Hunting Issues

Displaying 101 - 110 of 364
Titlesort descending Summary
Hulsizer v. Labor Day Committee, Inc.


This Pennsylvania case involves an appeal by allowance from orders of Superior Court which affirmed an order of the Court of Common Pleas of Schuylkill County and imposed counsel fees and costs upon the appellants, Clayton Hulsizer and the Pennsylvania Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (PSPCA). Hulsizer, an agent of the PSPCA, filed this action in equity seeking injunctive and declaratory relief against the appellee, Labor Day Committee, Inc., for their role in conducting an annual pigeon shoot. Hulsizer sought to have appellee enjoined from holding the shoot, alleging that it violates the cruelty to animals statute. At issue is whether Hulsizer has standing to bring an enforcement action in Schuylkill County. This court found no inconsistency in reading Section 501 and the HSPOEA (Humane Society Police Officer Enforcement Act) together as statutes that are in pari materia. Since the HSPOEA does not limit the jurisdiction of humane society police officers by requiring them to apply separately to the courts of common pleas in every county in Pennsylvania, the officer had standing to bring an enforcement action. The lower court's orders were reversed.
Humane Soc. of the U.S. v. Hodel


In this appeal, the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) challenged a series of actions by the Fish and Wildlife Service to allow hunting on some of America's national wildlife refuges. The District Court held that HSUS failed to satisfy the Supreme Court's requirements for associational standing because the 'recreational' interest of Society members was not germane to the group's self-described mission of insuring the humane treatment of animals and other wildlife. The Court of Appeals reversed the district court's finding that the Humane Society had no standing to challenge the hunt openings, and remanded the action to allow HSUS to pursue its challenge to the introduction of hunting. This Court did affirm the district court's finding on the merits that the Wildlife Service complied with NEPA when it permitted hunting at the Chincoteague preserve. Affirmed in part and reversed in part.
Humane Soc. of U.S. v. Lujan


This case was brought the Humane Society of the United States and various coalitions of homeowner/citizens against the United States Secretary of the Interior and the Director of the Fish and Wildlife Service to prevent the implementation of defendants' decision to permit limited public deer hunting on a national wildlife refuge in Fairfax County, Virginia. On cross motions for final judgment on the record, the District Court held that the suit under Endangered Species Act was precluded by failure to give proper presuit notice. The court stated that the ESA clearly states that “written notice” of the violation must be given to the Secretary

and

to the violator as a condition precedent to suit. The court also found that the FWS's decision took account of relevant factors and thus was not arbitrary or capricious.
Humane Society International Inc v Kyodo Senpaku Kaisha Ltd


The applicant, an incorporated public interest organisation, sought an injunction to restrain the respondent Japanese company which owned several ocean vessels engaged in, and likely to further engage in, whaling activities in waters claimed by Australia. It was found that the applicant had standing to bring the injunction and the respondent engaged in activities prohibited by the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cth). Orders were entered against against the respondent even though it had no assets in Australia and the likelihood of being able to enforce judgment was very low.
IA - Hunting - 481A.125A. Remote control or internet hunting--criminal and civil penalties This Iowa law prohibits “remote control or internet hunting." This involves the acts of offering such services for sale as well as taking, or assisting in the take of a wild animal kept on a hunting preserve by remote control or internet hunting. A person who violates this section is guilty of a serious misdemeanor. A second or subsequent violation of this section is punishable as a class “D” felony.
IA - Hunting, canned - 484B.4. Hunting preserve operator's license--application and license requirements Under this Iowa statute, a person who owns or controls by lease or otherwise for five or more years, a contiguous tract of land having an area of not less than three hundred twenty acres, and who desires to establish a hunting preserve to propagate and sell game birds and their young or unhatched eggs, and shoot game birds and ungulates on the land, can apply to the state for an operator's license. The commission reviews the application to determine, among other things, that allowance of the license is not detrimental to wildlife and does not interfere with migratory bird activity.
IA - Hunting, interference - 481A.125. Intentional interference with lawful hunting, fishing, or fur-harvesting This law reflects Iowa's hunter harassment provision. Under the law, a person interferes with hunting, fish, or fur-harvesting activities when he or she: intentionally places him or herself in a location where his or her presence affects the behavior of the game thereby affecting the feasibility of taking the animal; intentionally creates a visual, aural, olfactory, or physical stimulus for the purpose of affecting the behavior of the animal to harass or obstruct the hunter; or alters the condition or placement of the hunter's personal property to obstruct that person. A first offense is a simple misdemeanor; a second or subsequent offense is a serious misdemeanor.
ID - Endangered Species - Chapter 24. Species Conservation- Chapter 26. Fish and Game This Idaho law sets out the definitions related to state endangered species laws. It also establishes a delisting advisory team that is responsible for reviewing data related to state species proposed for delisting by the federal government. This team also submits management plans to the state fish and wildlife department.
ID - Hunting - Chapter 15. Public Safety. This section comprises Idaho's hunter harassment law. Under the law, no person shall intentionally interfere with the lawful taking or control of wildlife by another; intentionally harass, bait, drive or disturb any animal for the purpose of disrupting lawful pursuit; or damage or destroy in any way any lawful hunting blind with the intent to interfere. Idaho also expands these activities to include the harassment, intimidation, or threatening of any person who is or was lawfully engaged in the taking of fish or wildlife by such means as personal or written contact, telephone, e-mail, or a website.
ID - Initiatives - HJR2 (right to hunt) This proposed amendment would provide that the rights to hunt, fish and trap are a valued part of Idaho's heritage and would preserve these rights for the people of Idaho and manage these rights through the laws of the state. This amendment specifies that hunting, fishing and trapping shall be a preferred means of managing wildlife. This amendment does not create a right to trespass or affect rights to divert or appropriate water. This amendment also will not prevent the suspension or revocation of licenses issued by the state for hunting, fishing or trapping. The measure was passed by 73.4% of voters.

Pages