RELEVANT WISCONSIN LEGISLATION
Click
here for DNR News
|
The Wisconsin Constitution Trapping/Hunting/Fishing RIGHTS Amendment
|
PROPOSED SAFE SPACE LEGISLATION
Requirements
1. To insure the safety of companion animals; trappers shall clearly post a warning sign within 3 feet of any set trap on public or dual use land.
2. To insure the safety of individuals walking the border of property adjacent to hunting land; private and public land owners shall
a) maintain a no hunting safe space border around the perimeter of any private or public land whereon hunting is allowed; and,
b) clearly mark, by posting, the perimeter beyond which a weapon may not be discharged; and
c) insure the size of the border from the hunting area to the land's boundary line is the length of the trajectory of the most powerful weapon allowed on the land.
Insurance Required
d) Individual hunters, adult and children, shall be required to carry liability insurance.
e) Private landowners who allow hunting on their land shall be required to carry insurance covering the below civil liability.
f) State taxpayers shall not be required to contribute to hunter liability insurance for public lands. Those who use public land for hunting without such insurance shall not be issued licenses and shall be prohibited from the use of public lands.
Penalties
A land owner shall be held strictly liable for any injury to individuals, domestic animals or property, caused by those adults and children hunting on their land with or without permission
A second offense, whether it be failure to post or injury, shall prohibit the use of that land for hunting until the factors contributing to the offence have been corrected. An injury by one uninsured shall prohibit the hunting use of the land from where the weapon was discharged for 10 subsequent years.
Civil Liability
Private and public land owners shall compensate a person who establishes a cause of action under this statute
1) In an amount equal to three times the amount of economic damages; and any special damages.
2) Special damages may include approval fees, travel costs, camping fees, costs for guides, and costs for equipment or supplies to the extent that the plaintiff did not receive the full value of any of these expenditures due to the unlawful conduct of the defendant, cost for home care including cleaning services while an individual is incapacitated, tutoring if an individual was in any educational program at the time of injury, psychological services if traumatic injury has occurred, veterinary bills including heroic measure to restore normal functioning, ambulatory services for any wounded human or animal needing immediate removal to a source of medical services, vehicle towing or rental, and any other special costs associated with the injury.
3) All personal injury damages applicable including amounts for pain and suffering; for loss of consortium; and,
4) For purposes of this act, the owner of any companion animal killed or injured may recover personal injury damages for Traumatic Neurosis or Severe Emotional Distress; and,
5) Punitive damages; and,
6) Court costs and reasonable attorney's fees.
7) Debts created by liability under this section are non-dischargeable in bankruptcy and these debts have priority in the disposition of assets in bankruptcy.
Registration
The department shall create a record of each individual who commits an offense under the Safe Place Statue or who is convicted of a crime initially charged under any of Wisconsin's animal cruelty or related statutes.
A record created under this section must include
(1) The individual's name, residence address, and signature and an annual photograph of the individual.
(2) If an individual who is the subject of a record makes a change in name or address, the individual shall, not later than the 30th day after making the change, provide to the department written notice of the change.
(3) The offense, and if an injury occurred, whether any victim was compensated as described by statute.
(4) The department shall maintain an Internet website containing each record described by this section.
(5) A record must remain on the website for at least three years, at which time the individual who is the subject of the record may apply to the department for a hearing on removal of the record. If an injury occurred and the landowner or hunter was uninsured the record shall remain for ten years.
THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE WISCONSIN CONSTITUTION
To create section 26 of article I of the constitution; relating to the right to fish, hunt, trap. and take game (2nd consideration)
Analysis by the Legislative Reference Bureau
EXPLANATION OF PROPOSAL
This proposed constitutional amendment, to be given 2nd consideration by the 2003 legislature for submittal to the voters in April 2003, was first considered by the 2001 legislature in 2001 Senate Joint Resolution 2, which became 2001 Enrolled Joint Resolution 16.
PROCEDURE FOR 2ND CONSIDERATION
When a proposed constitutional amendment is before the legislature on 2nd consideration, any change in the text approved by the preceding legislature causes the
SUBMITTAL TO PEOPLE
Section 8.37, stats., provides that this joint resolution must be filed with the elections board no later than February 18. 2003. in order for the question of ratification to be submitted at the April 2003 spring election.
....
Section 2. Numbering of new provision.
Now, therefore, be it resolved by the assembly, the senate concurring, That
the foregoing proposed amendment to the constitution is agreed to by the 2003 legislature;
and. be it further
Resolved, That the foregoing proposed amendment to the constitution be submitted to a vote of the people at the spring election to be held on April I, 2003;
and. be it further
Resolved, That the question concerning ratification of the foregoing proposed amendment to the constitution be stated on the ballot as follows
QUESTION 1
"Right to fish, hunt, trap, and take game.
Shall section 26 of Article I of the constitution be created to provide that the people have the right to fish. hunt. trap. and take game subject only to reasonable restrictions as prescribed by law?"
LEGISLATION PROTECTING HUNTERS
SPORTSMEN'S GROUP TARGETS ANTI-HUNTERS
January 10, 2003
THE U.S. Sportsmen's Alliance is preparing to launch two nationwide legislative campaigns that may prove to be the largest steps yet taken to bring about the ultimate defeat of the animal rights movement.
The Alliance will work on two fronts to defeat the anti's. First, it will work with key legislators to introduce model bills to help states prosecute animal rights terrorists and organizations.
The Alliance will also campaign for model legislation that will outlaw unproven birth control methods for wildlife.
The U.S. Sportsmen's Alliance prepared The Animal and Ecological Terrorism Act, draft legislation to combat animal rights terrorism, and is promoting the bill to legislators in all 50 states.
The model bill officially recognizes animal and eco-terrorism as a form of domestic terrorism; increases penalties for persons participating in politically motivated acts of animal or eco-terrorism and creates specific penalties for those who encourage, assist or finance these acts of terrorism.
The American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), a bipartisan membership association for conservative state lawmakers, has agreed to review the bill for endorsement.
The draft legislation was recently presented before ALEC's Criminal Justice Task Force and the Homeland Security Working Group.
The Alliance is working with key legislators in Mississippi, New York, Texas, Washington and Wisconsin to have the bill introduced in 2003. The Alliance will initiate a campaign to rally the support of sportsmen and other groups that are affected by animal rights terrorism to back the legislation.
Antihunters continue to pressure local lawmakers to permit birth control as a wildlife management tool. The U.S. Sportsmen's Alliance is leading the fight against the anti-hunting threat. None of the drugs used in birth control projects on wildlife is approved for human consumption by the FDA or the USDA, despite the fact that venison is the most popular game food.
Whether the drugs are safe for the deer or other wildlife is another concern.
Research by Rutgers University and other institutions shows that birth control methods are not effective on free-ranging animals and could be detrimental to wildlife.
Over the next year, Alliance will work with state wildlife agencies, key legislators and professional lobbyists to introduce model legislation that requires these health concerns be addressed before permits for future projects can be issued.
Deer
Contraceptives
Rex Stuart gave me this information.
I checked on the deer contraceptive named Porcine Zona Pellucida (PZP). It is injected into the doe's' rump, using darts from a rifle. The males can be captured and surgically sterilized although, as with humans, it is unnecessary if most females are on birth control.
I gathered links on Deer contraceptive using the same method.
http://www.caes.state.ct.us/PlantScienceDay/2002PSD/Deer.htm http://abcnews.go.com/sections/science/DailyNews/deercontraceptive000731.html
Deer Contraception
Wildlife contraception:
An Introduction by Priscilla N. Cohn, Ph.D.
The first international conference on wildlife
contraception was held in Philadelphia in the late fall of 1987. The second
conference was held in Melbourne, Australia in the fall of 1990, a mere three
years later, showing that interest in contraception was strong and that there
were sufficient developments in three years to warrant a second
conference.
There were some interesting differences between the first and
second conference. One of the main differences was a shift in the very nature of
the contraceptives themselves: most of the contraceptives discussed at the first
conference were hormonal, while many of those at the second conference were
non-hormonal or immunocontraceptives.
Another difference between the two
conferences was the presentation of papers dealing with the ethical aspects of
contraception at the meeting in Melbourne.
The meaning of these differences
is not always clear.
One reason for the shift in the nature of the contraceptives could have been simply a concern for the well being of the animals treated, since evidence had begun to accumulate that hormonal contraception had some harmful effects on some species.
A second reason for the shift might have been a scientific preference for vaccines as opposed to hormones.
A third reason might have involved practical or political considerations: the scientists may have realized that, at least in the case of deer, there was a much better chance that the public would favor a method that did not "contaminate" the meat of the animal, if the animal were a "game" animal.
From this point of view, the vaccine has a huge advantage over a hormonal implant since there is no residue in the flesh, thus making meaningless the question of what might happen to someone who -- for whatever reasons -- happened to eat venison from a treated deer.
Again the shift between the two conferences could perhaps be explained in terms of delivery systems since hormonal implants need to be implanted under the skin, or in muscle tissue, which meant in the case of wildlife, that the animal had to be captured.
Clearly with the remote delivery of vaccines, the animal experiences less stress: it is generally accepted that the less free-roaming wildlife is handled, the better. Perhaps the differences between the two conferences were due to some combination of factors.
If non-scientific considerations were significant in accounting for the shift in interest from hormonal implants to vaccines, then we have to conclude that we are not dealing simply with the search for an effective contraceptive, but a contraceptive that is acceptable within the framework of certain pre-existing political and cultural beliefs as well.
For example, Jay Kirkpatrick has pointed out that if someone ate a deer treated with a hormonal implant, that person would have to eat over a thousand pounds of venison -- if the hormone was evenly distributed throughout the flesh of the animal -- to obtain the minimal therapeutic dose of that hormone.
Kirkpatrick also notes, however, that the hormone is not evenly distributed throughout the flesh, but is concentrated primarily in the sexual organs, which are not usually eaten. So, in answer to the question what would happen to someone who ate the flesh of a treated deer, the answer would be nothing.
Yet the persistence with which this question was raised by game agencies revealed that they thought they had discovered an argument to impair the attractiveness of hormonal implants.
The presence of papers dealing with ethical issues at the second conference on contraception is interesting because it reveals a changing attitude towards animals: that we cannot continue to treat animals simply as if they were one more resource to manipulate or manage in whatever manner is convenient to us, but rather that animals are beings about whom one can make ethical judgments.
The fact that ethical papers were a part of a scientific conference might also reveal that views on science itself are changing and that it is ethics -- or ethicists -- who must point out the proper direction, the proper goals, for science or technology to take.
Some of the ethical papers contrasted an environmental view, emphasizing the good of the environment as a whole with an animal protectionist or rightist view, emphasizing the value of individual animals.
At first glance, it may not seem as if animals raise many ethical problems. The vast majority of people do not realize that modern western civilization is based on animal exploitation and death.
This lack of awareness is due at least partly to the fact that the exploitation of animals is so habitual and so ingrained that we hardly notice it. Most people do not associate their habit of eating meat or wearing leather with animal suffering. .............................................for more click
Return to page index (top)
CHAPTER 148. ANIMAL RIGHTS OR ECOLOGICAL TERRORISM DRAFT
LEGISLATION PROPOSED BY SPORTSMEN'S GROUP
Sec. 148.001. CAUSE OF ACTION. (a) A person who is injured or whose property has been injured as a result of a violation under Section 28.09, Penal Code, has a civil cause of action if the conduct constituting the violation was committed knowingly or intentionally.
(b) A person must bring suit for damages under this section before the earlier of the fifth anniversary of the date of the last act in the course of the conduct constituting a violation under Section 28.09, Penal Code, or the second anniversary of the date the claimant first discovered or had reasonable opportunity to discover the violation.
Sec. 148.002. DAMAGES. A person who establishes a cause of action under this chapter may recover:
(1) an amount equal to three times the amount of economic damages, including any damages related to damaged records, lost profits, or the cost of repeating an experiment; and
(2) court costs and reasonable attorney's fees.
SECTION 3. Subchapter D, Chapter 411, Government Code, is
amended by adding Section 411.0422 to read as follows:
Sec. 411.0422. INFORMATION REGARDING ANIMAL RIGHTS OR ECOLOGICAL TERRORIST. (a) The department shall create a record of each individual who commits an offense under Section 28.09, Penal Code.
(b) A record created under this section must include the individual's name, residence address, and signature and a recent photograph of the individual.
(c) If an individual who is the subject of a record makes a change in name or address, the individual shall, not later than the 30th day after making the change, provide to the department written notice of the change.
(d) The department shall maintain an Internet website containing each record described by this section. A record must remain on the website for at least three years, at which time the individual who is the subject of the record may apply to the department for a hearing on removal of the record.
SECTION 4. (a) The change in law made by this Act applies only to an offense committed on or after the effective date of this Act. For purposes of this section, an offense is committed before the effective date of this Act if any element of the offense occurs before that date.
(b) An offense committed before the effective date of this Act is governed by the law in effect when the offense was committed, and the former law is continued in effect for that purpose.
SECTION 5. This Act takes effect September 1, 2003.
Dangers of the Eco Terrorism Bill
Eco Terro Bill Definitions
"Animal rights or ecological terrorist organization" means two or more persons organized for the purpose of supporting any politically motivated activity intended to obstruct or deter any person from participating in an activity involving animals or an activity involving natural resources.
This means Julia Butterfly in her tree and all the tree sitters saving old growth.
Who breaks a butterfly on the rack? Our federal government if these bills are passed. (Texas has passed this bill already)
I feel that this paragraph would be a violation of the First Amendment, even though we do not obstruct or deter any person" when we protest, they would say we were deterring or obstructing any person, regardless of whether we were or weren't according to this paragraph? I don't know why I think this is, it just sounds that way, I guess, I may be reading too much into the paragraph? This is where I got the idea about speaking out and the free speech part. Rex
(5) "Political motivation" means an intent to influence a governmental entity or the public to take a specific political action.
(b) A person commits an offense if the person, with political motivation or while acting on behalf of an animal rights or ecological terrorist organization:
(1) prevents an individual from lawfully participating in an activity involving animals or an activity involving natural resources by:
(A) obstructing the use of an animal or a natural resource owned by the individual, if the obstruction is for a period of time sufficient to significantly decrease the value or enjoyment of the animal or the natural resource to the individual;
(protesting of animal cruelty in front of businesses, circuses, etc, which is still legal at this time, if their bill passes in other states, wouldn't protesting of Animal Rights be considered "terrorism" according to them) RexThe National Organization for Women's Legal Defense and Education Fund is suing anti-abortion activists protestors under the federal racketeering and conspiracy act. Most Animal Rights organizations want them to lose this litigation warning that if NOW wins - this type of consequence, liability for economic losses by protests, would be applied to all protest activity:Similar groups and their organizers will be charged under RICO, held to be conspirators whose boycott damaged the business held liable economically for that damage. NOW said it can only be applied where physical violence is used against the targeted business.
Planned Parenthood, Inc. v. American Coalition of Life Activists, 41 F. Supp. 2d 1130 (D. Or. 1999), vacated and remanded, 244 F.3d 1007 (9th Cir. 2001), petition for reh'g en banc filed (Apr. 11, 2001) http://www.nowldef.org/html/courts/reprod.shtml#repro13
This case was brought by Planned Parenthood and four doctors against anti-choice organizations and individuals for threats under the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act (FACE) and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.The doctors had been targets of threats such as a "Wanted" poster of the doctors, a "Deadly Dozen" poster of thirteen doctors, and the "Nuremberg Files" web site. In February 1999, a jury rendered a $107 million verdict for the plaintiffs.The defendants appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.In October 1999, NOW Legal Defense joined an amicus brief filed by the Feminist Majority Foundation with pro bono assistance from Chapman, Popik & White.Our brief described the context of violence and fear faced by abortion providers and highlighted how Congress enacted FACE to address threats of force such as those issued against the plaintiffs.On March 28, 2001, the Ninth Circuit reversed the jury award.The court ruled that the anti-abortion speech was protected by the First Amendment.On April 11, we joined an amicus brief, also filed by the Feminist Majority Foundation, supporting Planned Parenthood's petition for rehearing en banc.Planed Parenthood lost this case. Visit their website to learn the details of the Supreme's decision.
(B) damaging or disposing of an animal or a natural resource owned by the individual, if the damage or disposal substantially reduces the condition or usefulness of the animal or the natural resource; or
(C) detaining an animal or a natural resource owned by the individual and demanding compensation in exchange for release of the animal or the natural resource; or
(2) prevents an individual's use of an animal facility without the effective consent of the facility's owner by:
(A) damaging the facility or property in the facility;
(B) physically disrupting the operation of the facility;
(C) unlawfully entering or remaining in the facility and engaging in an activity described by Subdivision (1);
(D) unlawfully entering or remaining in the facility despite notice denying entry; or
(Like Michael Moore at General Motors)
(E) entering the facility to take photographs or a video recording with the intent to defame the facility or the facility's owner.
(taking video of animals being beaten or tortured)
(c) A person commits an offense if the person knowingly provides financial support, resources, or other assistance to an animal rights or ecological terrorism organization for the purpose of assisting the organization in carrying out an act described by Subsection (b
Eco Terrorism Legislation Passed in Texas Sec. 28.09
AN ACT relating to criminal offenses involving acts against certain activities involving animals or involving natural resources and to civil consequences arising from convictions of those offenses.BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS:
SECTION 1. Chapter 28, Penal Code, is amended by adding
Section 28.09 to read as follows:
Sec. 28.09. ANIMAL RIGHTS AND ECOLOGICAL TERRORISM. (a) In this section:
(1) "Activity involving animals" means any lawful activity involving the use of animals, including:
(A) hunting and trapping;
(B) food production, processing, and preparation;
(C) clothing manufacturing and distribution;
(D) medical or other research;
(E) entertainment and recreation; and
(F) agriculture.
(2) "Activity involving natural resources" means any lawful activity involving the use of a natural resource with an economic value, including mining, foresting, harvesting, or processing natural resources.
(3) "Animal facility" means a vehicle, building, structure, or other premises where an animal is lawfully:
(A) housed, exhibited, or offered for sale, including a zoo, amusement park, or preserve or a location at which a circus or a rodeo or other competitive event is held; or
(B) used for scientific purposes, including research, testing, and experiments.
(4) "Animal rights or ecological terrorist organization" means two or more persons organized for the purpose of supporting any politically motivated activity intended to obstruct or deter any person from participating in an activity involving animals or an activity involving natural resources.
(5) "Political motivation" means an intent to influence a governmental entity or the public to take a specific political action.
(b) A person commits an offense if the person, with political motivation or while acting on behalf of an animal rights or ecological terrorist organization:
(1) prevents an individual from lawfully participating in an activity involving animals or an activity involving natural resources by:
(A) obstructing the use of an animal or a natural resource owned by the individual, if the obstruction is for a period of time sufficient to significantly decrease the value or enjoyment
of the animal or the natural resource to the individual;
(B) damaging or disposing of an animal or a natural resource owned by the individual, if the damage or disposal substantially reduces the condition or usefulness of the animal or the natural resource; or
(C) detaining an animal or a natural resource owned by the individual and demanding compensation in exchange for release of the animal or the natural resource; or
(2) prevents an individual's use of an animal facility without the effective consent of the facility's owner by:
(A) damaging the facility or property in the facility;
(B) physically disrupting the operation of the facility;
(C) unlawfully entering or remaining in the facility and engaging in an activity described by Subdivision (1);
(D) unlawfully entering or remaining in the facility despite notice denying entry; or
(E) entering the facility to take photographs or a video recording with the intent to defame the facility or the facility's owner.
(c) A person commits an offense if the person knowingly provides financial support, resources, or other assistance to an animal rights or ecological terrorism organization for the purpose of assisting the organization in carrying out an act described by Subsection (b).
(d) An offense under Subsection (c) is a Class B misdemeanor.
An offense under Subsection (b) is:
(1) a Class B misdemeanor if the amount of pecuniary loss resulting from the commission of the offense is less than $500; or
(2) a state jail felony if the amount of pecuniary loss is $500 or more.
(e) The punishment for an offense described by Subsection
(d) is increased to the next higher category of punishment if the offense results in bodily harm to any individual.
(f) It is an exception to the application of Subsection (b) that the conduct is engaged in by:
(1) an employee of a government agency acting in the course and scope of their employment;
(2) an employee of a financial institution or other secured party acting in the course and scope of their employment; or
(3) an employee of an animal control authority or a recognized animal shelter or humane society acting in the course and scope of their employment.
(g) If conduct that constitutes an offense under this section also constitutes an offense under any other section of this code, the actor may be prosecuted under either section or both sections.
WISCONSIN'S HUNTER HARASSMENT STATUTE
Legal Objections to Hunter Harassment Statutes:
http//www.animal-law.org/hunters/index.html
Interference with hunting, fishing
or
trapping.
1)Definition. In this section, "activity associated with lawful hunting, fishing or
trapping" means travel, camping or other acts that are preparatory to lawful
hunting, fishing or trapping and that are done by a hunter, fisher or trapper or
by a member of a hunting, fishing or trapping party.
{{}}29.083(2) http://www.legis.state.wi.us/statutes/01Stat0029.pdf(2)
Prohibitions.
{{}}29.083(2)(a)
http://www.legis.state.wi.us/statutes/01Stat0029.pdf
(a)
No person may interfere or attempt to interfere with lawful hunting, fishing or
trapping with the intent to prevent the taking of a wild animal by doing any of
the following:
{{}}29.083(2)(a)1. http://www.legis.state.wi.us/statutes/01Stat0029.pdf
1.
Harassing a wild animal or by engaging in an activity that tends to harass wild
animals.
{{}}29.083(2)(a)2. http://www.legis.state.wi.us/statutes/01Stat0029.pdf
2.
Impeding or obstructing a person who is engaged in lawful hunting, fishing or
trapping.
{{}}29.083(2)(a)3. http://www.legis.state.wi.us/statutes/01Stat0029.pdf
3.
Impeding or obstructing a person who is engaged in an activity associated with
lawful hunting, fishing or trapping.
{{}}29.083(2)(a)4. http://www.legis.state.wi.us/statutes/01Stat0029.pdf
4.
Disturbing the personal property of a person engaged in lawful hunting, fishing
or trapping.
{{}}29.083(2)(a)5. http://www.legis.state.wi.us/statutes/01Stat0029.pdf
5.
Disturbing a lawfully placed hunting blind.
{{}}29.083(2)(b)
http://www.legis.state.wi.us/statutes/01Stat0029.pdf
(b)
No person may knowingly fail to obey the order of a warden or other law
enforcement officer to desist from conduct in violation of http://folio.legis.state.wi.us/cgi-bin/om_isapi.dll?clientID=113869&hitsperheading=on&infobase=stats.nfo&jump=29.083%282%29%28a%par. (a) if the order is based on any of the
following:
{{}}29.083(2)(b)1. http://www.legis.state.wi.us/statutes/01Stat0029.pdf
1.
The warden or other law enforcement officer personally observed such conduct by
the person.
{{}}29.083(2)(b)2. http://www.legis.state.wi.us/statutes/01Stat0029.pdf
2.
The warden or other law enforcement officer has reasonable grounds to believe
that the person has engaged in such conduct that day or that the person intends
to engage in such conduct that day.
{{}}29.083(3) http://www.legis.state.wi.us/statutes/01Stat0029.pdf
(3)
Exemptions. This section does not apply to actions under http://folio.legis.state.wi.us/cgi-bin/om_isapi.dll?clientID=113869&hitsperheading=on&infobase=stats.nfo&jump=29.083%282%29%28a%sub. (2) (a) 1. to http://folio.legist.state.wi.us/chi-bin/ohm_sapid.dell?cliental=113869&hitsperheading=on&InfoBase=stats.no&jump=29.083%282%29%28a%5. performed by wardens and other law enforcement
officers if the actions are authorized by law and are necessary for the
performance of their official duties.
{{}}29.083(3m) http://www.legist.state.wi.us/statutes/01Stat0029.puff
(3m)
Affirmative defense. It is an affirmative defense to the
prosecution for violation of this section if the defendant's conduct is
protected by his or her right to freedom of speech under the constitution of
this state or of the United States.
{{}}29.083(4) http://www.legist.state.wi.us/statutes/01Stat0029.puff
(4)
Civil actions.
{{}}29.083(4)(a)
http://www.legist.state.wi.us/statutes/01Stat0029.puff
(a)
person who is adversely affected by, or who reasonably may be expected to be
adversely affected by, conduct that is in violation of http://folio.legis.state.wi.us/cgi-bin/om_isapi.dll?clientID=113869&hitsperheading=on&infobase=stats.nfo&jump=29.083%282%29%28a%sub. (2) (a) may bring an action in circuit court
for an injunction or damages or both.
{{}}29.083(4)(b)
http://www.legis.state.wi.us/statutes/01Stat0029.pdf
(b)
The circuit court may enter an injunction under http://folio.legis.state.wi.us/cgi-bin/om_isapi.dll?clientID=113869&hitsperheading=on&infobase=stats.nfo&jump=ch.%20813&softpagech. 813 against conduct in violation of http://folio.legis.state.wi.us/cgi-bin/om_isapi.dll?clientID=113869&hitsperheading=on&infobase=stats.nfo&jump=29.083%282%29%28a%sub. (2) (a) if the court determines any of the
following:
{{}}29.083(4)(b)1. http://www.legis.state.wi.us/statutes/01Stat0029.pdf
1.
The defendant is threatening the conduct.
{{}\fs24plain
}29.083(4)(b)2. http://www.legis.state.wi.us/statutes/01Stat0029.pdf
2.
The defendant has engaged in the conduct in the past and that it is reasonable
to expect that the defendant will engage in the conduct that will adversely
affect the plaintiff in the future.
{{}}29.083(4)(c)
http://www.legis.state.wi.us/statutes/01Stat0029.pdf
(c)
The circuit court may award damages to the plaintiff if the defendant's conduct
in violation of http://folio.legis.state.wi.us/cgi-bin/om_isapi.dell?cliental=113869&hitsperheading=on&InfoBase=stats.no&jump=29.083%282%29%28a%sub. (2) (a) has adversely affected the plaintiff.
The damages awarded may include punitive damages and any special damages.
Special damages may include approval fees, travel costs, camping fees, costs for
guides, and costs for equipment or supplies to the extent that the plaintiff did
not receive the full value of any of these expenditures due to the unlawful
conduct of the defendant.
{{}}29.083
- CANNOT. http://www.legist.state.wi.us/statutes/01Stat0029.puff
History:
1989 a. 190; 1997 a. http://folio.legist.state.wi.us/chi-bin/ohm_sapid.dell?clientID=113869&hitsperheading=on&infobase=acts97.nfo&jump=248&softpage=Docu248 s. http://folio.legis.state.wi.us/cgi-bin/om_isapi.dll?clientID=113869&hitsperheading=on&infobase=acts97.nfo&jump=248%2c415&softpag415; Stats. 1997 s.
29.083.
{{}}29.083 - ANNOT. http://www.legis.state.wi.us/statutes/01Stat0029.pdf
The application of
this section is limited to physical interference and does not violate the
freedom of speech. State v. Bagley, 164 Wis. 2d 255, 474 N.W.2d 761 (Ct. App.
1991).
Links related to this
website
(these links will open a new browser
window)
Court
TV is planning to cover the Wisconsin trial of Michael Berseth, who is
charged with killing his neighbor because he mistook her white scarf for
the tail of a deer. 