Agenda - 05-26-1987 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

- z1 g /u r � -� 'jam T The American F ur Resources Institute January 1984 By STEPHEN S. BOYNTON Washington Count LOCAL ORDINANCES THAT BAN TRAPPING: In the recent past I have received several telephone calls asking me whether or not laws passed by local govern- mental entities banning the leghold trap are legal and not in conflict with State law or policy.The real question is whether or not a local governmental entity can pass laws on the management and control of wildlife when that is a function of the State. In two States, this issue has been tested and the local ordinance failed.In Baltimore City County a law was passed prohibiting the use of the leghold trap. The Maryland Trappers Association brought action con- testing the law on the ground that any management-of wildlife was a.function of the State legislature. The Court upheld that position. A similar case was brought by the Connecticut Trappers Association challeng- ing the township which had prohibited the use of the leghold trap. Again, the Court upheld the position that such control of wildlife was a management responsibility of - the State unless(?)so delegated by the State to local governmental entities. Consequently, whether or not a local or- dinance is in conflict with the State will de- pend upon the jurisdiction involved. Some States have, in fact, delegated certain wildlife management authority to govern- mental entities and they are permitted to take such action. Other States, of course, have not. Consequently, each State will have to be reviewed`individually: Copies of the Court decisions in Maryland and Con- . necticut are available. .-