Seventh District Court deems parts of Wisconsin’s Hunter Harassment bill unconstitutional

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit recently released their opinion on Wisconsin’s Hunter Harassment Law. This law states that, “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.” One of the provisions of this law prohibits a person from maintaining “visual or physical proximity to the person” as well as “photographing, videotaping, audiotaping, or through other electronic means monitoring or recording the activities of the person.” Use of a drone to conduct any activity prohibited under the law is also forbidden.

This bill was signed into law in 2016 by then-governor Scott Walker. Its creation was spurred on by allegations that members of a group known as Wolf Patrol followed and filmed wolf hunters in Wisconsin and Montana in 2014.

“Different constitutional rights collide in this case,” the court’s opinion read. “Article I, section 26 of the Wisconsin Constitution protects the right to hunt. The First Amendment to the United States Constitution protects freedom of speech.” There has been a statute since 1990 making it a crime to harass hunters in various ways. The amendment made in 2016, coined the “hunter harassment law,” raises some First Amendment issues, according to the court decision.

The Plaintiffs, the decision stated, opposed hunting. They have observed hunters on public land and sometimes approached and/or confronted them. Members of Wolf Patrol have also photographed and filmed hunter activities and intends to continue to do so. 

The court’s majority found the 2016 amendments to be unconstitutionally vague and overly broad. The court ruled the lack of clarity regarding what may be perceived as “unlawful interference” rendered the provision unconstitutional. 

The court also felt the ban on recording went beyond physically interfering with a hunter in legal pursuit of game. This was seen as an infringement of First Amendment rights. 

Acceptable distances from a hunter were not established, either, according to the decision. The provisions banning “maintaining a visual or physical proximity,” and “approaching or confronting” a hunter were seen as unconstitutionally vague as well.

Judge Thomas Lee Kirsch II was the dissenting judge. He argued the plaintiffs lacked standing.

Beckie Gaskill may be reached via email at [email protected].