This highly structured and controlled approach to wildlife law, while clearly establishing the precedent for governmental control, did not transplant very well in American soil.
The rich abundance of wildlife, the character of the people who immigrated, and the vast open spaces resulted in a severe pruning of the English ideas, almost back to the Roman roots.
Its also certain that the power which the colonies thus possessed passed to the states with the separation from the mother country, and remains in them at the present day, in so far as its exercise may be not incompatible with, or restrained by, the rights conveyed to the Federal government by the Constitution.
Thus, the Supreme Court strongly affirmed the right of the states to control the access to and the use of wild animals.
Thus , in China and India and most other countries, primary control over animal issues is at the national level of the government. S., as it is the Provinces that have the primary control over wildlife not the federal Canadian government.
The legal control of wildlife, as recognized under the state ownership doctrine, is based on the fundamental premise that state government has the power to control the taking (by capturing or killing) of all wild animals found within their jurisdiction.
Summary: This article provides a short introduction to the matrix of government interests in controlling wildlife in the United States.
The first solid statement by the Court about state control or interest in wildlife was in , 161 U. The Connecticut statute in question prohibited the possession of certain game birds with intent to transport the birds beyond the state boundaries.
In the transfer of these legal concepts to the English common law system, however, a caveat was added.
As noted by Blackstone, this right of access "still continues in every individual, unless where it is restrained by the civil laws of the country." In several areas, particularly with game animals, the English laws were numerous, complex and very restrictive.
Justice White began the opinion with a very scholarly discussion of the history of governmental control over wildlife, covering Roman, English and French civil law concepts.
His ultimate conclusion was: , which was thus recognized and enforced by the common law of England, was vested in the colonial governments, where not denied by their charters, or in conflict with grants of the royal prerogative.