|
ID - Predator - Chapter 58. Protection of Natural Resources (wolf declaration) |
The purpose of Chapter 58 is to provide an orderly, comprehensive plan for the protection of the natural resources of the state and for the suppression of dangers or threats. Section 5806 the Idaho legislature finds and declares that the state's citizens, businesses, hunting, tourism and agricultural industries, private property and wildlife, are immediately and continuously threatened and harmed by the sustained presence and growing population of Canadian gray wolves in the state of Idaho. The legislature states that "a disaster emergency is in existence as a result of the introduction of Canadian gray wolves, which have caused and continue to threaten vast devastation of Idaho's social culture, economy and natural resources." |
|
ID - Predators - Chapter 11. Protection of Animals and Birds |
This Idaho chapter deals with restrictions on the taking of wildlife, protection of wildlife, and control of predators. Migratory birds are protected under the chapter. The chapter also establishes the right of any person to control, trap, or remove any wild animal damaging private property, within limitations set forth. In particular, the chapter states that wolves may be disposed of by livestock or domestic animal owners, their employees, agents and animal damage control personnel when the same are molesting or attacking livestock or domestic animals and it shall not be necessary to obtain any permit from the department. The section also sets up procedures for damage caused by game animals such as deer and elk as well as predators like black bears, grizzly bears, and mountain lions. |
|
IL - Hunting - 5/2.33b. Computer-assisted remote hunting; prohibition |
This Illinois law provides that 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 the hunt site to remotely control a weapon that could be used to take wildlife by remote operation. This also includes weapons or devices set up to fire through the use of the Internet or through a remote control device. |
|
IL - Hunting - 5/48-3. Hunter or fisherman interference |
A person commits hunter or fisherman interference when he or she intentionally or knowingly obstructs or interferes with the lawful taking of wildlife or aquatic life by another person with the specific intent to prevent that lawful taking. This includes things such as blocking or impeding the person hunting, using objects or barriers, using artificial or natural stimuli to hinder the lawful taking, or even using a drone in a way that interferes with another person's lawful taking of wildlife or aquatic life. A first violation is a Class B misdemeanor with enhacements for subsequent offenses. |
|
IN - Hunting - 15-17-14.7-13 Types of weapons allowed during hunt; computer assisted remote hunting; sedation; restricted areas |
This Indiana law states that a hunting preserve may not allow computer assisted hunting. |
|
IN - Hunting - Chapter 37. Harassment of Hunters, Trappers, and Fishermen |
This section reflects Indiana's hunter harassment law. A person who knowingly or intentionally interferes with the legal taking of a game animal by another person with intent to prevent the taking commits a Class C misdemeanor. A person who fails to obey the order of a law enforcement officer to desist from conduct in violation of section 2 of this chapter commits a Class B misdemeanor if the law enforcement officer (1) observed the person or (2) has reasonable grounds to believe that the person has engaged in the conduct that day or intends to engage in the conduct that day on specific premises. |
|
IN - Initiatives - Question 1, Right to Hunt and Fish Amendment |
|
|
In re Endangered Species Act Section 4 Deadline Litigation-MDL No. 2165 |
After parties in a lawsuit over listing species as endangered or threatened agreed upon a settlement, the Safari Club motioned to intervene because the settlement might affect three species that the club's members hunt. The district court denied the motion to intervene as of right because the club lacked Article III standing and denied a permissive intervention because it would cause undue delay and prejudice to the parties; the court then approved the settlement and the club appealed. The appeals court affirmed the lower court's decision that the club lacked Article III standing for intervening as of right. The appeals court, however, in view of uncertainty whether Article III standing was required for permissive intervention, declined to exercise pendant appellate jurisdiction over the permissive intervention appeal.
|
|
In re Polar Bear Endangered Species Act Listing and Section 4(d) Rule Litigation-MDL No.1993 United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit. |
Hunters and hunting organizations sued the Secretary of Interior, the Director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Service itself after the Service listed the polar bear as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and barred the importation of polar bear trophies under the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA). On appeal, the appeals court affirmed the lower court’s decision to grant the defendants' motion of summary judgment.
|
|
In re Polar Bear Endangered Species Act Listing and § 4(d) Rule Litigation |
Plaintiffs Safari Club International and Safari Club International Foundation brought this action under the APA challenging the FWS's legal determination that the listing of the Polar Bear as "threatened" under the Endangered Species Act was a final agency action. At issue here is defendants' Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings on the grounds that plaintiffs fail to challenge a final agency action as required for judicial review under the APA. Alternatively, defendants argue that the plaintiffs lack standing to bring this action. This Court found that the action challenged by SCI and SCIF is final agency action for purposes of judicial review pursuant to the APA. On the issue of standing, defendants argue that plaintiffs' suit must be dismissed for lack of standing because plaintiffs have not alleged facts to establish that they have suffered an injury-in-fact. The court disagreed, finding that the plaintiffs have sufficiently pleaded that the “procedures in question” threaten a “concrete interest" - an interest in conservation that is impacted by the import ban. Defendants Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings was denied.
|
