Wildlife

Summary: This 2000 Arizona ballot proposition sought to restrict voter initiatives related to wildlife. It was defeated with only 37.5% voting for the measures. According to the summary by the Arizona Legislative Council, Proposition 102 directs the State to manage wildlife in the public trust to assure the continued existence of wildlife populations. Public trust is a legal concept relating to the ownership, protection and use of natural resources. Under the public trust, the State must manage wildlife for the public benefit, which includes both present and future generations. Proposition 102 would also amend the Arizona Constitution to require that any initiative measure relating to the taking of wildlife does not go into effect unless it is approved by at least two-thirds of the voters who vote on the measure. Currently, the Arizona Constitution requires a simple majority vote for initiative measures. The two-thirds requirement would also apply to measures authorizing or restricting (1) the methods of taking wildlife (2) the seasons when wildlife may be taken. The two-thirds requirement would not apply to legislative enactments or to measures that the Legislature refers to the voters.

Summary: This Alaska ballot measure would change the Alaska Constitution so that voters could not use the initiative process to make laws that permit, regulate, or prohibit taking or transporting wildlife, or prescribe seasons or methods for taking wildlife. The measure failed with 36% of the vote.

Summary: This Alaska ballot measure was defeated in the November 2004 election. It would have made it illegal for a person to bait or intentionally feed a bear for purposes of hunting, viewing, or photographing the bear. A person who violated this proposed law would have been guilty of a Class A misdemeanor, punishable by up to one-year imprisonment and a fine of up to $10,000. It failed with only 43.3% 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: This article begins by briefly exploring the extent to which wildlife, historically and presently, have a place within our society, culture and legal system. Then, building upon the reality that wildlife, like humans, have personal interests in living their individual lives, suggests five principles for developing laws and programs to better accommodate wildlife interests in the legal system. Individuals, species and geographic groups are presented as focus points for thinking about wildlife interests. Additionally, the three possibilities of who should be the plaintiff for asserting wildlife rights are described: government, private parties, and the wildlife themselves. Finally, the article proposes new paths forward for our system’s wildlife with the goal that their interests in life and habitat can be more forthrightly balanced against competing human interests.

Summary: On the fringes of the frozen continent, penguins, seals, seabirds, and simple vegetation have gained a foothold. Humans have entered their frozen realm as a competitor for space along the coast, the only portion of the continent that can foster life. Humans and animals interact regularly through scientific activities and tourism. This paper will examine the extent of those interactions, as well as some of the negative impacts that human presence has had in Antarctica. Such impacts can range from an oil spill of a science program’s supply ship, to a tourist knocking over a camera tripod onto a penguin chick, crippling it so that it was attacked and had to be euthanized. This Note discusses the current management regime for Antarctic living resources: the Antarctic Treaty System. The Note focuses on when the ATS fails, and when those failures result in harm to Antarctic terrestrial wildlife.

Summary: Many conservation issues replicate the dialogue on wolf introduction and its aftermath, reflecting tension between animal and environmental ethics. This article focuses on the proposal to restore wolves to the role of top predator in the Northeastern United States. It offers ethical guidelines for use in predator restorations where group and individual perspectives chafe, aiming to promote dialogue between environmental and animal ethicists.

Summary: The Law Commission of England and Wales is examining how the country’s rich patchwork of wildlife laws might be updated. At the same time the government, advocates, and the public are in the midst of a vigorous debate over whether badgers should be culled in an effort to control the spread bovine tuberculosis within the United Kingdom. Both of these efforts highlight how divergent views regarding our relationship to wildlife and the natural environment in the 21st century influence both broad questions regarding the structure of laws and regulations affecting wildlife, generally, as well as how to approach very specific problems and issues. While these sorts of debates over wildlife are not new, the vast majority of the population in the U.K. and many other industrialized countries has lost much of its connection to the wild as urbanization has continued to grow. Accordingly, what is new in today’s world is the degree to which popular support for one or another position advanced by interested parties depends not upon actual experience with nature and wildlife but rather with the popular public image of the wildlife at issue—and whether they are perceived as either “good” or “bad”.

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.