According to Article 48A "The State shall endeavor to protect and improve the environment and to safeguard the forests and wild life of the country".

That is to say that exist a duty to protect wildlife by guaranteeing its conservation against indiscriminate hunting. But it's not just that. Article 51A.g) includes what he calls "Fundamental duties" as follows: "... protect and improve the natural environment including forests, lakes, rivers and wild life, and to have compassion for living creatures".

All this would allow to conclude that there is a right to take advantage of natural resources but guaranteeing their conservation.

If you need information and jurisprudence about the case of Peru I could provide it.

Atte.

Good Q

FOLLOW

Hunting Laws are generally the power of the individual states to regulate:

10th Amendment- All powers not granted to United States, nor prohibited to the States, are reserved to the States and the people respectively-

(a) No matter how powerful the federal interest involved, Constitution does not give Congress authority to compel the state to regulate or legislate. Congress cant conscript (commandeer**) state governments to act as its agents. New York v. United States(Nuclear Waste) United States v. Printz(Brady Firearm).

(b) Congress cannot compel state legislature or regulatory activity; congress can induce states to act (under Taxing and Spending Power) by putting strings on grants, so long as (1) Spending program is in pursuit of the general welfare (2) the conditions are clearly stated, (3) they relate to the purpose of the program, and (4) they are not unduly coercive, and (5) the condition itself cannot independently be in violation of the Constitution. South Dakota v. Dole (21 year old drinking age). Only one case ruled that a string on grant was unconstitutional for being unduly coercive. Sebelius.

So generally, the hunting of animals is not related to Congress's "interstate commerce" power, so they would have to control the laws related to hunting under their taxing and spending power (i.e. putting strings on grant money to the states (or Indian Reservations) by requiring them to adopt hunting laws to receive money).

So in short, to answer your question, you would need to look to federal grants Congress awards to a state or reservation to determine the hunting privileges each can implement. As far as the Indian Reservations, they are exempt from many of the laws applicable to the states, and I believe each reservation has their own system of laws, so that would require a review of the laws for each reservation.

Brooks

Indeed, it’s as Doctor Witzke maintains, but such activity can be limited by federal law in order to preserve biodiversity

Chapter III, section 11 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act of 1972, permit hunting of wild animals in certain cases: I.e. when the Chief Wildlife Warden is satisfied that any wild animal has become dangerous to human life or is so disabled or deceased and the condition has gone beyond recovery, may order in writing, setting the reason, permit any person to hunt such animal or cause such animal to be hunted.

Under section 12 of the Act, the Chief Wildlife Warden can grant a permit, in writing, stating the reason, to any person to hunt, on payment of prescribed fee, by imposing conditions, for the purpose of education; scientific research; scientific management, by taking previous permission of the central government or the state government as the case may be.

Thank you all .