|
KY - Wildlife, Bounty - Chapter 150. Fish and Wildlife Resources. |
This Kentucky law provides that, upon a resolution of the fiscal court that finds that beavers pose a threat to farmland, trees, or other property, the fiscal court may request a bounty on beaver. Each beaver tail presented to any conservation officer nets $10 (possibly offset by $1 for the cost of administering the bounty program). |
|
LA - Hunting - § 116.5. Computer-assisted remote hunting prohibited; penalties |
This Louisiana law provides that it is a class six violation for any person to engage in computer-assisted remote hunting or provide or operate a facility or provide services that allow others to engage in computer-assisted remote hunting. |
|
LA - Hunting, Trapping, and Fishing - Chapter 1. General Provisions for Wildlife and Fisheries. |
This section comprises Louisiana's hunter harassment laws. Under R.S. 56:648.1, no person may engage in such activities as interfering with the lawful taking of wildlife, disturbing a wild animal or otherwise affecting its behavior with the intent to prevent or hinder lawful taking, disturb any hunter, trapper, or fisherman who is engaged in lawful taking, or enter or remain on state-managed lands/water or private lands/water with the intent to violate this section. Violation of the provisions of R.S. 56:648.1 constitutes a class two violation. The section allows the issuance of an injunction and recovery of actual damages by persons affected by such conduct. |
|
LA - Initiatives - Ballot Issue 1 (right to hunt) |
This Louisiana ballot measure amended the state constitution after it was resoundingly approved in November of 2004 (by 81% of voters). The measure was initiated by the state legislature in Senate Bill 2 and was sent to the electors of the state for a vote. The measure on the official ballot stated that citizens were to vote FOR or AGAINST to amend the Constitution of Louisiana with the following proposition: "To guarantee the right of every citizen to hunt, fish and trap, subject to regulation, restriction, or prohibition as provided by law. (Adds Article I, 14 Section 27)." |
|
Lac Courte Oreilles Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians v. State of Wisconsin |
Action was brought to determine Indian tribe members' rights related to off-reservation hunting of white-tailed deer, fisher and other furbearing animals, and small game within the area of the state ceded to the United States by the plaintiff tribes. The Court held that Indians and non-Indians were each entitled to one half of game harvest within each harvesting area rather than as a whole territory to accommodate the longer Indian hunting season. With regard to hunting on private land in the ceded area, the Court held that plaintiffs' members have no more rights than non-Indian hunters to hunt or to trap on private lands, as tribal members who are hunting or trapping on private lands are still subject to state hunting and trapping regulations. The Court also held that the state could properly prohibit Indians from hunting deer during the summer and at night due to the safety risk to humans.
|
|
MA - Hunting - Chapter 131. Inland Fisheries and Game and Other Natural Resources. |
This law reflects Massachusetts' hunter harassment provision. Under the law, no person shall obstruct, interfere with or otherwise prevent the lawful taking of fish or wildlife by another at the locale where such activity is taking place. Acts prohibited include, but are not limited to, driving or disturbing wildlife, harassing another engaged in lawful taking of fish or wildlife, interjecting oneself into the line of fire, or erecting barriers to prevent access. A person may seek an injunction to prevent violation of this section and a person who sustains damages from any act in violation of the law may bring a civil action for punitive damages. |
|
MA - Hunting, Internet - § 65A. Online Shooting or Spearing |
This statute prohibits hunting via the Internet and the operation of online hunting businesses within the state of Massachusetts. Violation is punished by imprisonment in the house of correction for not more than 2 1/2 years or by a fine of not more than $2,500, or by both a fine and imprisonment. |
|
Malloy v. Cooper |
Plaintiff owned a Gun Club and sponsored a pigeon shoot.
He challenged the constitutionality of a statute prohibiting the intentional wounding or killing of animals. Held: unconstitutionally vague.
|
|
MD - Hunting - Subtitle 9. Captive Wildlife. |
This Maryland statute states that it is in the state's public interest to preserve native species by strictly regulating the possession, importation, exportation, breeding, raising, protection, rehabilitation, hunting, killing, trapping, capture, purchase, or sale of certain wildlife which pose a possibility of harm to native wildlife. |
|
MD - Hunting - Title 10. Wildlife. |
This law reflects Maryland's hunter harassment provision. While on private land that is owned by another person or in a hunting area on land managed by the Department, a person may not intentionally interfere with the lawful taking of wildlife or harass, drive, or disturb any game animal intentionally for the purpose of disrupting a lawful hunt. A Natural Resources officer or other police officer who has probable cause to believe that a person has violated the section may order the person to leave the area or arrest that person if he or she refuses to leave. |
