Tag: Trapping

Washington State Supreme Court Upholds Ban on Animal Traps

On June 19, 2003 the Washington State Supreme Court rejected a legal challenge to a November 2000 voter-approved initiative that banned the use of body-gripping traps and a number of poisons when used to capture mammals for recreation or commercial purposes.

Citizens for Responsible Wildlife Management had challenged the ban claiming the wording of the initiative violated several sections of that state’s constitution. Specifically CRWM pointed out that the Washington State Constitution required that,

a. “no bill shall embrace more than one subject, and that shall be expressed in the title?

b. ?no act shall ever be revised or amended by mere reference to its title, but the act revised or the section amended shall be set forth in full length?

But the Washington State Supreme Court rejected that argument. Justice Faith Ireland wrote for the majority that,

A more moderate interpretation, as compared to those offered by the parties, is that the title deals with banning methods of trapping and killing animals. Using the above quoted examples of general and restrictive titles to guide the determination here, I-713’s title is general. I-713’s title contains specific topics as well, namely, body- gripping traps and pesticides. As in Amalgamated, however, those topics are merely incidental to the general topic reflected in the title – a ban on methods of trapping and killing animals. The title for I-713 is most accurately described as general and does not contain two subjects. However, even if we assume, arguendo, that the title is restrictive, it is still a constitutionally valid title. The subjects of trap and pesticide use for animals are related so as not to be the individual, disjointed subjects that Citizens contend they are. The provisions in the initiative governing the types of traps and pesticides that may be used are fairly within the subject expressed in the title.

This was a victory for the Humane Society of the United States which successfully pushed the initiative.

Having lost in this case Citizens for Responsible Wildlife Management is still pursuing a separate lawsuit to invalidated both I-713 and I-655, which passed in 1996 and banned bear-baiting and cougar hunting with hounds. For that lawsuit, the CRWM is using a Public Trust Doctrine argument which it summarizes as,

The doctrine, simply stated, recognizes that sovereign (representative government) has the sole and exclusive administrative obligation and responsibility to protect, manage and conserve navigable waters, fish and wildlife for the enjoyment and use by the public for transportation, commerce and related activities and purposes.

CRWM is arguing that while a state legislature could ban bear baiting, such a ban could not be enacted via a voter initiative because it impinges on the Public Trust situated in the representative legislature.

Source:

High court upholds state trapping ban. Paul Query, The Associated Press, June 20, 2003.

A Brief Explanation of the NO-713 and Public Trust Doctrine Lawsuits. Washingtonians for Wildlife Conservation, Press Release.

Alaska Supreme Court Turns Back Friend of Animals Appeal

In what will likely be the last legal maneuver in a case that started in 1997, The Fairbanks News-Daily Miner reports that the Alaska Supreme Court refused to hear an appeal by Friends of Animals over a $200,000 judgment won by wolf trapper Eugene Johnson against the animal rights group.

In 1997, Johnson sued Friends of Animals and wildlife biologist Gordon Haber over the release of a wolf from a trap owed by Johnson. Haber released the wolf — which was found dead about three weeks later with wire from the trap still in its feet — while he was in Alaska doing research funded by Friends of Animals. Haber later distributed a videotape of the wolf’s release, and Johnson sued both Haber and Friends of Animals.

A jury found in Johnson’s favor and awarded him damages of $100,000 from Friends of Animals and $79,000 from Haber.

Friends of Animals appealed the verdict arguing that Haber was not acting as an agent of Friends of Animals when he released the wolf. An Alaska Superior Court judge rejected its first appeal in 2002, and the Alaska Supreme Court’s rejection of the appeal is pretty much then end of the animal rights groups options. It could appeal to the United States Supreme Court, but as the Fairbanks Daily-News Miner noted, given that there are no federal issues involved such an appeal would certainly be rejected by the Supreme Court.

Johnson died in June 2002, but his estate will likely move to collect on the judgment. Due to another ruling in the case, Johnson’s estate will likely only be able to collect the judgment from the Friends of Animals which Johnson’s attorney said would amount to $120,000 once attorney fees and interest are included.

Sources:

Court will not consider appeal by animal rights group. Dan Rice, Fairbanks Daily-News Miner, April 30, 2003.

Wisconsin Passes Constitutional Amendment to Protect Hunting, Fishing, and Trapping

On April 1, voters in Wisconsin overwhelmingly approved an amendment to that state’s constitution designed to protect hunting and fishing in the state.

The new amendment read,

The people have the right to fish, hunt, trap, and take game subject only to reasonable restrictions as prescribed by law.

Final returns had the amendment passing by a margin of 82-18, with some rural counties voting as high as 94-6 in favor of the amendment.

Supporters of the bill argued that it would help forestall efforts by animal rights activists to restrict or even abolish altogether hunting, fishing and trapping in Wisconsin. Dan Gunderson, executive director of the Wisconsin Hunting and Fishing Alliance, told the Associated Press, “This has always been about our kids and grandkids [rights to hunt and fish]. It isn’t about you or me.”

George Meyer, a former Wisconsin secretary of the state Department of Natural Resources, agreed with Gunderson in telling the Associated Press, “The major impact is 30 or 40 years down the road as there is a drift more from the traditions of hunting and fishing.”

But Alliance for Animals director Cynthia Lott said the amendment was “ridiculous” and would lead to longer legal battles, but wouldn’t fundamentally change the picture in Wisconsin as far as animal rights groups are concerned. Lott told the Associated Press,

This will tie up the court system on really ridiculous battles over whether to hunt and kill certain types of animals.

Wisconsin joins Alabama, Arkansas, California, Georgia, Maine, Minnesota, Rhode Island, Vermont and Virginia in having some sort of constitutional protection of hunting and fishing.

Sources:

Hunting, fishing, trapping amendment passes in landslide. The Associated Press, April 2, 2003.

Voters pass amendment to guarantee hunting, fishing as a right. Channel3000.Com, April 1, 2003.

Alaska Judge Upholds Judgment Against Friends of Animals, Lowers Award

An Alaskan Superior Court judge this week upheld a judgment by a Tok, Alaska jury that held biologist Gordon Haber and Friends of Animals liable for the release of a black wolf from a trap in 1997.

Haber released the wolf from a trap owned by Eugene Johnson; the wolf died several weeks later from injuries related to wire that Haber did not remove from the animal before releasing it.

At the time Haber released the animal, he was conducting research paid for by Friends of Animals. After Haber began distributing a videotape of the wolf’s release, Johnson sued both him and Friends of Animals claiming that the release violated Alaska state law.

In 2000, a jury agreed, awarding Johnson $40,000 in damages from Haber and $150,000 from Friends of Animals. They both appealed that verdict, but Superior Court Judge Richard Savell upheld the jury’s decision while at the same time agreeing that it had overstepped how much it could award in the case.

Savell reduced the award against Friends of Animals to $100,000 and holds Haber liable for about $79,000 in damages, but essentially permits Johnson’s estate (the trapper died in June 2002) to collect from only one defendant.

Neither Haber nor Friends of Animals has said whether it will appeal Savill’s ruling.

Source:

Man who freed wolf loses. Associated Press, September 8, 2002.

Environmentalists vs. Animal Rights Activists

A federal appeals court this week heard a case that pits the National Audubon Society against animal rights groups such as the Humane Society of the United States and the Doris Day Animal League over a 1998 California referendum that banned leg-hold traps.

In November 1998, California voters approved Proposition 4 which banned body-gripping and padded leg-hold traps. The Audubon Society sued soon afterward arguing that the state of California had no authority to prevent federal wildlife managers from using the traps on federal land.

In 2000, a district court agreed, and the animal rights groups appealed.

The Audubon Society points out that without the ability to trap, protecting endangered species from predators becomes next to impossible.

TheHuman Society of the United States’ Wayne Pacelle said his organization offered a settlement but the Audubon Society was unreasonable. “We basically agreed that state law does not trump the Endangered Species Act,” Pacelle told The Mercury News.

But the Audubon Society says that the HSUS settlement did not go far enough, noting that there is also a need to protecting species that are not necessarily endangered.

The appeals court is expected to return its decision sometime in 2003.

Source:

Lawsuit tests conflicting animal rights. Paul Rogers, Mercury News, April 8, 2002.

Georgia House Approves Hunting and Fishing Protection Legislation

In February the Georgia State House voted 144-10 to approve a bill that declares hunting, fishing and trapping an important part of the state’s heritage and economy and grants the state Department of Natural Resources the sole authority to regulate such activities.

The bill was aimed at eliminating a DeKalb country prohibition on snipe hunting and to forestall any other local initiatives to ban hunting, fishing and trapping. The bill now moves on to the state Senate.

Source:

House bill affirms right to hunt, fish. Morris News Service, February 22, 2001.