Hunting Issues

Summary: This proposed amendment would provide that the rights to hunt, fish and trap are a valued part of Idaho's heritage and would preserve these rights for the people of Idaho and manage these rights through the laws of the state. This amendment specifies that hunting, fishing and trapping shall be a preferred means of managing wildlife. This amendment does not create a right to trespass or affect rights to divert or appropriate water. This amendment also will not prevent the suspension or revocation of licenses issued by the state for hunting, fishing or trapping. The measure was passed by 73.4% of voters.

Summary: This Georgia constitutional amendment was presented to voters on the 2006 ballot. The measure preserves the state's tradition of hunting and fishing for the public good. Amendment 2 passed by a margin of 81% to 19%.

Summary: This resolution proposes to amend the Arkansas Constitution to provide for a constitutional right for citizens of the state of Arkansas to hunt, fish, trap, and harvest wildlife. The resolution states that the right would be limited only by the regulations consistent with Amendment 35 of the Arkansas Constitution. It was passed in 2010 by 82.8% of voters.

Summary: Proposition 109 would have amended the Arizona Constitution. It failed with only 43.5% voting "yes" for the measure. The proposition stated that: 1. Wildlife is held in trust for the citizens of this state, whom have a right to lawfully hunt, fish and harvest the wildlife. 2. The legislature has the exclusive authority to enact laws to regulate hunting, fishing and harvesting of wildlife. The legislature may grant rule making authority to a game and fish commission. No law or rule shall unreasonably restrict hunting, fishing or harvesting of wildlife or the use of traditional means and methods for those activities. Any law or rule shall have the purpose of wildlife conservation and management and preserving the future of hunting and fishing. 3. Lawful public hunting and fishing are the preferred means of managing and controlling wildlife. By its terms, nothing in Proposition 109 shall be construed to modify any law relating to trespass or property rights.

Summary: Voters are asked to either approve or reject a law allowing hunters to use airplanes to land and shoot wolves on the same day they fly. The law allows any person with a hunting or trapping license to land and shoot in areas established by the Board of Game. No additional permit may be required. The law also allows the Alaska Department of Fish and Game to use agents, as well as employees, to engage in same day airborne shooting of wolves. The measure passed with 53% of the vote.

Summary: This 2008 measure was an initiated state statute presented to voters in August of 2008. The measure would have prohibited shooting of a free-ranging wolf, wolverine, or grizzly bear the same day that the person has been airborne. It was defeated by a margin of 44.4% for the measure and 55.6% against on August 26th.

Summary: This bill would have prohibited a person from using a snare with the intent of trapping a wolf and appeared on the 2000 ballot. It would also have prohibited a person from possessing, buying, selling, or offering to sell the skin of a wolf known by the person to have been caught with a snare. Breaking the law would have been a Class A misdemeanor. The measure failed with only 37.3% of the vote.

Summary: This application is about the validity of regulations designed to regulate the hunting of lions that were bred in captivity.

Summary: These South African regulations were made relating to listed threatened and protected species of the National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act, 2004. The purpose of these regulations is to further regulate the permit system set out in Chapter 7 of the Biodiversity Act insofar as that system applies to restricted activities involving specimens of listed threatened or protected species; to provide for the registration of captive breeding operations, commercial exhibition facilities, game farms, nurseries, scientific institutions, sanctuaries and rehabilitation facilities and wildlife traders; to provide for the regulation of the carrying out of a specific restricted activity, namely hunting; to provide for the prohibition of specific restricted activities involving specific listed threatened or protected species; to provide for the protection of wild populations of listed threatened species; and to provide for the composition and operating procedure of the Scientific Authority.

Summary: In June 2010, Australia commenced proceedings against Japan at the International Court of Justice (ICJ), alleging that Japan has continued an extensive whaling program in breach of its obligations as a signatory to the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling (ICRW). At issue was the moratorium on commercial whaling agreed upon in the 1980s. According to Australia, though Japan claimed to be killing whales purely for scientific reasons, the true purpose of the program was commercial. Japan did not deny that it was killing whales in the Antarctic, but claimed instead that because the ICRW grants each nation state the right to issue licenses for scientific whaling as it sees fit, Japan’s whaling program was legal. The ICJ ruled that Japan's Antarctic whaling program was not actually for scientific whaling and must end.