Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Animal rights activists argue that hunting for sport is cruel, unnecessary, and unethical. [1] [2] They note the pain, suffering and cruelty inflicted on animals who are hunted. [1] [2] The term anti-hunting is used to describe opponents of hunting; while it does not appear to be pejorative, it is widely used as such by pro-hunting people.
The government of Indiana is established and regulated by the Constitution of Indiana. The state-level government consists of three branches: the judicial branch, the legislative branch, and the executive branch. The three branches share power and jointly govern the state of Indiana. County and local governments are also constitutional bodies ...
The Indiana Department of Natural Resources (DNR) is the agency of the U.S. state of Indiana.There are many divisions within the DNR and each has a specific role. The DNR is not only responsible for maintaining resource areas but also manages Indiana's fish and wildlife, reclaims coal mine ground, manages forested areas, aids in the management of wildlife on private lands, enforces Indiana's ...
United States v. Winans, 198 U.S. 371 (1905), was a U.S. Supreme Court case that held that the Treaty with the Yakima of 1855, negotiated and signed at the Walla Walla Council of 1855, as well as treaties similar to it, protected the Indians' rights to fishing, hunting and other privileges.
North American hunting pre-dates the United States by thousands of years and was an important part of many pre-Columbian Native American cultures. Native Americans retain some hunting rights and are exempt from some laws as part of Indian treaties and otherwise under federal law [1] —examples include eagle feather laws and exemptions in the Marine Mammal Protection Act.
Antoine v. Washington, 420 U.S. 194 (1975), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that treaties and laws must be construed in favor of Native Americans (Indians); that the Supremacy Clause precludes the application of state game laws to the tribe; that Congress showed no intent to subject the tribe to state jurisdiction for hunting; and while the state can regulate non ...
The largest amount of opposition and resentment towards Native Americans' fishing and hunting rights stems from the Pacific Northwest. [46] In 1988, the United States government passed a federal Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, which provides the legislative basis for protecting Native lands for their community health and economic growth. [15]
Hunting advocates state that regulated hunting can be a necessary component [11] of modern wildlife management, for example to help maintain a healthy proportion of animal populations within an environment's ecological carrying capacity when natural checks such as natural predators are absent or insufficient, [12] [13] or to provide funding for ...