Results
Displaying 41 - 50 of 369
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| NC - Exotic Pets - .0212 Importation Requirements: WIild Animals | 2 NC ADC 52B.0212 | 2 NCAC 52B.0212 | This North Carolina regulation states that person must obtain a permit from the State Veterinarian before importing any of the following animals into this State: skunk; fox; raccoon; ringtail; bobcat (includes lynx and other North and South American felines as cougars, jaguars, etc.); coyote; marten; brushtail Possum (Trichosurus vulpecula). Permits for the importation into this State of any of these animals shall be issued only if the animal(s) will be used in a research institute, or for exhibition by a USDA licensed exhibitor, or organized entertainment as in zoos or circuses. Any species or hybrid of a mammal not otherwise covered in the Administrative Code that is found to exist in the wild or naturally occurs in the wild must be accompanied by a valid certificate of veterinary inspection. | Administrative | |
| PA - Permits - Chapter 29. Special Licenses and Permits. Subchapter A. General Provisions. | 34 Pa.C.S.A. § 2901 - 2908 | PA ST 34 Pa.C.S.A. § 2901 - 2908 | This chapter of Pennsylvania laws allows the commission to issue permits to take wildlife. Among the permit categories include endangered or threatened species permits, wildlife menagerie, wildlife (exotic) dealer, and wildlife (exotic) possession permits. It is unlawful to exercise any of the privileges granted by a permit issued under this title without first securing the required permit. | Statute | |
| OK - Endangered Species - Part 4. Protected Game | 29 Okl. St. Ann. 5-402, 412, 412.1; 29 Okl. St. Ann. § 2-109, 135 | OK ST T. 29 § 5-402, 412, 412.1; OK ST T. 29 § 2-109, 135 | Under Oklahoma law, no person may possess, hunt, chase, harass, capture, shoot at, wound or kill, take or attempt to take, trap or attempt to trap any endangered or threatened species or subspecies without specific written permission of the Director. Violation incurs a $100 - 1,000 penalty with up to 30 days in jail. | Statute | |
| CA - Circus - § 25989.1. Notice to animal control services agency of performances to be conducted | West's Ann. Cal. Health & Safety Code § 25989.1 | CA HLTH & S § 25989.1 | This California section provides that any traveling circus or carnival must notify entity that provides animal control services for a city, county, or city and county in which the traveling circus or carnival intends to perform of its intent to perform within that jurisdiction at least 14 days prior to the first performance in that city, county, or city and county. Violation results in a fine of $500 - 2,000 for a first violation, and $1,500 - 5,000 for any subsequent violation. | Statute | |
| MT - Cruelty - Consolidated Cruelty Statutes | MCA 45-8-209 - 211; 45-8- 217; 45-8-218; 7-23-4104 | MT ST 45-8-209 to 45-8-211;45-8- 217; 45-8-218; 7-23-4104 | This section comprises Montana's anti-cruelty and dogfighting laws. A person commits the offense of cruelty to animals if he or she knowingly or negligently subjects an animal to mistreatment or neglect; fails to provide an animal in the person's custody with food and water of sufficient quantity or minimum protection for the animal from adverse weather conditions; or, in cases of immediate, obvious, serious illness or injury, fails to provide licensed veterinary or other appropriate medical care. Animal abandonment of a "helpless animal" or abandoning any animal on any highway, railroad, or in any other place where it may suffer is also considered cruelty. A first conviction results in a possible $1,000/1 year imprisonment with graduating penalty enhancements for subsequent convictions. This section does not prohibit a person humanely destroying an animal for just cause or the use of commonly accepted agricultural and livestock practices on livestock (among other things). Section 217 defines aggravated cruelty as either knowingly or purposely killing or inflicting cruelty to an animal with the purpose of terrifying, torturing, or mutilating the animal, or inflicting cruelty to animals on a collection, kennel, or herd of 10 or more animals. | Statute | |
| New England Anti-Vivisection Society v. United States Fish and Wildlife Service and Yerkes National Primate Research Center | 208 F. Supp. 3d 142 (D.D.C. 2016) | 2016 WL 4919871 (D.D.C., 2016) | New England Anti-Vivisection Society (NEAVS), a non-profit organization that dedicates itself to animal-welfare, brought suit against the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) for issuing an export permit to Yerkes National Primate Research Center (Yerkes). NEAVS filed suit against FWS arguing that FWS had violated the Endangered Species Act, the Administrative Procedure Act, the National Environmental Policy Act, and the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species. NEAVS argued that FWS had violated the acts by allowing Yerkes to export chimpanzees in exchange for making a financial donation that would be put towards a program to help with “habitat destruction and disease, which face wild chimpanzees in East Africa.” The court reviewed the case and determined that it did not have subject-matter jurisdiction to address the claims made by NEAVS. The court found that NEAVS was not able to establish standing under Article III of the Constitution because NEAVS had not “suffered an injury in fact.” Ultimately, the court held that NEAVS was unable to show that it had a “concrete and particularized injury in fact that is actual or imminent” and that is “traceable” to FWS’ actions. As a result, the court granted summary judgment in favor of FWS. | Case | |
| NY - Endangered Species - Chapter 43-B. Of the Consolidated Laws. | N.Y. Envtl. Conserv. Law § 11-0535 | NY ENVIR CONSER § 11-0535 | The New York code for endangered species defines endangered species as any species which meets one of the following criteria: native species in imminent danger of extirpation or extinction in New York; or species listed as endangered by the United States Department of the Interior in the Code of Federal Regulations (50 CFR part 17). | Statute | |
| HI - Importation, quarantine - Chapter 150A. Plant and Non-Domestic Animal Quarantine and Microorganism Import | H R S § 150A-5 - 15 | HI ST § 150A-5 - § 150A-15 | These laws concern the importation of animals, plants, and microorganisms into the State of Hawaii. | Statute | |
| MI - Livestock - Chapter 287. Animal Industry. Animal Industry Act | M. C. L. A. 287.701 - 747 | MI ST 287.701 - 747 | This Michigan act is known as the "Animal Industry Act." The act is intended to protect the health, safety, and welfare of humans and animals, by requiring disease testing of imported animals, certification, and reporting of infected animals. A newly amended section (287.746) also concerns the tethering or confinement of animals such as pregnant sows and veal calves in manners that restrict lying, standing, fully extending limbs, or turning freely. | Statute | |
| ASOCIACION DE FUNCIONARIOS Y ABOGADOS POR LOS DERECHOS DE LOS ANIMALES Y OTROS CONTRA GCBA SOBRE AMPARO | ASOCIACION DE FUNCIONARIOS Y ABOGADOS POR LOS DERECHOS DE LOS ANIMALES Y OTROS CONTRA GCBA SOBRE AMPARO” | Argentina’s Juzgado No. 4 on Contentious Administrative and Tax Matters of the City of Buenos Aires held on October 21, 2015 that Sandra, an orangutan that had lived at the Buenos Aires Zoo for over 20 years, is a non-human person subject to rights, based on the precedent of the Argentina’s Federal Chamber of Criminal Cassation of December 18, 2014 and Ley 14.346, 1954. The court ruled that “Sandra has the right to enjoy the highest quality of life possible to her particular and individual situation, tending to avoid any kind of suffering that could be generated by the interference of humans in her life." In its holding, the court also stated that the Buenos Aires government has to guarantee Sandra’s adequate condition of habitat and the activities necessary to preserve her cognitive abilities. The amicus curiae experts Dr. Miguel Rivolta, Héctor Ferrari and Dr. Gabriel Aguado were instructed to prepare a binding report resolving what measures had to be adopted by the government in relationship to Sandra. | Case |