United States

Share |

WV - Hunting, Internet - § 20-2-5. Unlawful methods of hunting and fishing and other unlawful acts.

Summary: This statute prohibits unlawful hunting in the state of West Virginia. Subsection (a)(27) effectively serves as the remote hunting ban. It is unlawful for any person to "[h]unt or conduct hunts for a fee when the person is not physically present in the same location as the wildlife being hunted within West Virginia." The statute (subsection (5)) also prohibits hunting by airplane or other airborne conveyance or by "a drone or other unmanned aircraft." Subsection (12) prohibits hunting by use of a ferret.

This statute prohibits unlawful hunting in the state of West Virginia. Subsection (a)(27) effectively serves as the remote hunting ban. It is unlawful for any person to "[h]unt or conduct hunts for a fee when the person is not physically present in the same location as the wildlife being hunted within West Virginia." The statute (subsection (5)) also prohibits hunting by airplane or other airborne conveyance or by "a drone or other unmanned aircraft." Subsection (12) prohibits hunting by use of a ferret.

CA - Hunting, Internet - § 3003. Internet hunting and associated activities.

Summary: This statute prohibits Internet hunting in the State of California. Under the law, it is unlawful to own or operate a shooting range or site for the purpose of online shooting or spearing of an animal. It is also unlawful to create, maintain, or utilize an Internet Web site, or other service or business in this state, for the purpose of online shooting or spearing of a bird or mammal.

This statute prohibits Internet hunting in the State of California. Under the law, it is unlawful to own or operate a shooting range or site for the purpose of online shooting or spearing of an animal. It is also unlawful to create, maintain, or utilize an Internet Web site, or other service or business in this state, for the purpose of online shooting or spearing of a bird or mammal.

Lira v. Greater Houston German Shepherd Dog Rescue, Inc.

Summary: In this case, plaintiff’s family dog, a German Shepherd named Monte, ran away and was rescued by Greater Houston German Shepherd Dog Rescue (GHGSDR). The organization refused to return the dog to plaintiff, so plaintiff filed suit against GHGSDR. The court found that there is no common law that states that a dog owner loses property rights to its dog if it runs away and is found by someone else. The court also looked to whether or not there was a city ordinance that would determine the proper ownership of the dog. Ultimately, the court found that the city ordinance regarding stray dogs did not strip the plaintiff of ownership rights because the dog had run away. The court also held that if there were any doubts as to the meaning of the ordinance, it should always be read “against a forfeiture of property.” The Supreme Court of Texas reversed judgment of the court of appeals and rendered judgment reinstating the trial court's judgment that Monte belonged to the Liras and the court properly enjoined GHGSDR to return him to his owners. 

In this case, plaintiff’s family dog, a German Shepherd named Monte, ran away and was rescued by Greater Houston German Shepherd Dog Rescue (GHGSDR). The organization refused to return the dog to plaintiff, so plaintiff filed suit against GHGSDR. The court found that there is no common law that states that a dog owner loses property rights to its dog if it runs away and is found by someone else. The court also looked to whether or not there was a city ordinance that would determine the proper ownership of the dog. Ultimately, the court found that the city ordinance regarding stray dogs did not strip the plaintiff of ownership rights because the dog had run away. The court also held that if there were any doubts as to the meaning of the ordinance, it should always be read “against a forfeiture of property.” The Supreme Court of Texas reversed judgment of the court of appeals and rendered judgment reinstating the trial court's judgment that Monte belonged to the Liras and the court properly enjoined GHGSDR to return him to his owners. 

RI - Hunting, Internet - § 20-1-25. Internet Hunting

Summary: This statute prohibits internet hunting of any bird or animal within the state of Rhode Island. Violations of this section is a misdemeanor, punishable by a fine of not more than five hundred dollars ($500) or imprisonment for up to ninety (90) days, or both.

This statute prohibits internet hunting of any bird or animal within the state of Rhode Island. Violations of this section is a misdemeanor, punishable by a fine of not more than five hundred dollars ($500) or imprisonment for up to ninety (90) days, or both.

PA - Hunting, Internet - § 7641. Computer-assisted remote harvesting of animals

Summary: This statute prohibits computer-assisted remote hunting and the operation of computer assisted hunting facilities in the state of Pennsylvania. Violation is a misdemeanor of the third degree.

This statute prohibits computer-assisted remote hunting and the operation of computer assisted hunting facilities in the state of Pennsylvania. Violation is a misdemeanor of the third degree.

NH - Hunting, Internet - § 207:8-a. Remote Control or Internet Hunting Prohibited

Summary: This statute prohibits engaging in internet hunting or assisting another person in internet hunting within the state of New Hampshire. Any person who violates this section is guilty of a class A misdemeanor if a natural person and guilty of a felony if any other person. In addition, the executive director may impose a civil penalty of not less than $10,000 for each violation of this section.

This statute prohibits engaging in internet hunting or assisting another person in internet hunting within the state of New Hampshire. Any person who violates this section is guilty of a class A misdemeanor if a natural person and guilty of a felony if any other person. In addition, the executive director may impose a civil penalty of not less than $10,000 for each violation of this section.

NE - Hunting, Internet - § 37-571, 37-572, 37-573. Hunt through the Internet

Summary: These statute prohibits internet hunting and the hosting of internet hunting within the state of Nebraska. Any person who violates subsection (1) or subsection (2) of section 37-572 is guilty of a Class II misdemeanor.

These statute prohibits internet hunting and the hosting of internet hunting within the state of Nebraska. Any person who violates subsection (1) or subsection (2) of section 37-572 is guilty of a Class II misdemeanor.

MN - Hunting, Internet - § 97B.115. Computer-assisted remote hunting prohibition

Summary: This statute prohibits computer-assisted remote hunting within the state of Minnesota. The statute also prohibits the operation or selling of any computer software or service that allows a person to engage in computer-assisted hunting. A person who violates this section is guilty of a misdemeanor.

This statute prohibits computer-assisted remote hunting within the state of Minnesota. The statute also prohibits the operation or selling of any computer software or service that allows a person to engage in computer-assisted hunting. A person who violates this section is guilty of a misdemeanor.

MA - Hunting, Internet - § 65A. Online Shooting or Spearing

Summary: This statute prohibits hunting via the Internet and the operation of online hunting businesses within the state of Massachusetts. Violation is punished by imprisonment in the house of correction for not more than 2 1/2 years or by a fine of not more than $2,500, or by both a fine and imprisonment.

This statute prohibits hunting via the Internet and the operation of online hunting businesses within the state of Massachusetts. Violation is punished by imprisonment in the house of correction for not more than 2 1/2 years or by a fine of not more than $2,500, or by both a fine and imprisonment.
Share |