Results
Displaying 21 - 30 of 369
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Missouri Primate Foundation v. People for Ethical Treatment of Animals, Inc. | Slip Copy, 2018 WL 1420239 (E.D. Mo. Mar. 22, 2018) | This matter is a motion of counterclaim by defendants Missouri Primate Foundation to dismiss PETA's (the counterclaim plaintiff) assertion that two chimpanzees were being held in conditions that deprived the chimpanzees of adequate social groups, space, and psychological stimulation, putting them at risk of and causing physical and psychological injury, such as deteriorated cardiovascular and musculoskeletal health, stress, anxiety and depression. PETA also alleges that the chimpanzees were denied a sanitary environment, proper ventilation, a healthy diet, and adequate veterinary care. PETA claimed that the Missouri Primate Foundation (MPF) (the counterclaim defendants) were holding the two chimpanzees in conditions that “harm” and “harass” the chimpanzees, thus violating the “take” prohibition of the Endangered Species Act (ESA). MPF's motion contends that PETA’s counterclaim is based on allegations that they failed to comply with the Animal Welfare Act, not the ESA. MPF further contends that because the chimpanzees at its facility were lawfully in captivity and under the auspices of the AWA as administered by the USDA–APHIS, so the chimpanzees cannot be subject to a “take” under the ESA. They further argued that PETA lacked standing as the AWA preempts or supersedes the ESA as to animals held at USDA licensed facilities. Because the AWA does not allow citizen suits, MPF argued, the case must be dismissed. After examining similar cases, this court concluded that claims under the AWA and ESA are complementary and do not conflict, and that the ESA protects captive animals regardless of whether the alleged violator is an AWA licensed entity. The court found that the allegations by PETA are sufficient at this stage of the case and issues of proof are reserved for trial. As such, the court denied the motions of the counterclaim defendants. | Case | ||
| In Defense of Animals v. National Institutes of Health | 543 F.Supp.2d 70 (D.C.C., 2008) |
This FOIA case was brought against the National Institutes of Health ("NIH") by In Defense of Animals (“IDA”) seeking information related to approximately 260 chimpanzees located as the Alamogordo Primate Facility (“APF”) in New Mexico. Before the court now is NIH's Motion for Partial Reconsideration as to the release of records. This Court rejected NIH’s arguments that the records are not “agency records” because they belong to NIH's contractor, Charles River Laboratories, Inc. (“CRL”), a publicly held animal research company. Also, the Court was equally unconvinced that the information requested here is “essentially a blueprint of the APF facility,” and that release of such information presents a security risk to the facility. |
Case | ||
| AK - Zoo - § 09.65.180. Civil liability of zoos | AS § 09.65.180 | AK ST § 09.65.180 | The Alaska law provides that, except as provided in (b), a person who owns or operates a zoo is strictly liable for injury to a person or property if the injury is caused by an animal owned by or in the custody of the zoo. | Statute | |
| IN - Exotic pet - Chapter 26. Wild Animal Permit. | I.C. 14-22-26-1 to 6 | IN ST 14-22-26-1 to 14-22-26-6 | This set of Indiana laws concerns the keeping of protected and dangerous wild animals. Under the law, a person must obtain a permit to possess these classes of animals. A permit may be suspended if an emergency exists (e.g., the animal is in peril or the animal is in a position to harm another animal). | Statute | |
| OR - Exotic Pets - Chapter 609. Animal Control; Exotic Animals; Dealers. | O. R. S. § 609.205 - 355 | OR ST § 609.205 - 355 | These Oregon laws concern the regulation of exotic pets in the state. An "exotic animal" for purposes of the section means a member of the family Felidae not indigenous to Oregon (except the domestic cat), any nonhuman primate, any nonwolf member of the family Canidae not indigenous to Oregon (except the domestic dog), any bear except the black bear, and any member of the order Crocodylia. A person may not keep an exotic animal in this state unless the person possesses a valid State Department of Agriculture permit for that animal issued prior to the effective date of this 2009 Act. | Statute | |
| KS - Exotic Pets - 115-20-3 Exotic Wildlife; Possession, Sale and Requirements. | KS ADC 115-20-3 | K.A.R. 115-20-3 | This regulation covers the importation, possession, and sale of exotic wildlife. | Administrative | |
| NV - Exotic Animals - Possession, Transportation, Importation, Exportation and Release of Wildlife | NV ADC 503.108 - 140 | NAC 503.108 - 140 | These Nevada regulations concern the restrictions on importation, transportation and possession of certain species. Under 503.110, the importation, transportation or possession of the species of live wildlife or hybrids thereof including, but not limited to, freshwater sharks, piranhas, alligators and caimans, mongooses and meerkats, coyotes, and wild dogs is prohibited. Exemptions include zoos, aquariums, limited duration entertainment or commercial photography, research or scientific use, and a tax-exempt nonprofit organization that exhibits wildlife solely for educational or scientific purposes. Some animals may be possessed, transported, imported and exported without a permit or license issued by the Department such as monkeys and other primates, elephants, all felines, except mountain lions and bobcats, and wolves, among others. | Administrative | |
| WA - Exotic Pet - Chapter 16.30. Dangerous Wild Animals | West's RCWA 16.30.005 - 900 | WA ST 16.30.005 - 900 | This Washington chapter passed in 2007 regulates the keeping of dangerous wild animals. By definition, a potentially dangerous wild animal includes, among others, lions, tigers, captive-bred cougars, jaguars, cheetahs, leopards, wolves, (but excluding wolf-hybrids), bears, hyenas, non-human primates, elephants, rhinoceroses, certain reptiles, and venomous snakes. A person shall not own, possess, keep, harbor, bring into the state, or have custody or control of a potentially dangerous wild animal. A person in legal possession of a potentially dangerous wild animal prior to July 22, 2007, and who is the legal possessor of the animal may keep possession of the animal for the remainder of the animal's life. | Statute | |
| FL - Exhibition - Deformed Animals - Chapter 877. Miscellaneous Crimes. | West's F. S. A. § 877.16 | FL ST § 877.16 | This law makes it illegal to exhibit any deformed, mutilated or disfigured animal for compensation. | Statute | |
| MD - Hunting - Subtitle 9. Captive Wildlife. | MD Code, Natural Resources, § 10-901 - 911 | MD NAT RES § 10-901 - 911 | This Maryland statute states that it is in the state's public interest to preserve native species by strictly regulating the possession, importation, exportation, breeding, raising, protection, rehabilitation, hunting, killing, trapping, capture, purchase, or sale of certain wildlife which pose a possibility of harm to native wildlife. | Statute |