|
WY - Initiative - Right to Hunt, Fish and Trap, Amendment B |
The adoption of this amendment will recognize and preserve the heritage of Wyoming citizens' opportunity to fish, hunt and trap wildlife, subject to regulation as prescribed by law. It was passed by 84.8% of voters in 2012. |
|
WA - Initiatives - Washington Initiative 713 (trapping) |
This Washington initiative passed in 2000 made it a gross misdemeanor to capture an animal with a steel-jawed leghold trap, neck snare, or other body-gripping trap. The director of fish and wildlife could grant special circumstance exceptions. It is also unlawful to knowingly buy or sell an animal pelt trapped in this manner. It is also a gross misdemeanor to poison any animal using sodium fluoroacetate (Compound 1080) or sodium cyanide (violators lose trapping licenses). |
|
WA - Initiatives - Initiative Measure No. 1130 (AN ACT Relating to the prevention of farm animal cruelty) |
This measure would prohibit confining egg-laying hens, as defined, in stacked cages or cages that prevent hens from turning around freely, lying down, standing up, or fully extending their wings. It would also prohibit selling eggs produced by hens thus confined. Violations would be a gross misdemeanor. The measure would not apply to medical research, veterinary treatment, transportation, certain temporary confinements, exhibitions, or during humane slaughter. The measure would take effect on January 1, 2018. Due to changes in signature requirements announced by the Washington Secretary of State to avoid duplication or error, the initiative did not receive an adequate number of signatures to appear on the ballot. |
|
WA - Initiative - Initiative 1401, Trafficking of animal species threatened with extinction |
|
|
VA - Initiatives - Virginia Ballot Measure 2 (2000), Right to Hunt, Fish, and Harvest Game |
This Virginia ballot measure passed in 2000 provided by constitutional amendment that, "The people have a right to hunt, fish, and harvest game, subject to such regulations and restrictions as the General Assembly may prescribe by general law." It passed with 60% of the vote. |
|
UT - Initiatives - Utah Supermajority for Hunting Initiatives, Proposition 5 (1998) |
Proposition 5 amends present provisions of the Utah Constitution regarding the power of the people of the state to initiate legislation and submit it to a vote of the people for approval or rejection by majority vote. This proposition requires a two-thirds vote in order to adopt by initiative a state law allowing, limiting, or prohibiting the taking of wildlife or the season for or method of taking wildlife. The measures passed with 56.1% of the vote. |
|
TX - Initiatives - Proposition 6, Right to hunt, fish and harvest wildlife |
|
|
TN - Initiative - Tennessee Hunting Rights Amendment (2010) |
The proposed amendment on the 2010 ballot provides for the personal right to hunt and fish subject to state laws, regulations, and existing property rights. The measure also states that "traditional manners and means" may be used to take non-threatened species. It passed with an overwhelming majority of the vote. |
|
THE OREGON BEAR AND COUGAR INITIATIVE: A LOOK AT THE INITIATIVE PROCESS |
|
|
State ex rel. Humane Society of Missouri v. Beetem |
The "Missourians for Protection of Dogs" ("MPD") advocated a statewide ballot measure to enact a new statutory provision to be known as the "Puppy Mill Cruelty Prevention Act." The certified ballot title included a summary statement reading: "Shall Missouri law be amended to: . . . create a misdemeanor crime of ‘puppy mill cruelty’ for any violations?" One taxpaying Missouri citizen, Karen Strange, subsequently filed a Petition for Declaratory Judgment and Injunctive Relief against the Secretary of State, challenging the summary statement as being "insufficient and unfair." In this action, the Humane Society of Missouri sought protection from an order of the circuit court requiring it to disclose and turn over Document 10 - a series of focus group findings and related documentation developed by the Humane Society of Missouri and its partners to formulate political strategy. Writing on behalf of the Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District, Judge Victor C. Howard, with all concurring, granted the HSMO’s writ of prohibition. HSMO’s preliminary writ of prohibition was made absolute, rendering Document 10 non-discoverable.
|
