Results
Displaying 1 - 10 of 369
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| OR - Exotic Pets - Division 11. Livestock Health and Sanitation. Exotic Animals | OR ADC 603-011-0700 to 0725 | OAR 603-011-0700 to 0725 | This set of regulations includes the Oregon Department of Agriculture's rules governing the possession of non-human primates. Individuals wishing to possess a non-human primate must be qualified by experience and education, have an approved facility, and must obtain an exotic animal permit from the Department. All permittees must comply with the agency's rules for the housing and care of non-human primates and any additional permit conditions that the Department imposes. | Administrative | |
| NH - Exotic Pets - Chapter Fis 800 Definitions (for importation and possession of wildlife) | NH ADC FIS 801.01 - 26 | N.H. Code Admin. R. Fis 801.01 - 26 | These following regulations provide the definitions for the terms used in Chapter Fis 800: The Importation, Possession and Use of All Wildlife of the New Hampshire Code of Administrative Regulations. | Administrative | |
| CA - Fish & Game - Chapter 6.5. Control of Illegally Taken Fish and Wildlife | West's Ann. Cal. Fish & G. Code § 2580 - 2589 | CA FISH & G § 2580 - 2589 | This set of laws outlines various violations involving the possession and movement of illegally obtained animals and imposes liability for those activities. | Statute | |
| IN - Wild Animal - Rule 11. Wild Animal Possession Permits. | Ind. Admin. Code tit. 312, r. 9-11-1 to 15 | 312 IAC 9-11-1 to 15 | This chapter of regulations provides the rules and requirements for possession of wild animals in Indiana. | Administrative | |
| KS - Pet Sales - Chapter 47. Livestock and Domestic Animals. | K. S. A. 47-1701 to 1737 | KS ST 47-1701 to 1737 | The following statutes comprise Kansas' Pet Animal Act. The Act outlines the requirements for pet shop operator licensing and animal dealers. | 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 | |
| DE - Cruelty - Consolidated Cruelty Statutes | 11 Del.C. § 1325 - 1327;16 Del.C. § 3001F - 3009F; 16 Del.C. § 3031F - 3036F; 11 Del.C. § 775 | DE ST TI 11 § 1325 - 1327; DE ST TI 16 § 3001F- 3009F; DE ST TI 16 § 3031F - 3036F; DE ST TI 11 § 775 | These Delaware sections comprise the state's anti-cruelty and animal fighting provisions. Delaware's anti-cruelty section provides that cruelty to animals is when a person intentionally or recklessly subjects any animal (excluding fish, crustacea or molluska) to cruel mistreatment, cruel neglect, or kills or injures any animal belonging to another person. Actively engaging in animal fighting activities is a class F felony while being a spectator at a fight is a class A misdemeanor. | Statute | |
| US - AWA - Part 2. Regulations. Subparts A to I | 9 C.F.R. § 2.1 to .134 | This set of the regulations sets out the requirements and process for licensing and registration of dealers, exhibitors and research facilities. | Administrative | ||
| ZOOLOGICAL SOCIETY OF CINCINNATI v. THE GORILLA FOUNDATION | Slip Copy, 2019 WL 414971 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 1, 2019) | In 1991, the plaintiff, Zoological Society of Cincinnati, transferred a western lowland Gorilla named Ndume who had been living at the Zoo to The Gorilla Foundation (TGF) in Northern California. Ndume was sent to TGF in hopes that he and another gorilla there, named Koko, would mate and produce offspring. That never happened. In 2015, the Zoo and TGF entered into a new written agreement which expressly superseded any prior agreements. The agreement provided that upon the death of Koko, Ndume was to be placed at an institution that is accredited by the Association of Zoos and Aquariums (AZA). TGF is not an AZA accredited institution. KoKo died and the Zoo now wants to transfer Ndume back to the zoo. TGF has not made arrangements for a transfer to be carried out. The Zoo brought this suit seeking specific enforcement of the 2015 agreement and contends that it is entitled to summary judgment in its favor. TGF argued that the agreement was illegal and unenforceable because the transfer would harm Ndume. TGF identified a number of potential risks, particularly, that Ndume has a Balantidium Coli infection. TGF contended that stress could trigger an outbreak which could be fatal. The court was unpersuaded and stated that TGF signed the 2015 agreement less than 3 years before the present dispute arose and that all of the circumstances that TGF contends makes compliance with the agreement risky existed when the agreement was negotiated. TGF also contended that the agreement is impracticable due to unreasonable (non-monetary) costs. However, the Court again stated that TGF knew these facts and circumstances when it entered into the agreement. The Court granted the Zoo's motion for summary judgment and denied TGF's request for a continuance to permit it to take discovery. The parties were ordered to confer and attempt to reach a consensus on as many aspects of the protocol for transporting Ndume to the Zoo as possible. If within 30 days of the date of the order the parties cannot reach a consensus, they will have to file a joint statement setting out any issues on which they have reached a stalemate. | Case | ||
| In Defense of Animals v. Oregon Health Sciences University | 112 P.3d 336 (Or. 2005) | 199 Or.App. 160 (2005) |
A nonprofit corporation petitioned the trial court for injunctive and declaratory relief regarding fees charged by a state university primate research center for document inspection. The circuit court dismissed the action with prejudice, reasoning it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the fee issue and, assuming jurisdiction existed, the fees were in compliance with law. The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded, holding the circuit court had jurisdiction to review the basis, reasonableness and amount of fees charged by the university. |
Case |