Hunter Harassment
Displaying 1 - 10 of 55
Title |
Summary |
|---|---|
| AK - Hunting - § 16.05.790. Obstruction or hindrance of lawful hunting, fishing, trapping, or viewing of fish or game | This Alaska law constitutes the state's hunter harassment law. Under the law, a person may not intentionally obstruct or hinder another person's lawful hunting, fishing, trapping, or viewing of fish and game. Only a peace officer may arrest a person for violation of this section. Exclusions include lawful competitive hunting, actions taken on private property with the consent of the landowner, and obstruction or hindrance by a person actively engaged in lawful hunting, fishing, or trapping activities. Violation is a misdemeanor with a fine of not more than $500 or imprisonment for not more than 30 days, or both. |
| AL - Hunting - Article 8A. Interference with Legal Hunting or Fishing. | This section of law reflects Alabama's hunter harassment provisions. Under the section, no person shall willfully and knowingly prevent, obstruct, impede, disturb, or interfere with, or attempt to prevent, obstruct, impede, disturb, or interfere with any person who is legally hunting or fishing. Prohibited activities include creating a visual, aural, olfactory, or physical stimulus intended to affect the natural behavior of the wild animal being hunted or fish for the purpose of fishing, or affecting the condition or location of personal property intended for use in the hunting or fishing. Any person violating this article is guilty of a Class C misdemeanor. |
| AR - Hunting - Chapter 71. Riots, Disorderly Conduct, | This law comprises Arkansas' hunter harassment law. Under the law, it is unlawful for any person to willfully obstruct or impede the participation of any individual in the lawful activity of shooting, hunting, fishing, or trapping in this state. The section also allows a person to obtain an injunction based on a showing that the hunting/fishing/trapping conduct is threatened or that the obstructive conduct has occurred in the past and it is not unreasonable to expect it to be repeated. Further, a person adversely affected by the obstructive conduct may be awarded damages, including punitive damages. If a person violates this section and is in possession of a firearm, the person is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor; otherwise, violation is a Class B misdemeanor. |
| AZ - Hunting - § 17-316. Interference with rights of hunters; classification; civil action; exceptions | This law represents Arizona's hunter harassment law. Under the law, it is a class 2 misdemeanor for a person while in a hunting area to intentionally interfere with, prevent or disrupt the lawful taking of wildlife as defined under the law. It is a class 3 misdemeanor for a person to enter or remain on a designated hunting area on any public or private lands or waters or state lands including state trust lands with the intent to interfere with, prevent or disrupt the lawful taking of wildlife. "Incidental interference" arising from lawful activity by public land users is not unlawful under this section. |
| Brown v. Kemp | 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. |
| Brown v. Kemp | 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. |
| CT - Hunting - Chapter 952. Penal Code: Offenses | This statute comprises Connecticut's hunter harassment law. A person violates this section by intentionally or knowingly doing such things as driving or disturbing wildlife for the purpose of disrupting the lawful taking of wildlife; blocking, impeding, or otherwise harassing a person who is lawfully taking wildlife; using natural or artificial visual, aural, olfactory or physical stimuli to affect wildlife behavior; erecting barriers; interjecting oneself in the line of fire; or remaining on private lands without permission with the intent to violate this section. Any person who violates any provision of this section shall be guilty of a class C misdemeanor. |
| DE - Hunting - Chapter 7. Regulations and Prohibitions Concerning Game and Fish. Subchapter I. General Provisions. § 724. Wilful | This Delaware law reflects the state's hunter harassment provision. Under the law, no person shall wilfully obstruct or impede the participation of any individual in the lawful taking of fish, crabs, oysters, clams or frogs; the lawful hunting of game birds or animals; or the lawful trapping of any game animals. Violation is a class B environmental misdemeanor. Incidental interference is not unlawful. |
| Dorman v. Satti |
The federal district court here considered the constitutionality of Connecticut’s Hunter Harassment Act (Conn.Gen.Stat. Section 53a-183a) of 1985. The plaintiff was arrested under the Act after she approached hunters who were hunting waterfowl in public lands adjacent to her property and attempted to verbally dissuade them from hunting. The charge was ultimately dismissed, but plaintiff brought a Section 1983 action to adjudicate the constitutionality of the Act. In finding the Act unconstitutionally vague and overbroad, the Court found that it criminalized constitutionally protected speech. Specifically, the Court found that the Act failed to define “interference” and did not adequately limit the reach of “acts in preparation” to hunt. |
| FL - Hunting - Chapter 379. Fish and Wildlife Conservation. | This law represents the state's hunter harassment provision. Under the law, a person may not intentionally, within a publicly or privately owned wildlife management or fish management area or on any state-owned water body, interfere with or attempt to prevent the lawful taking of fish, game, or nongame animals by another or attempt to disturb wildlife or fish to prevent their lawful taking. Any person who violates this section commits a Level Two violation. |