United States

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: 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: 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 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 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: In Baker , the defendant fed and watered four cats that lived in the neighborhood. These cats damaged the plaintiff’s home, destroying insulation, a vapor barrier, and duct work. The cats also urinated and defecated in the crawl space of the home. In the Superior Court, the plaintiff argued that a town ordinance and a county ordinance independently imposed a duty on the defendant to control the cats and prevent them from damaging the plaintiff's property. The court found, however, that since the defendant was participating in a Trap Neuter and Release program, the county ordinance could not serve as a basis for finding that the defendant was negligent in caring for the feral cats. The court went on to reject two alternative theories of negligence also proffered by the plaintiff. The plaintiff had therfore failed to establish that the defendant was negligent in her actions and judgment was entered in favor of the defendant.

Summary: This press release announces listing polar bears as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act.