In the 1995 United States Supreme Court case Babbitt v. Sweet Home Chapter of Communities for a Great Oregon, the interpretation of the word harm within the definition of take as outlined by the Endangered Species Act of 1973 was called into question.
For example, Safe Harbor Agreements (wherein landowners commit to maintaining or enhancing habitat for a protected species) excuse participants from legal penalties for any incidental takes that may occur.
[8] Taking of game is generally a divisive topic, with levels of support and opposition varying significantly depending on the region of the world.
There are myriad factors that contribute to the vast differences in cultural attitudes towards taking of game observed around the world.
[9] Many proponents of hunting argue, however, that taking game is humane and benefits the environment by managing wildlife populations.