Hunting Issues
Displaying 121 - 130 of 364
Title |
Summary |
|---|---|
| Indiana Dept. of Natural Resources v. Whitetail Bluff, LLC | Appellee established a business that allowed for "high fence" hunting, which refers to hunting wild animals on property that is enclosed by a fence, of privately-owned whitetail deer. The pivotal question in this appeals case was whether the Indiana Department of Natural Resources (IDNR) was correct in asserting that the current statutory scheme prohibited this practice, and therefore allowed the agency to promulgate rules effectuating that prohibition. The Indiana Court of Appeals held that IDNR did not have the power to regulate fish and wildlife that were legally owned or held in captivity under a license. The IDNR therefore went beyond its express powers conferred upon it by the General Assembly when it promulgated rules that prohibited "high fence" hunting. The lower court's grant of summary judgment to the appellee was affirmed. |
| INTERNATIONAL CONVENTION FOR THE REGULATION OF WHALING |
|
| Keep Michigan Wolves Protected v. State, Dep't of Nat. Res. | Plaintiff, Keep Michigan Wolves Protected (KMWP), appealed an order of the Court of Claims concluding that PA 281 does not violate Michigan's Constitution or statutes, and the granting of summary disposition in favor of defendants, the State of Michigan, the Department of Natural Resources, and the Natural Resources Commission. The issue began in 2011 when the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service removed gray wolves from the federal list of endangered species, returning management of wolf populations to Michigan. In 2012, the governor of Michigan signed PA 520 into law, which added the wolf to the definition of "game" animals. Plaintiff KMWP organized a statewide referendum petition drive to reject PA 520 at the November 4, 2014 general election, which would have rendered PA 520 ineffective unless approved by a majority of voters. In 2013, Michigan's Governor signed into law PA 21 and PA 22, which granted the Natural Resources Commission (NRC) authority to manage wolves. In addition, the laws also gave qualified members of the military free game and fish licenses. Another petition drive was initiated by plaintiff and required signatures were collected to place the issue on the November 2014 ballot. However, in December 2013, before this, Citizens for Professional Wildlife Management (CPWM) circulated a petition to initiate the Scientific Fish and Wildlife Management Act also known as PA 281. This new law would reenact PA 520 and 21, giving the NRC authority for designating game animals, offering free military hunting and fishing licenses, and appropriating $1 million to manage invasive species. In May of 2014, the CPWM certified this initiative petition and submitted directly it to the Legislature to enact or reject the law. The Legislature adopted the law, which became known as PA 281. Notably, at the November 2014 election, a majority of voters rejected PA 520 and PA 21. Regardless, PA 281, which included the voter-rejected designation of the wolf as a game species, was signed into law and the NRC designated wolves as a game species effective March 2015. Following this, plaintiff filed the underlying complaint that challenged the constitutionality of PA 281, specifically that it violated the Title–Object Clause of Michigan's Constitution, Const 1963, art 4, § 24, which states that (1) a law must not embrace more than one object, and (2) the object of the law must be expressed in its title. The Court of Claims granted defendants' summary disposition motion, holding the the general purpose of PA 281 is to “manage fish, wildlife, and their habitats” and that all of the law's provisions relate to this purpose, and concluded that the law did not violate the single-object requirement of the Title–Object Clause. The Court of Appeals found that some provisions of PA 281 did not violate the Title-Object Clause including (1) free licenses to military and (2) appropriating $1 million to respond to the threat of invasive fish species. However, the court did find that the free licenses to members of the military has no necessary connection to the scientific management of fish, wildlife, and their habitats violating the single-object rule of the Title-Object Clause. While the court noted that there is a severability option with provisions of laws that violate the Title-Object Clause, the court cannot conclude the Legislature would have passed PA 281 without the provision allowing free hunting, trapping, and fishing licenses for active members of the military. Thus, this provision cannot be severed from PA 281, and, consequently, the court found PA 281 is unconstitutional. The court noted that its decision rests solely under an analysis of the Michigan Constitution and related cases. However, the court noted that plaintiff's assertion that the initiating petition by defendant put "curb appeal" of free military licenses and invasive species control to "surreptitiously" reenact a provision that would ensure wolves would be on the game species list was an "accurate" assessment. The court even said that PA 281 "conjures up images of a Trojan Horse, within which the ability to hunt wolves was cleverly hidden." The order granting summary judgment for defendants was reversed and the matter was remanded. |
| KS - Hunting - Unlawful Acts. 32-1014. Obstruction or impeding of lawful activities | This Kansas law reflects the state's hunter harassment provision. Under the law, no person shall willfully obstruct or impede the participation of any individual in the lawful activity of hunting, furharvesting or fishing. The law does not apply to law enforcement and does not limit the right of landowners or their tenants to limit trespass. |
| KS - Initiatives - Amendment 1, Right to Hunt and Fish (2016) | |
| KY - Ferret - 150.355 Ferrets | This Kentucky law prohibits the use of ferrets in hunting. Additionally, the law states that no person shall keep a ferret which was born in the wild as a pet or for any purpose, unless he or she has procured a ferret permit from the commissioner. |
| KY - Hunting - Chapter 150. Fish and Wildlife Resources. | This law comprises Kentucky's hunter harassment law. The law states that no person shall intentionally obstruct or disrupt the right of a person to lawfully take wildlife by hunting, trapping, or fishing. It also provides that the state attorney general or any person directly affected by the unlawful conduct may bring an action to restrain such conduct or to recover damages. |
| KY - Hunting, Internet - § 150.363, 150.990. Computer- assisted remote hunting unlawful; citizens with disabilities | This Kentucky statute makes computer assisted hunting within the state unlawful. It specifies that the provisions of the statute should not be construed to limit or prohibit the hunting rights or privileges provided to citizens with disabilities within the state. Any person who violates this provision will be fined not less than one hundred dollars ($100) nor more than five hundred dollars ($500). They may also be imprisoned for not more than six (6) months, or be fined and imprisoned. |
| KY - Initiatives - Right to Hunt | This measure proposes to amend the Constitution of Kentucky to create a right to hunt, fish, and harvest nonthreatened species using traditional methods. It passed by 84.5% of the vote. |
| KY - Trade - Buying and selling protected wildlife | These statutes relate to trade in wildlife. The first statute prohibits the trade in protected wildlife. The next law prohibits the hunting of bears. Finally, the Kentucky statute providing punishment for violation of aforementioned statutes is provided. |