|
State v. Shook (Unpublished) |
Defendant Shook (a non-tribal member) shot and killed a whitetail buck on private property within the exterior boundaries of the Flathead Indian Reservation. Under Wildlife and Parks Commission hunting regulations, big game hunting privileges on Indian Reservations are limited to tribal members only, thereby closing the hunting season to non-tribal members. On appeal, Shook contended that the regulation was a violation of equal protection because it discriminated based on race. The court disagreed, finding the classification was political rather than racial because it was established through treaty with the federal government and recognized the unique federal obligation toward Indians. Thus, the court found the regulation was an "entirely rational" means to preserve wildlife populations for hunting by Indians.
|
|
State v. Vander Houwen |
The owner of severely damaged orchards was convicted for shooting some of the responsible animals after repeated requests for state remedies were unsuccessful. The damage to defendant's orchard (with estimated losses of over $200,000 for future cherry production) occurred in 1998 and 1999, when herds of elk repeatedly came through inadequate fencing constructed by the State. The Supreme Court held that when a property owner charged with unlawful hunting or waste of wildlife presents sufficient evidence that he exercised his constitutional right to protect his property from destructive game, the burden shifts to the State to disprove this justification. In this case, the defendant was denied jury instructions regarding his constitutional right to reasonably protect his property.
|
|
Sturgeon v. Frost |
In this case, Sturgeon sought to use his hovercraft in a National Preserve to reach moose hunting grounds. Sturgeon brought action against the National Park Service (NPS), challenging NPS’s enforcement of a regulation banning operation of hovercrafts on a river that partially fell within a federal preservation area in Alaska. Alaskan law permits the use of hovercraft, NPS regulations do not; Sturgeon argued that Park Service regulations did not apply because the river was owned by the State of Alaska. Sturgeon sought both declaratory and injunctive relief preventing the Park Service from enforcing its hovercraft ban. On remand, the Court of Appeals held that regulation preventing use of hovercraft in federally managed conservation areas applied to the river in the National Preserve. While the hovercraft ban excludes "non-federally owned lands and waters" within National Park System boundaries, this court found that the waterways at issue in this case were within navigable public lands based on established precedent. The district court's grant of summary judgment to defendants was affirmed.
|
|
Texas Attorney General Opinion No. JC-0048 |
Texas Attorney General Opinion regarding the issue of whether city ordinances are preempted by statutes that govern the treatment of animals. Specifically, the opinion discusses pigeon shoots. The opinion emphasizes that organized pigeon shoots are prohibited under Texas cruelty laws but that present wildlife laws allow the killing of feral pigeons.
|
|
The Canadian Commercial Seal Hunt: In Search Of International Legal Protection For Harp Seals |
This paper considers several sources of international law as potential candidates to protect harp seals from cruelty and over-exploitation. Part I of this paper discusses the Canadian Marine Mammal Regulations, which are the legal-regulatory structure under which the hunt takes place. Part II describes the range and status of the main species targeted in the commercial seal hunt, namely, the harp seals. Part III reviews several several sources of international law as potential candidates to protect and conserve the targeted harp seals. This paper concludes that the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora(CITES) is the most likely candidate to protect harp seals from unsustainable trade, and that they should be listed as a protected species under Appendix II.
|
|
The Cormorant Conflict |
This paper analyzes the conflicting management goals for the double-crested cormorant in Canada and the United States. In doing so, the paper answers the question whether one can predict how the migratory, double-crested cormorant population will be managed through international law, when the United States perceives the rise of the cormorant population an economic and biological threat, but where Canada views the cormorant’s comeback a biodiversity success story.
|
|
The Cracking Facade of the International Whaling Commission as an Institution of International Law: Norwegian Small-Type Whaling |
This article discusses the fact that the International Whaling Commission has not expressly recognized the Makah tribe's aboriginal subsistence need, and instead has intentionally left the issue ambiguous. The only viable reason for the IWC to deny the Norwegians a quota under the same exemption is the "aboriginal" requirement. The IWC should clarify the legal ambiguities regarding the right to harvest whales, and it should grant subsistence right to Norwegian coastal fishermen.
|
|
The Duck Shooting Case |
The plaintiff was charged with being in an area set aside for hunting, during hunting season, without a licence. The plaintiff argued that he was there in order to collect dead and wounded ducks and endangered species and to draw media attention to the cruelty associated with duck shooting. The Court found that although the regulation under which the plaintiff was charged restricted the implied freedom of political communication, it was appropriate to protect the safety of persons with conflicting aims likely to be in the area.
|
|
THE FOREST SERVICE'S BAIT AND SWITCH: A CASE STUDY ON BEAR BAITING AND THE SERVICE'S STRUGGLE TO ADOPT A REASONED POLICY ON A CONTROVERSIAL HUNTING PRACTICE WITHIN THE NATIONAL FORESTS |
|
|
The Hunt Club |
This advertisement for "The Hunt Club" indicates it provides lodging, meals, and hunts of waterfowl and big game on its 16,000 preserve. It also adds that it has a "trophy management policy" with regard to hunts of "trophy" deer on a 4,000 acre archery area.
|
