Court of Appeals Upholds Major Sportsmen’s Victory in Maine
U.S. Sportsmen’s Alliance Foundation and Leading Trapping Groups
Win Again in Precedent Setting Case
(Columbus) – Trappers in Maine and sportsmen nationwide scored a huge victory after a Federal Court of Appeals rejected an effort from anti-hunting groups seeking to use the Endangered Species Act (ESA) to stop trapping in the state. This decision reaffirms a lower court decision that set a precedent against manipulation of the ESA to stop hunting, fishing, and trapping.
“We are ecstatic and relieved that this lawsuit is no longer a threat to our lifestyle as we prepare to open the 2010 trapping season,” said Skip Trask of the Maine Trappers Association. “The Maine Trappers Association couldn’t be happier with this decision. It is much more than just a victory for Maine. This decision will help protect all trapping and other sports from coast to coast. We appreciate the support and guidance of the U.S. Sportsmen's Alliance Foundation (USSAF) legal team and all of our partners.”
The anti-hunting groups had originally filed the suit in 2008 against the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife. They had argued that Maine’s trapping regulations provided insufficient protection for the Canada lynx, a species listed as threatened under the ESA, and thus required the season to be stopped.
The USSAF, along with the Maine Trappers’ Association, Fur Takers of America, National Trappers’ Association, and several individual sportsmen, intervened in the case on behalf of the state. The groups argued that those seeking to shut down an entire season of trapping (or hunting or fishing) must not only prove the incidental take of an ESA-protected species, but also “irreparable harm” to the population.
In the initial lower court decision, Judge Woodcock concluded that the take of individual members of a reasonably numerous protected species does not necessarily meet the requirement of irreparable harm. He also indicated that the take of lynx occurring in Maine foothold traps, typically catch-and-release incidents, did not constitute irreparable harm in this case. Consequently, Judge Woodcock declined the injunction and the trapping season was able to take place.
Unhappy with the result, the anti-hunting groups filed an appeal in December, 2009 seeking to reverse Judge Woodcock’s decision. The USSAF and the others immediately filed legal briefs in order to defend the major legal victory.
In the unanimous opinion rejecting the appeal, Chief Judge Lynch affirmed Judge Woodcock’s findings that the plaintiffs’ failed to demonstrate the irreparable harm necessary for an injunction. Judge Lynch then went on to criticize the plaintiffs’ last-minute request for lesser sanctions restricting trapping. In the lower court, Animal Welfare Institute (AWI) expressly refused that option and instead pursued a full ban on trapping.
“It may well have done so for tactical reasons, preferring to stress the inadequacy of other remedies in order to strengthen its case for injunctive relief against foothold traps,” wrote Lynch. “Parties are held to their choices and AWI's bait and switch tactics in the courts are to be deplored, not rewarded.”
The latest decision should assist in the defense of any further lawsuits by anti-trappers. It leaves the plaintiffs in this case with few options other than a petition to ask the U.S. Supreme Court to review the case. The Supreme Court agrees to consider only a few dozen cases a year out of the many hundreds of cases filed with it each year.
“It was clear all along that anti-hunters were looking to set a precedent that could be used in state after state to shut down not only trapping, but hunting and fishing as well,” said Bud Pidgeon, USSAF president and CEO. “With this strong decision, antis are going to have a far more difficult time doing this.”
About the U.S. Sportsmen’s Alliance Foundation
The U.S. Sportsmen’s Alliance Foundation protects and defends America’s wildlife conservation programs and the pursuits – hunting, fishing, trapping, and shooting – that generate the money to pay for them. The Foundation is responsible for public education, legal defense and research. Its mission is accomplished through several distinct programs coordinated to provide the most complete defense capability possible.
About the U.S. Sportsmen’s Alliance
The U.S. Sportsmen’s Alliance is a national association of sportsmen and sportsmen’s organizations that protects the rights of hunters, anglers and trappers in the courts, legislatures, at the ballot, in Congress and through public education programs. For more information about the U.S. Sportsmen’s Alliance and its work, call (614) 888-4868 or visit its website, www.ussportsmen.org.
Showing posts with label trapping. Show all posts
Showing posts with label trapping. Show all posts
Monday, October 25, 2010
Thursday, June 11, 2009
Results of the Mass trapping ban...
From the NYTimes
They forget to mention that beaver evolved with humans and need to be harvested (trapped) to keep them from eating themselves out of house and home. In Mass many towns banned trapping, until they went under water, then a state wide ballad initiative banned most forms of trapping, and then they wonder why they are going under water again? Lots of city folks down there are very slow learners....
They forget to mention that beaver evolved with humans and need to be harvested (trapped) to keep them from eating themselves out of house and home. In Mass many towns banned trapping, until they went under water, then a state wide ballad initiative banned most forms of trapping, and then they wonder why they are going under water again? Lots of city folks down there are very slow learners....
Return of the Once-Rare Beaver? Not in My Yard.
By CORNELIA DEAN
Around the nation, decades of conservation efforts and changing land use have brought many species, like beavers, so far back from the brink that they are viewed as nuisances.
Friday, December 26, 2008
Retrieval and Utilization Proposed Rule
The following rule has passed the first vote of the VT Fish and Wildlife Board. I served on a working group representing the VT Federation of Sportsmen's clubs that helped put the language together. Our wording was reworked by the FWD and then presented to the Board. It will now go out for public hearings. Dates to be announced.
Currently Vermont has only had the Federal rule dealing with migratory waterfowl wanton waste. This new rule is an attempt to set a bottom line (admittedly pretty low) for hunter behavior. It makes enforceable what is a very strong ethic among all responsible hunters to retrieve all animals shot at and fully us what you take. We did not come up with a way to deal with the few families that regularly hang big game and coyotes and let them spoil.
Look over the rule and let me know what you think:
Rule Governing the Retrieval and Utilization of Fish and Wildlife
Version 6, 12-11-08
1.0 Authority
1.1 This rule is promulgated pursuant to 10 V.S.A. §§ 4081 and 4082. In promulgating this rule, the Fish and Wildlife Board is following the policy established by the General Assembly that the protection, propagation, control, management, and conservation of fish, wildlife, and furbearing animals in this state is in the interest of the public welfare and that the safeguarding of these valuable resources for the people of the state requires a constant and continual vigilance.
1.2 In accordance with 10 V.S.A. § 4082, this rule is designed to maintain the best health, population, and utilization levels of Vermont’s wildlife.
1.3 This rule applies to all persons taking or attempting to take game, small game, and fish by hunting, fishing and trapping.
2.0 Purpose
The purpose of this rule is to ensure proper retrieval and utilization of the State’s fish and wildlife resources.
3.0 Definitions
3.1 “Abandon” means to take, but not retrieve, or retain in an individual’s possession, any game, small game or fish..
3.2 “Game” means game birds or game quadrupeds, or both.
3.3 “Small game” means game birds except for turkeys; game quadrupeds except for big game; furbearers and other wild animals.
3.4 “Take and taking” means pursuing, shooting, hunting, killing, capturing, trapping, snaring and all lesser acts, such as disturbing, harrying or worrying or wounding or placing, setting, drawing or using any net or other device commonly used to take animals, whether they result in the taking or not; and shall include every attempt to take and every act of assistance to every other person in taking or attempting to take fish or wild animals, provided that when taking is allowed by law, such a taking must be by lawful means and in a lawful manner.
3.5 Any term not defined herein has the meaning accorded to it in 10 V.S.A. § 4001.
4.0 Activities and Restrictions
4.1 Hunting: No person may take any game or small game species by means of hunting and abandon the carcass. A reasonable effort must be made to retrieve any taken or wounded game or small game animal and the retrieved animal must be immediately made part of the daily or seasonal bag limit. This regulation does not apply to an animal taken in accordance with 10 V.S.A. § 4828.
4.2 Fishing: No person may take any fish species by legal means and abandon it on land or on top of any frozen body of water. Any fish that is not retained as part of a person’s daily creel limit shall be returned to the water body from which it was taken, using reasonable care to keep the fish alive. This regulation does not apply to baitfish as defined in Section 5 of Title 10, Appendix Section 122.
4.3 Trapping: A person who takes a furbearing animal shall not abandon any usable pelt.
4.4 Sick or diseased animals: Sick or diseased animals may be left in place and shall be reported immediately to a representative of the Vermont Fish and Wildlife Department, including state Game Wardens.
4.5 Exemption for Crop and Property Damage: This rule does not apply to any animal taken in accordance with the following provisions
10 V.S.A. § 4826 (Deer)
10 V.S.A. § 4827 (Bear)
10 V.S.A. § 4828 (Rabbits and furbearers)
T.10 App. § 35 (Moose)
T.10 App. § 22a. (Turkeys)
(Eric's note- these last statutes deal with animals taken in defense of property and crops. They have specific provisions on how the carcass may be handled.)
Two questions arise: Do we need this rule and should coyotes be included?
1) Is a rule needed if most hunter, trappers and fishers already do everything included in the rule? I look at this as good news- compliance with written or unwritten rules of behavior is the goal of society. I and the committee felt that yes we needed enforceable rules to be able to force the few poor sportsmen to toe the line. Everything we do is under the microscope and we can't afford actions that endanger the future of our sport.
The other compelling argument is political. The legislature has been considering taking up this issue ever since the coyote hunting contests made headlines a few years ago. The commissioner has been able to hold them off because this rule has been in the works. If it does not pass, it opens the door for them to tackle it. We all know where that could go!
The other good development is the coyote contest organizers are now requiring all animals be skinned and the hides utilized.
2)The working group did not agree with the Department on including coyotes in this rule. The feeling was if Vermont does not have any closed season on them, we should not be forcing people who shoot a coyote when the hide is not prime to remove it from the field, just to through it away.
My personal opinion is we should have a closed season during the spring, summer and early fall on coyotes. Rules could be written to allow damage killing of coyotes that are harming domestic stock and for wildlife in very specific situations. The biology is very clear that killing of coyotes by conventional methods now allowed does not lower the coyote population nor does it help the prey populations to any measurable extent in normal circumstances.
Killing anything just to kill it and for no justifiable purpose is reprehensible to nearly everyone - hunters and non-hunters alike. Our hunter education courses do a good job in teaching this ethic, but a fair number of hunters turn a blind eye on coyotes. Why jeoprodize the future of hunting for no good reason? That said I think the way to go is to fist come up with a season for coyotes, then include them in the retrieval and utilization rule.
OK - let the fur fly - what do you think?
Currently Vermont has only had the Federal rule dealing with migratory waterfowl wanton waste. This new rule is an attempt to set a bottom line (admittedly pretty low) for hunter behavior. It makes enforceable what is a very strong ethic among all responsible hunters to retrieve all animals shot at and fully us what you take. We did not come up with a way to deal with the few families that regularly hang big game and coyotes and let them spoil.
Look over the rule and let me know what you think:
Rule Governing the Retrieval and Utilization of Fish and Wildlife
Version 6, 12-11-08
1.0 Authority
1.1 This rule is promulgated pursuant to 10 V.S.A. §§ 4081 and 4082. In promulgating this rule, the Fish and Wildlife Board is following the policy established by the General Assembly that the protection, propagation, control, management, and conservation of fish, wildlife, and furbearing animals in this state is in the interest of the public welfare and that the safeguarding of these valuable resources for the people of the state requires a constant and continual vigilance.
1.2 In accordance with 10 V.S.A. § 4082, this rule is designed to maintain the best health, population, and utilization levels of Vermont’s wildlife.
1.3 This rule applies to all persons taking or attempting to take game, small game, and fish by hunting, fishing and trapping.
2.0 Purpose
The purpose of this rule is to ensure proper retrieval and utilization of the State’s fish and wildlife resources.
3.0 Definitions
3.1 “Abandon” means to take, but not retrieve, or retain in an individual’s possession, any game, small game or fish..
3.2 “Game” means game birds or game quadrupeds, or both.
3.3 “Small game” means game birds except for turkeys; game quadrupeds except for big game; furbearers and other wild animals.
3.4 “Take and taking” means pursuing, shooting, hunting, killing, capturing, trapping, snaring and all lesser acts, such as disturbing, harrying or worrying or wounding or placing, setting, drawing or using any net or other device commonly used to take animals, whether they result in the taking or not; and shall include every attempt to take and every act of assistance to every other person in taking or attempting to take fish or wild animals, provided that when taking is allowed by law, such a taking must be by lawful means and in a lawful manner.
3.5 Any term not defined herein has the meaning accorded to it in 10 V.S.A. § 4001.
4.0 Activities and Restrictions
4.1 Hunting: No person may take any game or small game species by means of hunting and abandon the carcass. A reasonable effort must be made to retrieve any taken or wounded game or small game animal and the retrieved animal must be immediately made part of the daily or seasonal bag limit. This regulation does not apply to an animal taken in accordance with 10 V.S.A. § 4828.
4.2 Fishing: No person may take any fish species by legal means and abandon it on land or on top of any frozen body of water. Any fish that is not retained as part of a person’s daily creel limit shall be returned to the water body from which it was taken, using reasonable care to keep the fish alive. This regulation does not apply to baitfish as defined in Section 5 of Title 10, Appendix Section 122.
4.3 Trapping: A person who takes a furbearing animal shall not abandon any usable pelt.
4.4 Sick or diseased animals: Sick or diseased animals may be left in place and shall be reported immediately to a representative of the Vermont Fish and Wildlife Department, including state Game Wardens.
4.5 Exemption for Crop and Property Damage: This rule does not apply to any animal taken in accordance with the following provisions
10 V.S.A. § 4826 (Deer)
10 V.S.A. § 4827 (Bear)
10 V.S.A. § 4828 (Rabbits and furbearers)
T.10 App. § 35 (Moose)
T.10 App. § 22a. (Turkeys)
(Eric's note- these last statutes deal with animals taken in defense of property and crops. They have specific provisions on how the carcass may be handled.)
Two questions arise: Do we need this rule and should coyotes be included?
1) Is a rule needed if most hunter, trappers and fishers already do everything included in the rule? I look at this as good news- compliance with written or unwritten rules of behavior is the goal of society. I and the committee felt that yes we needed enforceable rules to be able to force the few poor sportsmen to toe the line. Everything we do is under the microscope and we can't afford actions that endanger the future of our sport.
The other compelling argument is political. The legislature has been considering taking up this issue ever since the coyote hunting contests made headlines a few years ago. The commissioner has been able to hold them off because this rule has been in the works. If it does not pass, it opens the door for them to tackle it. We all know where that could go!
The other good development is the coyote contest organizers are now requiring all animals be skinned and the hides utilized.
2)The working group did not agree with the Department on including coyotes in this rule. The feeling was if Vermont does not have any closed season on them, we should not be forcing people who shoot a coyote when the hide is not prime to remove it from the field, just to through it away.
My personal opinion is we should have a closed season during the spring, summer and early fall on coyotes. Rules could be written to allow damage killing of coyotes that are harming domestic stock and for wildlife in very specific situations. The biology is very clear that killing of coyotes by conventional methods now allowed does not lower the coyote population nor does it help the prey populations to any measurable extent in normal circumstances.
Killing anything just to kill it and for no justifiable purpose is reprehensible to nearly everyone - hunters and non-hunters alike. Our hunter education courses do a good job in teaching this ethic, but a fair number of hunters turn a blind eye on coyotes. Why jeoprodize the future of hunting for no good reason? That said I think the way to go is to fist come up with a season for coyotes, then include them in the retrieval and utilization rule.
OK - let the fur fly - what do you think?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
