|US - AWA - House Debate 1966 AWA||
This the debate in the House of Representatives for the initial adoption of the Animal Welfare Act in 1966. For discussion of Act see, Overview
|US - AWA - House Report on 1970 Amendments to AWA||
By 1970 it was apparent that changes in the law would be required if the goal of humane treatment of animals was to be realized. There were four areas of significant change to the AWA in the 1970 amendments.
|US - AWA - House Report on 1976 Amendments to AWA||
By 1976, rather than the use of animals in labs or stolen pets other animal protection issues had come to the forefront of public and congressional discussion. Those provisions dealing with research facilities and dealers were pretty much left alone by the 1976 amendments, which instead, dealt with several new topics.
|US - AWA - Licensing and Inspection Requirements for Dealers of Dogs Intended for Hunting, Breeding, or Security Purposes||2003 WL 1092620 (F.R.)||
The update of the Definition of Dealer, in Section 1.1 of the Regulation is made to reflect the policy that only wholesale dealers of dogs intended for hunting, security purposes, and breeding, and not dealers of retail services, will be controlled by the regulation. Thus, there is only a minor change to the definition of dealer, in that it now explicitly excludes any retail outlets where dogs are sold for hunting, breeding or security purposes.
|US - AWA - Part 1. Definition of Terms. § 1.1 Definitions.||This portion of the Animal Welfare Act (AWA) regulations consists primarily of the definitions of the terms.|
|US - AWA - Part 2. Regulations. Subparts A to I||This set of the regulations sets out the requirements and process for licensing and registration of dealers, exhibitors and research facilities.|
|US - AWA - Senate Report on 1966 Animal Welfare Act||
The Committee on Commerce, to which was referred the bill (H.R. 13881) to authorize the Secretary of Agriculture to regulate the transportation, sale, and handling of dogs and cats intended to be used for purposes of research or experimentation, and for other purposes, having considered the same, reports favorably thereon with amendments and recommends that the bill as amended do pass.
|US - AWA - Subpart A. Specifications for the Humane Handling, Care, Treatment, and Transportation of Dogs and Cats||This set of regulations contain the humane care provisions for dogs and cats under the Animal Welfare Act.|
|US - AWA - Subpart B. Specifications for the Humane Handling, Care, etc. of Guinea Pigs and Hamsters.||These regulations provide the specifications for the humane handling, care, treatment, and transportation of Guinea Pigs and Hamsters.|
|US - AWA - Subpart C. Specifications for the Humane Handling, Care, Treatment and Transportation of Rabbits.||These regulations contain the humane care provisions for rabbits.|
|US - AWA - Subpart D. Specifications/Standards for Nonhuman Primates||This portion of the AWA regulations contains the humane care provisions for non-human primates. Included are requirements for housing facilities, primary enclosures, provisions for psychological well-being, feeding, watering, sanitization, employee requirements, and transportation standards.|
|US - AWA - Subpart E. Marine Mammal Regulations||This subpart concerns the Specifications for the Humane Handling, Care, Treatment, and Transportation of Marine Mammals.|
|US - AWA - Subpart F. Specifications for Warmblooded Animals Other Than||This subpart contains the Specifications for the Humane Handling, Care, Treatment, and Transportation of Warmblooded Animals Other Than Dogs, Cats, Rabbits, Hamsters, Guinea Pigs, Nonhuman Primates, and Marine Mammals.|
|US - AWA - Subpart J. Importation of Live Dogs||This subsection covers the importation of dogs into the United States. No person shall import a live dog from any part of the world into the continental United States or Hawaii for purposes of resale, research, or veterinary treatment unless the dog is accompanied by an import permit issued by APHIS and is imported into the continental United States or Hawaii within 30 days after the proposed date of arrival stated in the import permit. Health and rabies certificates are required as provided.|
|US - AWA Regulations - Table of Contents||
This file provides the heading to all of the USDA regulations under the Animal Welfare Act with links to the appropriate files.
|US - Bears - Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Reexamination of Regulatory Mechanisms in Relation to the 1998 Flori||
The Fish and Wildlife Service reexamined the regulatory mechanisms in relation to the 1998 finding for a petition to list the Florida black bear (Ursus americanus floridanus), under the Endangered Species Act. Pursuant to a court order, the Service reexamined only one factor, the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms in effect at the time of our previous 1998 12-month finding. Pursuant to that order, the Service reexamined the existing finding considering the laws, regulations, and policies that directly or indirectly provide protection to the bear or its habitats. Based on this review, the FWS concluded that the existing regulatory mechanisms applicable in 1998 are not inadequate and do not warrant listing the Florida black bear.
|US - Birds - Part 15. Wild Bird Conservation Act||69 FR 4557||The regulations in this part implement the Wild Bird Conservation Act of 1992, Pub.L. 102-440, 16 U.S.C. 4901-4916. Exotic bird means any live or dead member of the Class Aves that is not indigenous to the 50 States or the District of Columbia. This Act prohibits the importation of exotic birds into the U.S. except by permit. Permits authorizing the importation of exotic birds will be issued under the regulations for the following purposes only: scientific research; zoological breeding or display programs; cooperative breeding programs designed to promote the conservation and maintenance of the species in the wild; or personally owned pets accompanying persons returning to the United States after being out of the country for more than 1 year. The regulations further provide that no individual may import more than two exotic birds as pets in any year.|
|US - Chimpanzees - Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 90-Day Finding on a Petition To List All Chimpanzees (Pan trog||2011 WL 3840975 (F.R.)||
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, announce a 90-day finding on a petition to list all chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) as endangered under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). Based on our review, we find that the petition presents substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that listing all chimpanzees as endangered may be warranted. Therefore, with the publication of this notice, we are initiating a review of the status of the species to determine if listing the entire species as endangered is warranted. To ensure that this status review is comprehensive, we are requesting scientific and commercial data and other information regarding this species. Based on the status review, we will issue a 12-month finding on the petition, which will address whether the petitioned action is warranted, as provided in section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Act.
|US - Chimpanzees - Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Endangered Status for Chimpanzee and Pygmy Chimpanzee||1990 WL 325467 (F.R.)||
The Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) reclassifies wild populations of the chimpanzee and all populations of the pygmy chimpanzee from threatened to endangered status. Both species have declined through such problems as massive habitat destruction, excessive hunting and capture by people, and lack of effective national and international controls. This rule will enhance the protection of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, for these species. Captive populations of the chimpanzee will continue to be classified as threatened, and individuals of that species in the United States will continue to be covered by a special regulation allowing activities otherwise prohibited.
|US - Chimpanzees - Research||This report summarizes the findings and recommendations of the Working Group on the Use of Chimpanzees in National Institutes of Health (NIH)-Supported Research. The NIH formed this committee within the Council of Councils, a federal advisory committee, to advise the NIH on the implementation of the recommendations of the Institute of Medicine’s (IOM’s) Committee on the Use of Chimpanzees in Biomedical and Behavioral Research regarding the use of chimpanzees in NIH-sponsored research.|
|US - CITES Regs - Taking, Possession, Transportation, Sale, Purchase, Barter, Exportation, and Importation of Wildlife and Plant||
These regulations describe the purpose of CITES, the criteria for listing in the appendices, and the requirements for importing or exporting protected animals or plants.
|US - Cormorant - Depredation order for double-crested cormorants at aquaculture facilities||2003 WL 22295159 (F.R.)||
The purpose of this depredation order is to help reduce depredation of aquacultural stock by double-crested cormorants at private fish farms and State and Federal fish hatcheries.
|US - Critical Habitat - Critical Habitat Listing for Five Endangered Mussels in the Tennessee and Cumberland River Basins||2004 WL 1924143 (F.R.)||
The FWS has designated designate 13 river and stream segments in the Tennessee Cumberland River Basins, for a total of approximately 885 river as critical habitat for five endangered mussels: Cumberland elktoe ( Alasmidonta atropurpurea ), oyster mussel ( Epioblasma capsaeformis ), Cumberlandian combshell ( Epioblasma brevidens ), purple bean ( Villosa perpurpurea ), and rough rabbitsfoot ( Quadrula cylindrica strigillata ). All five mussels belong to the Unionidae family.
|US - Critical Habitat - Critical Habitat Listing for the Topeka Shiner||2005 WL 676950 (F.R.)||
This rule is a correction to a previous final rule designating critical habitat for the Topeka Shiner ( Notropis Topeka ), published in the Federal Register on July, 24, 2004 (69 FR 44736). In the previous final rule, the FWS designated as critical habitat 1,356 kilometers of stream in Iowa, Minnesota, and Nebraska. They excluded from designation all previously proposed critical habitat in Kansas, Missouri, and South Dakota, and excluded the Fort Riley Military Installation in Kansas from critical habitat designation .
|US - Critical Habitat - Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of Critical Habitat for the California tiger||2004 WL 2671444 (F.R.)||
The FWS through this rule has designated a critical habitat in Santa Barbara County, California for the California Tiger Salamander (Ambystoma califoniese) (CTS) pursuant to the Endangered Species Act of 1973. This rule fulfills the final requirements of the settlement agreement reached in Center for Biological Diversity v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The reason for the designation of critical habitat for the CTS is the net loss in CTS grazing land over a 10 – 12 year period due to extensive farming, regardless of the efforts made to increase the amount of suitable grazing land.
|US - Critical Habitat - Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of Critical Habitat for the Klamath River and||2004 WL 2232024 (F.R.)||
This final rule is written to designate a critical habitat for the Klamath River and Columbia River populations of Bull Trout. The critical habitat designation includes approximately 1,748 miles of streams and 61,235 acres of lakes and marshes. The reason for this designation is that at the time of listing, there are only seven remaining non-migratory populations of bull trout, and the designation is mandatory pursuant to a court order.
|US - Critical Habitat - Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of Critical Habitat for the Riverside Fairy S||2005 WL 828405 (F.R.)||
FWS has designated critical habitat pursuant to section 3 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) for the federally endangered riverside fairy shrimp that encompasses 306 miles within Ventura, Orange, and San Diego Counties in California. The riverside fairy shrimp is a freshwater crustacean that is found in vernal pools (a shallow depression that fills with rainwater and does not drain into the lower drainage section) in the coastal California area. The shrimp is the second most primitive living crustacean and is the most recently discovered crustacean in California.
|US - Critical Habitat - Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Establishment of a Nonessential Experimental Population f||
This final rule is a collaborative effort between the FWS and the states of Tennessee and Alabama and Conservation Fisheries, Inc. to reintroduce the boulder darter ( Etheostoma wapiti ) , an endangered fish, and the spotfin chub ( Cyprinella (= Hybopsis ) monacha ) , a threatened fish to its historical habitat in Lauderdale County Alabama and Lawrence County, Tennessee. This rule provides for Non-essential Experimental Populations (NEP) within the designated area and it establishes limited allowable legal takings in that area. Additionally, this rule also changes the scientific name of the spotfin chub from Cyprinella (= Hybopsis ) monacha to Erimonax monachus , to reflect a recent change in the scientific literature.
|US - Critical Habitat - Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Final Rule To Designate Critical Habitat for the Buena Vi||2005 WL 123168 (F.R.)||
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), designated critical habitat for the Buena Vista Lake shrew (Sorex ornatus relictus) (referred to here as the shrew) pursuant to the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). In total, approximately 84 acres (ac) (34 hectares (ha)) occur within the boundaries of the critical habitat designation. The critical habitat is located in the Central Valley floor of Kern County, California.
|US - Critical Habitat - Statements by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Regarding the Designation of Critical Habitat||2004 WL 2232024 (F.R.)||
This excerpt is from the Designation of Critical Habitat for the Klamath River and Columbia River Populations of Bull Trout, 69 FR 59996-01, 2004 WL 2232024 (F.R.). It apparently expresses the opinion of the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service that the current process for designating critical habitat does little for the conservation of listed species.
|US - Critical Habitat Listing for the Arroyo Toad||This rule designates 11,695 acres of critical habitat for the arroyo toad in Santa Barbara , Ventura , Los Angeles , San Bernardino and Riverside counties in California . FWS had to designate critical habitat for the arroyo toad as a result of a settlement agreement in Center for Biological Diversity v. United States Fish and Wildlife Service . The critical habitat was designated in accordance with the Endangered Species Act of 1973 and its amendments. This specific critical habitat is a revision of the final rule on arroyo toad critical habitat designation of 2/1/01 ( 69 FR 9414 ), which was deemed deficient and was overruled.|
|US - Cruelty - § 11.446 Cruelty to animals.||This regulation concerns acts of animal cruelty on Indian reservations or under the jurisdiction of tribal courts. According to § 11.446, a person commits a misdemeanor if he or she purposely or recklessly subjects any animal in his or her custody to cruel neglect; subjects any animal to cruel mistreatment; kills or injures any animal belonging to another without legal privilege or consent of the owner; or causes one animal to fight with another.|
|US - Dogs at Large - Chapter X. Presidio Trust. Part 1002. Resource Protection, Public Use and Recreation. § 1002.15 Pets.||63 FR 35697, June 30, 1998||This rule sets outs the prohibitions for pets in the Presidio Trust.|
|US - Dogs at Large - Part 2. Resource Protection, Public Use and Recreation. § 2.15 Pets.||This rule outlines the prohibitions for pets in designated Park Service areas. Pets or feral animals that are running-at-large and observed by an authorized person in the act of killing, injuring or molesting humans, livestock, or wildlife may be destroyed if necessary for public safety or protection of wildlife, livestock, or other park resources. Pets that do not pose a direct risk to wildlife may be impounded.|
|US - Dogs at Large - Subpart D. Impoundment Procedures. § 28.43 Destruction of dogs and cats.||41 FR 9171||This federal rule states that dogs and cats running at large on a national wildlife refuge and observed by an authorized official in the act of killing, injuring, harassing or molesting humans or wildlife may be disposed of in the interest of public safety and protection of the wildlife.|
|US - Eagle - Endangered and Threatened Species; Bald Eagle Reclassification; Final Rule||Federal Register: July 12, 1995 (Volume 60, Number 133)||
The Fish and Wildlife Service reclassifies under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (Act), as amended, the bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) from endangered to threatened in the lower 48 States. The bald eagle remains classified as threatened in Michigan, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Oregon, and Washington where it is currently listed as threatened. The special rule for threatened bald eagles is revised to include all lower 48 States. This action will not alter those conservation measures already in force to protect the species and its habitats. The bald eagle also occurs in Alaska and Canada, where it is not at risk and is not protected under the Act. Bald eagles of Mexico are not listed at this time due to a recently enacted moratorium on listing additional taxa as threatened or endangered.
|US - Eagle - Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Proposed Rule To Remove||
We, the Fish and Wildlife Service (the Service), propose to remove the bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), from the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife in the lower 48 States of the United States. We propose this action because the available data indicate that this species has recovered. The recovery is due in part to habitat protection and management actions initiated under the Endangered Species Act. It is also due to reduction in levels of persistent organochlorine pesticides such as DDT occurring in the environment.
Section 4(g) of the Act requires the Service to monitor recovered species for at least 5 years following delisting. This rule describes our proposed post-delisting monitoring plan for bald eagles. Removal of the bald eagle as a threatened species under the Act will not affect the protection provided under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, and many other state laws.
|US - Eagle - Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Reopening of Comment Period||
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) is reopening the comment period on the bald eagle reclassification proposal for thirty days. On July 12, 1994, the Service proposed reclassifying the bald eagles of the lower 48 States as threatened, except those already listed as threatened and those of the Southwestern Recovery Region and Mexico. The bald eagles of the Southwestern Recovery Region were proposed to remain listed as endangered. The Service also proposed classifying bald eagles in Mexico as endangered; they are not currently listed as endangered or threatened. Specific public comment was solicited on the status of bald eagles in the Southwest and Mexico and the distinctness of those eagles as a separate population.
New information indicates that the Southwestern and Mexican bald eagles may not warrant a classification as endangered. The Service is making available for public review and comment information recently received about bald eagles of the Southwestern Recovery Region.
|US - Eagles - Religious Ceremonial Collection of Golden Eaglets from Wupatki National Monument||2001 WL 47456 (F.R.)||
SUMMARY: The National Park Service (NPS) has preliminarily determined that under certain circumstances it is appropriate to allow the Hopi Tribe to collect golden eaglets within Wupatki National Monument, a unit of the National Park System, for religious ceremonial purposes. This rule would authorize this activity upon terms and conditions sufficient to protect park resources against impairment, and consistent with the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act.
|US - Eagles - Advance Notice of a Proposal To Reclassify or Delist the Bald Eagle||1990 WL 352377 (F.R.)||
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) is reviewing the status of the bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) in preparation of a proposal to either reclassify or delist the species. Since 1978 when the species was listed throughout its range in the conterminous States, the bald eagle has increased in several important population parameters including the number of nesting pairs and production of young. The Service has approved five regional recovery plans for the bald eagle that collectively encompass the entire conterminous 48 States. The current population data indicate that the bald eagle has met the goals for reclassification from endangered to threatened in four of these five recovery plans. The Service is currently reviewing past and present bald eagle population survey data and other information to ascertain what listing action may be appropriate for the species. The Service seeks data and comments from the public on this notice and is requesting information on environmental and other impacts that would result from a proposal to either reclassify, downlist, or delist all or specific populations of the bald eagle.
|US - Eagles - Eagle Transportation Permits for American Indians and Public Institutions||
This final rule revises the general eagle permit restrictions applicable to American Indians and public institutions. This final regulation provides for the issuance of eagle permits for transportation of lawfully possessed eagle parts into or out of the United States only when the eagle parts have a religious purpose, or when a public institution transports eagle parts for scientific or exhibition purposes. In these cases, we will require that the eagle parts be returned to the country of origin. We make this revision to address concerns expressed by American Indians and public institutions who have sought our permission to allow international travel of lawfully possessed eagle parts or items containing eagle parts. We have carefully considered the needs of science and education, the religious protections guaranteed by the United States Constitution, and the recommendations made by those responding to the proposed rule providing for Eagle Transportation Permits for American Indians and Public Institutions published Thursday, June 16, 1994 (Federal Register (59 FR 30892)).
|US - Eagles - Golden Eagle Management Plan||1982 WL 133688 (F.R.)||
This notice advises the public of the Fish and Wildlife Service's development of a golden eagle management plan and invites public comment. The plan is needed to : (1) identify golden eagle needs; and (2) guide Service management and research efforts for golden eagles. The intended effect of the plan is to protect and conserve golden eagle populations while facilitating balanced development of the Nation's natural resources and the resolution of eagle/man conflicts.
|US - Eagles - Part 22. Eagle Permits||39 FR 1183||This set of regulations outlines the procedures to obtain permits to use eagles or eagle parts for exhibition, scientific, Indian religious, or falconry purposes. It also provides the procedure to take depredating eagles and inactive golden eagle nests during resource recovery operations.|
|US - Eagles - Permits To Take Golden Eagle Nests||1983 WL 169711 (F.R.)||
Because of conflicts between preservation of golden eagle nests and resource development or recovery operations, particularly surface coal mining activities in the western States, Congress amended the Eagle Protection Act to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to issue regulations that permit the taking of golden eagle nests found on the site of those operations under certain circumstances. Under that authority, the Service amends its regulations under the Eagle Protection Act to permit the taking (i.e., collection, molestation, disturbance, or destruction) of golden eagle nests during resource development or recovery operations when the nests are inactive if the taking is compatible with the preservation of the area nesting population of golden eagles. Little or no long-term impact on area nesting populations of golden eagles is expected as a result of this action.
|US - Eagles - Policy Concerning Distribution of Eagle Feathers for Native American Religious||1994 WL 163120 (Pres.Memorandum)||
This executive order affirms the executive's commitment to expediting the permit process through which Native Americans receive eagle feathers and parts for religious ceremonial service. It specifically affirms the trust relationship between the government and tribal nations.
|US - Eagles - § 83.7 Mandatory criteria for Federal acknowledgment.||
[Regulation removed 2010. Summary of former text provided.] This provision describes the mandatory criteria for establishing the existence of an American Indian tribe for purposes of recognition by the federal government. These criteria implicate federal status for purposes of acquiring eagle parts for use in Indian religious ceremonies under the BGEPA.
|US - Endangered - Emergency Petition to List the Pygmy Three-Toed Sloth||The Animal Welfare Institute (AWI) formally requests that the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) list the pygmy three-toed sloth (Bradypus pygmaeus) as endangered under the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) on an emergency basis. Alternatively, if the USFWS determines that an emergency listing is not warranted in this case, AWI requests that it process this listing petition pursuant to the standard timetable as required under the ESA.|
|US - Endangered - Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Final Rule To Reclassify and Remove the Gray Wolf From the List||2003 WL 1697383 (F.R.)||
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service or we) hereby changes the classification of the gray wolf (Canis lupus) under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). We establish three distinct population segments (DPS) for the gray wolf in the conterminous United States. Gray wolves in the Western DPS and the Eastern DPS are reclassified from endangered to threatened, except where already classified as threatened or as an experimental population. Gray wolves in the Southwestern DPS retain their previous endangered or experimental population status. All three existing gray wolf experimental population designations are retained and are not affected by this rule. Gray wolves are removed from the protections of the Act in all or parts of 16 southern and eastern States where the species historically did not occur. We establish a new special regulation under section 4(d) of the Act for the threatened Western DPS to increase our ability to respond to wolf-human conflicts outside the two experimental population areas in the Western DPS. A second section 4(d) special regulation applies provisions similar to those previously in effect in Minnesota to most of the Eastern DPS. We find that these special rules are necessary and advisable to provide for the conservation of the Western DPS and the Eastern DPS. The classification, under the Act, of captive gray wolves is determined by the location from which they, or their ancestors, were removed from the wild. This final rule does not affect the protection currently afforded by the Act to the red wolf (Canis rufus), a separate species found in the southeastern United States that is listed as endangered.
|US - Endangered - Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Reissuance of Final Rule||2011 WL 1670025 (F.R.)||
On April 15, 2011, President Obama signed the Department of Defense and Full-Year Appropriations Act, 2011. A section of that Appropriations Act directs the Secretary of the Interior to reissue within 60 days of enactment the final rule published on April 2, 2009, that identified the Northern Rocky Mountain population of gray wolf (Canis lupus) as a distinct population segment (DPS) and to revise the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife by removing most of the gray wolves in the DPS. This rule complies with that directive.
|US - Endangered - Final Rule To List the Tibetan Antelope as Endangered||
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) has determined that the classification of the Tibetan antelope (Pantholops hodgsonii) as endangered throughout its range is warranted, pursuant to the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act, 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). The best available information indicates that the total population of Tibetan antelope has declined drastically over the past three decades such that it is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range. This decline has resulted primarily from overutilization for commercial purposes and the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms.