Results
Displaying 31 - 40 of 369
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AK - Fish and Game - Chapter 05. Fish and Game Code | AS § 16.05.150; § 16.05.255, § 16.05.270, § 16.05.920; § 16.05.925, § 16.05.940 | AK ST § 16.05.150; § 16.05.255, § 16.05.270, § 16.05.920; § 16.05.925, § 16.05.940 | These provisions concern Alaska's Department of Fish and Game (DFG). The enforcement authority is defined and another statute gives power to the Board of Game to adopt regulations for game animals. Under Sec. 16.05.920, a person may not take, possess, transport, sell, offer to sell, purchase, or offer to purchase fish, game, or marine aquatic plants, or any part of fish, game, or aquatic plants, or a nest or egg of fish or game unless permitted by regulation. "Game" is defined as any species of bird, reptile, and mammal, including a feral domestic animal, found or introduced in the state, except domestic birds and mammals. | Statute | |
| KY - Exotic Animals - Chapter 65. General Provisions Applicable to Counties, Cities | KRS § 65.877 | KY ST § 65.877 | This Kentucky statue authorizes counties and cities to regulate or prohibit the holding of inherently dangerous wildlife. For example, the Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources has identified some of the following animals as being dangerous: African buffalo, Hippopotamus, Hyenas, Old world badger, Lions, jaguars, leopards, or tigers, Clouded leopard, Cheetah, Elephants, Rhinoceroses, Gorillas, Baboons, drills, or mandrills, Crocodiles, Alligators or caimans, certain snakes, Gila monsters or beaded lizards, Komodo dragon, Wolverine, Bears, Wolf, mountain lion. | Statute | |
| Orangutana, Sandra s/ Habeas Corpus | Orangutana, Sandra s/ Habeas Corpus | This decision was decided on an appeal of the writ of habeas corpus brought on behalf of an orangutan named Sandra after it was denied in its first instance. Pablo Buompadre, President of the Association of Officials and Attorneys for the Rights of Animals (AFADA) brought a writ of habeas corpus against the Government of the Autonomous City of Buenos Aires and the City Zoological Garden of Buenos Aires on behalf of the hybrid of two different orangutan species, Sandra. AFADA sought the immediate release and relocation of Sandra to the primate sanctuary of Sorocaba, in the State of Sao Paulo in Brazil. AFADA argued that Sandra had been deprived illegitimately and arbitrarily of her freedom by the authorities of the zoo, and that her mental and physical health was at the time deeply deteriorated, with imminent risk of death. For the first time, basic legal rights were granted to an animal. In this case, Argentina’s Federal Chamber of Criminal Cassation ruled that animals are holders of basic rights. The Court stated that “from a dynamic and non-static legal interpretation, it is necessary to recognize [Sandra] an orangutan as a subject of rights, as non-human subjects (animals) are holders of rights, so it imposes her protection." | Case | ||
| PA - Permits - Chapter 133. Wildlife Classification. | 58 PA ADC § 133.1 - .6; 58 PA ADC § 133.21; 58 PA ADC § 133.41 | 58 Pa. Code § 133.1 to .6; 58 Pa. Code § 133.21; 58 Pa. Code § 133.41 | This set of Pennsylvania regulations defines terms used such as protected mammals, protected birds, endangered species, threatened species, and furbearers. | Administrative | |
| 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 | ||
| NM - Rehabilitation, wildlife - 19.35.5. Wildlife Rehabilitation Permits | 19.35.5 NMAC | N.M. Admin. Code 19.35.5.1 to 19.35.5.14 | The stated objective of this regulation is to establish and implement a system for the issuance and use of permits for the rehabilitation of sick, injured, orphaned or otherwise incapacitated wildlife for return to the wild or other authorized disposition in New Mexico. | Administrative | |
| 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 | |
| FL - Wildlife - Chapter 379. Fish and Wildlife Conservation. | West's F. S. A. § 379.231 - 504 | FL ST § 379.231 - 504 | These Florida laws concern the keeping and taking of captive wildlife. Places where wildlife is held in captivity are subject to inspection by the officers of the state commission at any time. The commission shall promulgate rules defining Class I, Class II, and Class III types of wildlife. A companion statutory& section provides that, in order to assure humane treatment of captive wildlife, no person, firm, corporation or association shall be in possession of captive wildlife for public display unless a permit has been obtained. The cost of the permit depends on whether the species fall into Class I, II, or III). | Statute | |
| NH - Exotic Pets - Chapter Fis 800. The Importation, Possession and Use of All Wildlife. | NH ADC FIS 802.01 - .05 | N.H. Code Admin. R. Fis 802.01 - .05 | These New Hampshire regulations state the different permitee categories under Chapter 800 of the New Hampshire Code of Administrative Regulations. These regulations also indicate the penalties for making false statements, when annual permits expire, and who is exempt from the requirements of this chapter. | Administrative | |
| OK - Cruelty - Animal Facilities Protection Act/Consolidated Cruelty Laws | 21 Okl. St. Ann. 1680 - 1700; 21 Okl. St. Ann. § 886 | OK ST T. 21 1680 - 1700; OK ST T. 21 § 886 | These Oklahoma statutes comprise the Animal Protection Act. The main thrust of the act is the prohibition of animal cruelty and animal fighting. Included in the provisions are the definitions (including the statutory definition of "animal") and the prohibited acts related to animal facilities. The statute further provides that no one shall intentionally damage the enterprise conducted at an animal facility (including releasing animals there with the intent to deprive the owner of such facility). Violation incurs a felony with a fine of up to $5,000 or imprisonment up to seven years or both. | Statute |