|Babbitt v. Sweet Home Chapter of Communities for a Great Oregon||
(edited from Syllabus of the Court)
As relevant here, the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA or Act) makes it unlawful for any person to “take” endangered or threatened species, § 9(a)(1)(B), and defines “take” to mean to “harass, harm, pursue,” “ wound,” or “kill,” § 3(19). In 50 CFR § 17.3, petitioner Secretary of the Interior further defines “harm” to include “significant habitat modification or degradation where it actually kills or injures wildlife.” Respondents, persons and entities dependent on the forest products industries and others, challenged this regulation on its face, claiming that Congress did not intend the word “take” to include habitat modification.
The Secretary reasonably construed Congress' intent when he defined “harm” to include habitat modification.
|AZ - Wildlife - Taking and Handling of Wildlife. Article 1. General Regulations||
|AZ - Veterinary - Chapter 21. Veterinarians.||
|AZ - Pet Trusts - Honorary trusts; trusts||
|AZ - Pet Sales - Title 44. Trade and Commerce. Chapter 11. Regulations Concerning Particular Businesses.||
|AZ - Ordinances - Lawful presence on private property defined (dogs)||
|AZ - Ordinances - Article 2. Board of Trustees Government After Disincorporation.||
This Arizona statute provides that the board of trustees of a city may p
ass ordinances not inconsistent or in conflict with the laws of this state. More specifically, this statute provides that the board may restrain
, under penalties, the running at large of cattle or other animals, and provide rules for impounding them, and provide for taxing dogs and penalties for the nonpayment of such taxes, or the killing of dogs running at large in the corporate limits. However, before exercising these powers, the board shall cause a resolution of intention to be recorded in minutes and then published in some daily or weekly newspaper at least two
|AZ - Municipalities - Dog Regulations||This Arizona statute allows common councils to regulate dogs running at large.|
|AZ - Motor vehicle - 12-558.02. Limited liability; removing minor or confined animal from motor vehicle; definition||This Arizona law insulates a person from liability for civil damages when he or she uses reasonable force to enter a locked and unattended motor vehicle to remove a minor or confined domestic animal if certain factors apply. The person first must determine that the motor vehicle is locked or there is no reasonable manner in which the person can remove the minor or domestic animal from the vehicle. Before entering the vehicle, the person must notify law enforcement or first responders. No more force than is necessary to remove the animal or minor may be used and the person must remain with the minor or domestic animal until first responders arrive. For the purposes of this section, “domestic animal” means a dog, a cat or another animal that is domesticated and kept as a household pet.|
|AZ - License and Vaccination Ordinances - Exemption of cities, towns and counties (dogs/animals)||
This Arizona statute exempts cities or towns from the provisions of this article if they impose a license fee and vaccination on dogs by ordinance, provided that such ordinance is equal to or more stringent than the provisions of this article. Further, the provisions of this article shall not apply to counties which regulate the running at large of dogs in the unincorporated areas of the county by ordinance provided that such ordinance is equal to or more stringent than the provisions of this article.