are analyzed as well as those countries that have imposed bans on fur farming or trapping methods.
Eastern Band of Cherokee - Natural resources - Sec. 14-10.10- Cutting timber, removing rock, trapping animals

This statute is intended to preserve natural resources and protect wild animals from any trapping conducted without the knowledge of a property owner or the Tribe. The language provides for both land owner through a tribal assignment or lease, as well as lands that are reserved and used exclusively by the Tribe. The language also restricts any person, firm, or corporation from engaging in this conduct without consent and knowledge from the land owner and/or the Tribe.
Eureka Township v. Petter In this case, the Township brought action against property owners to enjoin the owners from possessing exotic animals on the property, operating an animal exhibition on the property, and operating a business pelting exotic animals on the property. The District Court invalidated the township's exotic animal ordinance as conflicting with state statute, determined that an animal exhibition was not a permissible use under the township's zoning ordinance, and permanently enjoined the owners from operating an animal exhibition and conducting any retail sales, except for horticultural products produced on the property. This court held that the exotic animals ordinance did not conflict with state statute nor was it preempted. Further, this court held that the property owners' grandfathered possession and exhibition of exotic animals was limited to one wolf; animal control officer exception to exotic animal possession was limited to temporary possession of exotic animals in conjunction with owner's work as an animal control officer; township was not estopped from enforcing its exotic animal ordinance; and interpreting zoning ordinance's language to require sale of horticultural products from the land itself was not inherently unreasonable. Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded; motion dismissed.
FL - Fur - Sale of garments or items of clothing containing dog or cat fur prohibited; Makes it illegal for a person to knowingly sell or offer to sell a garment which contains dog or cat fur, or a dog or cat pelt. Defines the first violation of this provision as a misdemeanor of the first degree, and any subsequent violations as felonies of the third degree. Allows any law enforcement agency or humane officer to enforce this provision and to seek a civil penalty up to $5,000 for each violation.
Flathead-Lolo-Bitterroot Citizen Task Force v. Montana This case was brought by several environmental organizations against the Montana Fish and Wildlife Commission to challenge the approval or regulations that authorize the trapping and snaring of wolves within grizzly bear habitat in Montana. The grizzly bear is listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), and the Montana trapping regulations allow wolf hunters to use foothold traps large enough to capture grizzly bears. Grizzly bears rely heavily on their front and back paws to hunt for food, so crippling their limbs with these traps will lead to the incidental killing of grizzly bears from starvation. Plaintiffs contend that allowing the trapping of wolves in grizzly bear territory is in violation of § 9 of the ESA, as it will lead to the incidental unlawful taking of grizzly bears. Plaintiffs sought a preliminary injunction to enjoin the start of the wolf trapping season, raised questions on the merits, and established a reasonable threat of harm to grizzly bears if the trapping and snaring of wolves is allowed in their habitat. On the merits of the claim, although defendants could prove that no grizzly bears had been killed with such traps in Montana for several years, the court found that plaintiffs succeeded on the merits as there was evidence of grizzly bears being killed by such traps in adjacent states. Plaintiffs also showed that there was a likelihood of harm to grizzly bears, with evidence that these traps will lead to the death of grizzly bears. The court granted plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction in part and denied in part, and enjoined the Montana Fish and Wildlife Commission from authorizing wolf trapping and snaring.

Pages