Wildlife

Displaying 131 - 140 of 370
Titlesort descending Summary
GA - Alligators - Article 7. Feeding of Wild Alligators This Georgia law makes it illegal to willfully feed or bait any wild alligator not in captivity. Violation is a misdemeanor with a fine of up to $200 or confinement up to 30 days, or both.
GA - Deer Hunting - § 27-5-12. Unlawful to kill or wound farmed deer or wild animal held Under this Georgia statute, it is unlawful to shoot, kill, or wound any wild animal held under a wild animal license or permit or any farmed deer for enjoyment, gain, amusement, or sport.
GA - Fur - Article 2. Trapping, Trappers, and Fur Dealers Under these GA statutes, trappers and fur-dealers must be licensed. Trapping of fur-bearing animals is allowed during open trapping season. Traps must be inspected at least once every 24 hours. Trappers must dispatch fur-bearing animals caught in a trap and release domestic animals. It is legal to set traps to protect livestock and domestic animals from predators, but unlawful to trap upon the right of way of any public road or upon another's land. A violation of these statutes is a misdemeanor.
GA - Hunting - § 27-3-28. Possession of wildlife accidentally killed by motor vehicle This Georgia states that except as otherwise provided in this Code, any person may lawfully possess native wildlife which have been accidentally killed by a motor vehicle. However, the person taking possession of a bear accidentally killed by a motor vehicle shall notify a law enforcement officer within 48 hours after taking possession of the bear; and this Code section shall not authorize any person to take possession of any animal of a species designated as a protected species under Article 5 of this chapter or under federal law.
GA - Wildlife, transportation - Article 3. Transportation This GA statute pertains to transporting wildlife. It is unlawful to transport any wildlife taken in this state without a license or permit. It is unlawful to transport wildlife by a carrier unless the person files with the carrier a written statement giving his name and address and the number of wildlife to be transported and specifying that he lawfully took the wildlife. It is unlawful to transport any wildlife (or parts) for propagation or scientific purposes without a valid scientific collecting permit.
Galapagos Sea Cucumbers Case, 2017 - Ecuador (2017) This case was filed against the defendant when the defendant, an airline employee, allegedly unknowingly participated in shipping thousands of sea cucumbers in cargo containers. The specific species of sea cucumber were endangered in Ecuador, and the plaintiff claimed that their harvesting and transport were a crime against the environment and a violation of the nation’s efforts to conserve the country’s unique ecosystems. The court discussed factors of which species and specimens are typically included in shipments similar to the one at issue, and Ecuador’s national efforts to protect its environment; especially its endangered species. The defendant was found to have participated in the offense as an accomplice for his part in transporting the sea cucumbers and was punished with serving a fraction of the punishment to be served by the primary offenders.
Geer v. Connecticut


Defendant was charged with the possession of game birds, for the purpose of transporting them beyond the state, which birds had been lawfully killed within the state.   The sole issue which the case presents is, was it lawful, under the constitution of the United States (section 8, art. 1) (the Commerce Clause), for the state of Connecticut to allow the killing of birds within the state during a designated open season, to allow such birds, when so killed, to be used, to be sold, and to be bought for use, within the state, and yet to forbid their transportation beyond the state?  The Court held that, aside from the authority of the state, derived from the common ownership of game, and the trust for the benefit of its people which the state exercises in relation thereto, there is another view of the power of the state in regard to the property in game, which is equally conclusive. The right to preserve game flows from the undoubted existence in the state of a police power to that end, which may be none the less efficiently called into play, because, by doing so, interstate commerce may be remotely and indirectly affected.  This decision was later overruled in Hughes v. Oklahoma, 441 U.S. 322.
Good Badger, Bad Badger: The Impact of Perspective on Wildlife Law and Policy
Gray Wolf Legal Challenges: 2005 to Present
HABITAT-BASED CONSERVATION LEGISLATION: A NEW DIRECTION FOR SEA TURTLE CONSERVATION

Pages