I dislike hunting as a sport.

Generally speaking, what would the laws in North America have to say
about someone "claiming" a wild animal (perhaps by spraying it with
paint), and then threatening to shoot any hunters who took aim at "my"
animal?

I have a sinking feeling that only hunters have rights. In other
words, if you shoot and kill a deer, then the carcass belongs to you.
But you have to kill it. You can't just put a collar on it, call it
Fluffy, and expect that the animal now belongs to you. Or can you?

Is there anything that I can do to prevent hunters from shooting for
sport, short of putting myself in front of the animal?

---

Request for Question Clarification by pafalafa-ga on 16 Apr 2005 14:59 PDT

Spray paint????  Why not just hang a bullsey on the poor critter?

You're right, though...the laws are generally stacked in favor of the
hunters.  And it can be dangerous business to try and actively
interfere.

PETA -- the People for the ethical Treatment of Animals -- is either
famous or notrious for their anit-hunting stance, among other things. 
You can find some suggestions from them here:


http://www.peta.org/factsheet/files/FactsheetDisplay.asp?ID=53
Why Sport Hunting Is Cruel and Unnecessary

specifically, they suggest:


-----
What You Can Do
Before you support a ?wildlife? or ?conservation? group, ask about its
position on hunting. Groups such as the National Wildlife Federation,
the National Audubon Society, the Sierra Club, the Izaak Walton
League, the Wilderness Society, the World Wildlife Fund, and many
others are pro-sport-hunting or, at the very least, they do not oppose
it.

To combat hunting in your area, post ?no hunting? signs on your land,
join or form an anti-hunting organization, protest organized hunts,
and spread deer repellent or human hair (from barber shops) near
hunting areas. Call 1-800-448-NPCA to report poachers in national
parks to the National Parks and Conservation Association. Educate
others about hunting. Encourage your legislators to enact or enforce
wildlife protection laws, and insist that nonhunters be equally
represented on wildlife agency staffs.
-----

The PETA site also has national and local contact information should
you want some more information from them.

Let me know if that's helpful, and if so, what other sort of
information you would like to make for a complete answer to your
question.

Thanks...and thanks for caring about the animals.  

paf

---

Clarification of Question by rambler-ga on 16 Apr 2005 17:21 PDT

You've just about answered my question, but let me try to be as
specific as I can:  In a place where it is perfectly legal to hunt, is
there absolutely nothing that I can do besides protesting or spreading
repellant (as your link suggests)?

If I go into a hunting area with my pet dog, surely it would be
illegal for a hunter to come along and shoot my dog. First of all,
it's a dog, not "fair game". But, more importantly, the dog belongs to
me; it's my property. Surely anyone who shoots my dog could be
punished by law.

So how about this: I shoot a splotch of green paint onto an animal and
post signs saying that such animals have been shot and now belong to
me. Hunters who shoot "my" animals will be arrested and prosecuted for
-- what? What would they be guilty of? I'm looking for some way that I
can mark wild animals as belonging to me, and are no longer fair game.

---

Clarification of Question by rambler-ga on 18 Apr 2005 20:03 PDT

To pafalafa-ga:

Please post your comments as an official answer.  I appreciate the
effort you made to answer my question.

---

Request for Question Clarification by pafalafa-ga on 18 Apr 2005 20:07 PDT

Thanks for the invitation to post my remarks as an answer. 

However, I can't help feeling that you're looking for more information
still, and didn't quite get it yet.

Please let me know if there's anything else I can do for you (short of
adopting Bambi) and I'll try my best.

paf

---

Clarification of Question by rambler-ga on 19 Apr 2005 14:23 PDT

I was hoping that marking a wild animal (perhaps with green paint, for
example) would be enough to establish ownership (like branding
cattle), and thus protect the animal from being killed.

Are there any laws that come close to this idea of "branding" (by paint)?

Hi,
I can appreciate your feelings, but in many areas, if there were no
hunting, the population of deer would increase to a level of
over-population that resulted in the deer dying from lack of food.
That is no answer, just an explanitary comment  (I can't spell tonight).

Yes, if you could catch one, you could put a collar on him and take
him home, in theory.  Maybe the ASPCA would not approve, however.

you can protect the deer on your property (if there are any) by
putting up 'no hunting' signs.  if you want to protect more deer, then
buy more property with deer no it and post more signs!

A classic legal issue! You can capture the animal and remove it to
your property. The key is that you need to take possession of the wild
animal, at which piont it becomes your chattle. If you, however, let
it go again in a hunting area, well, nothing to do about it. What kind
of hunting area is it? Private property? I'd certainly not suggest
that you tresspass, but if its public property, and you dont mind
getting "accidentally" shot at, there is nothing to stoo you from
taking a stroll - a LOUD stroll- in the woods. You cant install deer
scare away divices to keep the deer off a neighbors property. Unless,
maybe, you said that you didnt want deer on YOUR property, causing
turf damage or some such.

Hi Rambler,
again, regardless of how you feel about it, hunters do have rights. 
If they have bought their deer hunting license, then they have the
right to the shoot the number of deer allowed by it.
That raises the question:  By what right does the state assume/presume
that it can "sell" "its" deer?  Is it based on / an extension of the
old European rights of the king to all game?
That could be an interesting legal question:  Could one claim that the
state had no right to insist on game licenses, since this basis for
issuing them was rooted in an historical legal situation that had no
application in USA?

That won't help you, but it could be an interesting subject for a doctoral thesis.