Results
| Title |
Author |
Citation | Summary |
|---|---|---|---|
| Looking for a Nexus Between Trust Compassion, and Regulation: Colorados Search for Standards of Care for Private, Non-Profit Wildlife Sanctuaries | Katherine A. Burke | 12 Animal L. 39 (2005) | In 2004, the Colorado legislature amended its wildlife statutes, formally recognizing the existence of private, non-profit wildlife sanctuaries under the jurisdiction of the Colorado Division of Wildlife (CDOW). Opponents to the 2004 amendments and CDOW staff have repeatedly expressed concerns that private sanctuaries should not be authorized in the absence of regulations and enforcement mechanisms sufficient to protect the animals and the people who come into contact with them. In implementing the sanctuary statute, CDOW has followed a familiar pattern, relying on the accreditation program of the American Association of Zoological Parks and Aquariums (AZA) to provide the basis of its regulations. In doing so, CDOW has failed to understand that the AZA standards are wholly inappropriate for sanctuaries; they are inadequate to protect the safety of animals and humans; and they are overly burdensome and even diametrically opposed to the status and goals of private, non-profit wildlife sanctuaries. Instead, CDOW could have acknowledged the stringent, comprehensive, extensive standards promulgated by The Association of Sanctuaries (TAOS), which are carefully tailored to the operations of sanctuaries. This article considers the plight of Colorado wildlife sanctuaries, which is by no means peculiar to the state of Colorado, and carefully examines the standards promulgated by the AZA and by TAOS. The article concludes that the TAOS accreditation program would have provided a significantly better basis for sanctuary regulation, and that by failing to take advantage of this, CDOW has missed an important opportunity to create a nexus between trust, compassion, and regulation. |
| Overview of Wildlife Rehabilitation Laws | Angela Nicole Johnson | Animal Legal & Historical Center |
This article presents an overview of the laws affecting wildlife rehabilitators. The statutes and regulations of nine states (Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, New York, Maine, North Dakota, Oregon, and Texas) are compared as to requirements for licensing. Legal issues that arise in the practice of rehabilitation are also discussed. |
| Brief Summary of Wildlife Rehabilitation Laws | Angela Nicole Johnson | Animal Legal & Historical Center |
This article presents a brief summary of the laws affecting wildlife rehabilitators. Wildlife rehabilitators care for orphaned and/or injured wildlife with the goal of returning animals back into their native habitat. Although a rehabilitator’s focus is on the care of wildlife, rehabilitators necessarily spend time complying with local, state, and federal laws, fundraising activities, coordinating volunteers, and educating the public about wildlife. |
| Detailed Discussion of Wildlife Rehabilitation Laws | Angela Nicole Johnson | Animal Legal & Historical Center |
This paper introduces the role of a wildlife rehabilitator, including the goals of rehabilitation. Section III discusses the permit and licensing requirements of wildlife rehabilitators, including demonstrating competency, preparedness, continuing education requirements, and permit renewals; Section IV addresses facility adequacy and standards of care. Section V discusses the types of wildlife which may be rehabilitated and procedures for non-rehabitable or non-releasable wildlife. Section VI addresses other compliance considerations which are unique to some of the nine states studied. Section VII discusses the non-permit related legal issues that affect wildlife rehabilitators. |