Results

Displaying 11 - 20 of 369
Title Citation Alternate Citation Agency Citation Summary Type
WI - Exotic pets - Chapter 169. Captive Wildlife W. S. A. 169.01 - 46 WI ST 169.01 - 46 The Wisconsin wildlife laws require a license to take a wild animal from the wild or to import one into the state. A license is also required to exhibit, breed, rehabilitate, hunt, and/or purchase wild animals. Violations can result in fines, forfeiture, and/or imprisonment. Statute
CT - Exotic Animals - Sec. 26-54-1. Wildlife pen specifications CT ADC § 26-54-1, CT ADC § 26-55-6 Regs. Conn. State Agencies § 26-54-1; Regs. Conn. State Agencies § 26-55-6 Connecticut regulation 26-54-1 gives the wildlife pen specifications for any bird or quadruped possessed under the provisions of section 26-54 or 26-55 of the General Statutes. In addition, Sec. 26-55-6 replaced 26-55-2 in 2012 (the rule on quadruped importation). Sec. 22-55-6 now divides animals into Categories 1 - 4 based on the dangerousness of the animal to people, whether it is an endangered or threatened species, and even the risk it poses to and the native environment. The rule then states that no person except certain entities like zoos, museums, USDA licensed exhibitors, and research facilities may possess Category One Wild Animals. Restrictions are also imposed on other categories of animals. The rule also details the grandfathering process for owning a primate that weighs less than 35 lbs. Administrative
NY - Endangered Species - Part 182. Endangered and Threatened Species of Fish and Wildlife 6 NY ADC 182..1 - .17 6 NYCRR 182.1 - .17 This set of New York regulations concerns endangered, threatened, and species of special concern. Section 182.5 provides a list of native species listed as endangered, threatened, or of special concern. Under Section 182.7, the department may issue a license to a person to transport, sell, import and/or possess a listed species for purposes it deems legitimate. Administrative
IL - Exotic pets - 5/48-10. Dangerous animals 720 I.L.C.S. 5/48-10 IL ST CH 720 § 5/48-10 This Illinois law states that no person shall have a right of property in, keep, harbor, care for, act as custodian of or maintain in his or her possession any dangerous animal or primate except at a properly maintained zoological park, federally licensed exhibit, circus, college or university, scientific institution, research laboratory, veterinary hospital, hound running area, or animal refuge in an escape-proof enclosure. A "dangerous animal" is defined as a lion, tiger, leopard, ocelot, jaguar, cheetah, margay, mountain lion, lynx, bobcat, jaguarundi, bear, hyena, wolf or coyote.This Section does not prohibit a person who had lawful possession of a primate before January 1, 2011, from continuing to possess that primate if the person registers the animal by providing written notification to the local animal control administrator on or before April 1, 2011. Violation is a Class C misdemeanor. Statute
US - Endangered Species - Subpart B. § 17.11 Endangered and threatened wildlife. 50 C.F.R. § 17.11 The list in this section contains the names of all species of wildlife which have been determined by the Services to be Endangered or Threatened. It also contains the names of species of wildlife treated as Endangered or Threatened because they are sufficiently similar in appearance to Endangered or Threatened species. Administrative
LA - Captive Wildlife - §115. Possession of Potentially Dangerous Wild Quadrupeds and Non-Human Primates 76 LA ADC Pt V, § 115 La. Admin Code. tit. 76, pt. V, § 115 This Louisiana regulation states that the possession of certain potentially dangerous quadrupeds, big exotic cats, and non-human primates poses significant hazards to public safety and health, is detrimental to the welfare of the animals, and may have negative impacts on conservation and recovery of some threatened and endangered species. As a result, except as provided, it is unlawful to import into, possess, purchase or sell within the state of Louisiana, by any means whatsoever including but not limited to transactions conducted via the internet, any of the following species: cougar or mountain lion (Felis concolor); black bear (Ursus americanus); grizzly bear (Ursus arctos); polar bear (Ursus maritimus); red wolf (Canis rufus); gray wolf (Canis lupus); wolf dog hybrid (Canis lupus or Canis rufus x Canis familiarus); all non-human primates. While the prohibition against wolf-dog hybrids expired January 1, 1997, the regulation cautions persons that local ordinances or other state regulations may prohibit possession of these animals. Administrative
CA - Cruelty, exemptions - § 599c. Construction of title; game laws; West's Ann. Cal. Penal Code § 599c CA PENAL § 599c This statute makes it clear that the title is not meant to interfere with “game laws” or the right to destroy venomous reptiles or other dangerous animal. Neither is there an intent to interfere with laws regarding the destruction of certain birds, interfere with the right to kill animals used for food or with scientific experiments. Statute
MO - Endangered Species - Chapter 252. Department of Conservation--Fish and Game. V.A.M.S. 252.020, 252.235, 252.240 MO ST 252.020, 252.235, 252.240 This Missouri statute provides that the importation, transportation, or sale of any endangered species of fish or wildlife, or hides or other parts thereof, or the sale or possession with intent to sell any article made in whole or in part from the skin, hide or other parts of any endangered species of fish or wildlife is prohibited. Violation of the statute constitutes a Class B misdemeanor. Statute
US - AWA - Part 1. Definition of Terms. § 1.1 Definitions. 9 C.F.R. § 1.1 This portion of the Animal Welfare Act (AWA) regulations consists primarily of the definitions of the terms. Administrative
Baugh v. Beatty 205 P.2d 671 (Cal.App.2.Dist.) 91 Cal.App.2d 786 (Cal.App.2.Dist.)

This California case is a personal injury action by Dennis Ray Baugh, a minor, by John R. Baugh, his guardian ad litem, against Clyde Beatty and others, resulting from injuries suffered by the 4-year old child after he was  bitten by a chimpanzee in a circus animal tent. The court found that the instructions given were prejudicial where the jurors were told that the patron could not recover if the patron's conduct caused injury or if the conduct of the father in charge of patron caused injury; instead, the sole question for jury should have been whether patron knowingly and voluntarily invited injury because the animal was of the class of animals ferae naturae, of known savage and vicious nature.

Case

Pages