Hunter Harassment

Summary: This is a case brought by a group of hunting opponents against Wisconsin state employees to challenge Wisconsin’s hunter harassment statute. The challenged statute criminalizes those who photograph or videotape hunting activities with intent to interfere with the hunting. The challengers, who intended to use the footage to spur public debate about hunting and ensure hunters are following state taking limits, allege that the law violates the First Amendment and is unconstitutionally vague. The trial court granted summary judgment to the state employees after finding that the statute did not violate the First Amendment, and the hunting opponents appealed. On appeal, the court found that the statutory provisions on visual/physical proximity and approaching/confronting hunters were unconstitutionally vague, the photographing/recording provision was unconstitutionally overbroad, and the entire statute was an unconstitutional viewpoint-based regulation of speech.

Summary: Plaintiffs are Wisconsin residents who monitored hunting activity through visual observation and photographic and video documentation. They brought an action against state employees challenging constitutionality of state statute that prohibits a person from interfering with or attempting to interfere with “activity associated with lawful hunting, fishing or trapping.” Plaintiffs claim that after being amended in 2015 to include two or more acts of maintaining a “visual proximity” to, “approaching,” or creating visual or audio of someone engaged in those activities, this prohibition is now overbroad, vague and chills lawful expression in violation of the First Amendment. The District Court held that the residents lacked Article III standing to assert a pre-enforcement as-applied challenge to constitutionality of statute. Further, the affirmative defense provision of statute did not preclude judicial review of statute for overbreadth or vagueness. However, the statute was not overbroad nor unconstitutionally vague. The state employees' motion was granted and the residents' motion was denied.

Summary: Ms. Hessler examines the constitutionality of the federal hunter harassment statute and concludes that protests of hunting events should be protected under the First Amendment.

Summary: Ms. Hessler examines the constitutionality of the federal hunter harassment statute and concludes that protests of hunting events should be protected under the First Amendment.

Summary: This section of Wyoming laws relates to miscellaneous prohibited hunting acts. Included is the state's hunter harassment law, which provides that no person shall with the intent to prevent or hinder the lawful taking of any wildlife. Violation is a "low misdemeanor." Article 4 also includes a 2009 law that prohibits remote hunting that allows a person not physically present to remotely control a weapon to kill wildlife.

Summary: This law reflects West Virginia's hunter harassment provision. Under the law, a person may not willfully obstruct or impede the participation of any individual in the lawful activity of hunting, fishing or trapping. Violation is a misdemeanor with a fine of not less than $100 and not more than $500 or imprisonment for 10 - 100 days, or both. Subsequent violations within two years of any prior violation result in a fine of up to $1000 and imprisonment for up to one year, or both. A violator is also liable to the person for damages.

Summary: This law reflects Wisconsin's hunter harassment provision. Under the law, no person may interfere or attempt to interfere with lawful hunting, fishing or trapping with the intent to prevent the taking of a wild animal. It is an affirmative defense to the prosecution for violation of this section if the defendant's conduct is protected by his or her right to freedom of speech under the constitution of this state or of the United States. A court may enjoin action prohibited under this statute and may award damages, including punitive and special damages, to a person adversely affected.

Summary: 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.

Summary: 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.

Summary: This law reflects Virginia's hunter harassment provision. Under the law, it is unlawful to willfully and intentionally impede the lawful hunting or trapping of wild birds or wild animals. Violation is a Class 3 misdemeanor.