Hunting and fishing images may be viewed as animal cruelty

[Spiel]

Hunting and fishing images may be viewed as animal cruelty

U.S. Supreme Court case threatens Outdoor Industry, anglers and hunters

 

 

June 29, 2009 / www.great-lakes.org

 

 

 

A case to be heard by the Supreme Court of the United States might result in serious problems for any person, outlet or entity that shows or sells depictions of hunting and fishing activities.

 

Taking, selling or publishing images of hunting, fishing or trapping could mean felony charges and jail time for journalists, photographers, magazine publishers, television show hosts and producers, Web content publishers, hunters and anglers, in general and many more.

 

This summary and the documents listed below explain the serious risk the government's case against Stevens poses to those who produce depictions of hunting and fishing activities.

 

 

Summary of the Case

 

UNITED STATES of America v. Robert J. STEVENS, Appellant. No. 05-2497

 

Robert J. Stevens of Virginia was convicted of criminal charges for producing and selling films about dogs. Stevens' conviction was overturned as a result of a Third Circuit Court of Appeals decision that said the law relied upon to convict Stevens was unconstitutional.

 

Stevens may still go to prison. The case is now being heard by the Supreme Court of the United States. The outcome could be devastating to all journalists and specifically to the traditional outdoor sports of hunting, fishing and trapping.

 

The Third Circuit struck down a federal law banning "depictions of animal cruelty." 18 USC 48. The statute does not ban acts of animal cruelty themselves (and so this case is not about such actions). It bans images of animals being hurt, wounded or killed if the depicted conduct is illegal under federal law or illegal under the state law either (i) where the creation of the depiction occurs, or (ii)

 

That means that a picture taken of the killing of an animal during a hunt (perfectly lawful where it occurred) could be a federal felony crime if that picture is sold or possessed somewhere in the United States where hunting (or the particular type of hunting, i.e., crossbow)is prohibited.

 

As the court of appeals explained, the law now makes it a federal felony to buy a picture of bullfighting in Spain or an image shot by a journalist of a hunter or angler taking a shot at a legal game animal or catching a fish ― if that action is unlawful anywhere in the U.S.

 

The law creates an exception if a jury finds that the images have "serious" value. The government defined "serious" as "significant and of great import." The result accordingly is that all depictions of animal killings that might be unlawful somewhere in the U.S. are now presumptively federal felonies, with the only hope of protection being that a jury in San Francisco (or wherever an eager prosecutor wants to go) agrees that the images are "significant and of great import."

 

The government and Humane Society, which is pushing this issue hard, are trying to paint this as a case about dog fighting, since that incites peoples' emotions. It's about the First Amendment.

 

Mr. Stevens is a 69-year-old hunter and Pit Bull dog lover from Southern Virginia. He is a published author. He has no criminal record at all ― other than this conviction. He has been sentenced to more than three years (37 months) in prison for making films, nothing else.

 

A prosecutor hauled him to Pittsburgh, perhaps because obtaining a conviction in rural Virginia would be difficult, to prosecute him for: one documentary he made about training catch dogs for hunting (called "Catch Dogs"); and two documentaries he made about Pit Bulls and their fighting history.

 

For that, Stevens faces spending three years in federal prison.

 

Of particular concern to the hunting and fishing industry is the fact Stevens' prosecution rested on his film "Catch Dogs," which showed how dogs are trained to help catch prey (wild boar, etc.). The film shows a dog making a mistake in trying to catch a hog, but does so with Stevens talking over the images about the training mistake and explaining what should be done to teach dogs to catch prey properly.

 

There is no allegation that Stevens engaged in dog fighting or any acts of animal cruelty. Nor is it even alleged that the images depicted in his films were illegal when taken. Furthermore, he did not take the images himself, but edited together films taken by others ― films that were recorded in Japan, where the conduct is perfectly legal, and from historic films from the ‘60s and ‘70s in rural America.

 

To be sure, the latter two films contain extensive images of dog fighting. But Stevens is not a dog fighter, he opposes dog fighting, but loves the traits in Pit Bulls that made them fighters.

 

Stevens' films were made to document the strength, endurance, and similar features of Pit Bulls to support his argument (made at length in his book) that Pit Bulls make great hunting dogs, protection dogs, and schutzhund (strength contests) dogs.

 

The case has the potential to make it a felony to sell or publish images of hunting, fishing, trapping, and virtually anything else that's ruled as a "depiction of animal cruelty."

 

 

 

For more info view these links:

 

Decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in United States v. Robert Stevens

 

Brief in Opposition – filed before the U.S. Supreme Court

 

 

The Professional Outdoor Media Association, a writers group comprised of mainly hunting and angling journalists is playing a leading role in informing the public of this issue, largely because they are at risk as they pursue their vocation and assignments if the Humane Society prevails in court. POMA is also encouraging journalists and others to sign on to the First Amendment Brief defending the Constitutional rights of hunters and anglers as they pursue the culture of traditional outdoor activities.