Hunting Issues
Displaying 21 - 30 of 362
Title |
Summary |
|---|---|
| Whaling in the Antarctic | |
| Whales | |
| Western Watersheds Project v. USDA APHIS Wildlife Services | This action considers motions for summary judgment by both parties. At issue here is a plan by a branch of the USDA called Wildlife Services (WS), which is responsible for killing or removing predators and other animals that prey on wild game animals, threaten agricultural interests, or pose a danger to humans. The decision to kill the animals comes from requests from individuals or other state and federal agencies rather than a decision by WS. For this case, the facts center on an expanded operation to kill game animals and protected species in Idaho (mainly coyotes and ravens) known as PDM. As part of this process, WS prepared and circulated a draft Environmental Assessment (EA) to other federal agencies, stakeholders, and the public seeking comment to the expanded plan. However, instead of taking the criticisms and suggestions from the EA and then undertaking a more comprehensive Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), WS instead rejected most responses and labeled them as unconvincing or invalid. This led plaintiff to file suit against WS, arguing that the agency acted in an arbitrary and capricious manner by not preparing the EIS after comments to the EA. For example, the BLM, the Forest Service, and the Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG), found that the EA was not an "objective analysis" and instead sounded "like a pre-decisional defense of lethal methods." These agencies warned WS that the predator control methods were "likely to be futile over the long-term" and did not consider cascading effects on both cyclic and non-cyclic prey populations. In analyzing the factors, this court found that WS failed to consider "several federal agencies with long experience and expertise in managing game animals and protected species" when proposing to expand the expanded PDM program. There was a lack of crucial data to support WS' assumptions in its modeling that was exacerbated by use of unreliable data, according to the court. In addition, the court found that WS failed to "explain away scientific challenges to the effectiveness of predator removal." Not only was the court troubled by the lack of reliable data used by WS, but the WS’ “unconvincing responses” to agencies that had substantial experience managing wildlife and land-use concerns demonstrated to the court that the PDM is controversial and the environmental impacts were uncertain. This in and of itself necessitated an EIS under NEPA. The court held that the lack of reliable data, the unconvincing responses from WS, combine to trigger three intensity factors that combine to require WS to prepare an EIS. The plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment was granted and the defendant's motion for summary judgment was denied (the motion by plaintiff to supplement the administrative record was deemed moot). |
| Waters v. Meakin |
|
| WA - Wildlife - 77.15.790. Negligently feeding, attempting to feed, or attracting large wild carnivores to land or a building--I | These two Washington laws deal with the unauthorized feeding of large wild carnivores. A person may not negligently feed or attempt to feed large wild carnivores or negligently attract large wild carnivores to land or a building. If a person who is issued a written warning fails to contain, move, or remove the food, food waste, or other substance as directed, the person commits an infraction under chapter 7.84 RCW. |
| WA - Hunting - 77.15.210. Obstructing the taking of fish, shellfish, or wildlife--Penalty | This set of laws represents Washington's hunter harassment provisions. Under the section, a person is guilty of obstructing the taking of fish, shellfish, or wildlife if the person harasses, drives, or disturbs fish, shellfish, or wildlife with the intent of disrupting lawful pursuit or taking, or if the person harasses, intimidates, or interferes with an individual engaged in the lawful taking. Violation is a gross misdemeanor. |
| WA - Coyotes - 9.41.185. Coyote getters |
This Washington law provides that the use of "coyote getters" is not a violation of law when their use is authorized by the state department of agriculture and/or the state department of fish and wildlife in cooperative programs with the United States Fish and Wildlife Service. The purpose must be to control or eliminate coyotes that are harmful to livestock or game animals. |
| VT - Hunting, contest - § 4716. Coyote-hunting competitions; prohibition | This Vermont law, effective January 1, 2019, prohibits coyote-hunting competitions in the state. A “coyote-hunting competition” means a contest in which people compete in the capturing or taking of coyotes for a prize. Violation incurs a fine of $400 - $1,000 for a first offense. A second or subsequent conviction results in a fine of not more than $4,000.00 nor less than $2,000.00. |
| VT - Hunting - § 4715. Remote-control hunting | This Vermont statute prevents remote-control hunting. No one may take a wild or captive animal using a remote-control hunting device if the person is in Vermont. No person shall establish or operate a remote-control hunting site in Vermont, or import, export, or possess a wild or captive animal to be taken by a remote-control hunting device. |
| VT - Hunting - § 4708. Interference with hunting, fishing or trapping | This Vermont law reflects the state's hunter harassment provision. The law states that a person shall not intentionally interfere with the lawful taking of fish or wild animals. This includes things like tampering with traps, nets, baits, or firearms; by placing himself or herself in a position, for the purpose of interfering, that hinders or prevents hunting, trapping, or fishing; or by engaging in an activity, for the purpose of interfering, that drives, harasses, disturbs, or is likely to disturb wildlife or fish. |